HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-07-11 - AGENDA REPORTS - CANYON COUNTRY COMM CENTER PROJ F3020 CEQA (2)7�l
Agenda Item: 8
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Q:° AGENDA REPORT
CONSENT CALENDAR
7,
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: 1
DATE: July 11, 2017
SUBJECT: CANYON COUNTRY COMMUNITY CENTER, PROJECT F3020 -
ADOPT CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
DOCUMENT
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
PRESENTER: Damon Letz
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council adopt a resolution for the Mitigated Negative Declaration (State Clearinghouse
number 2017061002) prepared for the Canyon Country Community Center, which includes the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental findings.
BACKGROUND
The City of Santa Clarita (City) currently owns approximately 6.5 acres of undeveloped property
on the northeast corner of Soledad Canyon Road and Sierra Highway, which is the future home
of the Canyon Country Community Center. A community engagement process resulted in the
creation of the current Conceptual Master Plan for the site. The Conceptual Master Plan was
presented to and adopted by the City Council at the June 28, 2016, meeting. The Conceptual
Master Plan presented to the City Council represented the ultimate vision for the site and
included property currently not owned by the City. The Canyon Country Community Center is
one of the goals within the Building and Creating Community theme of Santa Clarita 2020, the
City's five-year strategic plan.
The proposed project includes developing a community center and outdoor recreation facilities in
Canyon Country. In addition, the project includes improvements to the Mint Canyon Channel, an
underground infiltration system, adjacent roadway improvements, and landscaping.
The Conceptual Master Plan adopted by the City Council is the basis for the project description
in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review.
Page 1
Packet Pg. 145
Environmental Document
The City Council awarded the contract to Michael Baker International for the preparation of the
environmental document at its August 23, 2016, meeting. An Initial Study was completed
evaluating the environmental impacts created with the proposed project. Based on the Initial
Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the Canyon Country Community
Center project.
The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been circulated for review and
comment by affected governmental agencies and the public. All comments received, if any, have
been considered. The environmental documents were submitted to the State Clearinghouse and
posted for public review for a 30 -day review period, from June 2, 2017, to July 3, 2017. There is
no evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the project has determined the proposed mitigation measures will
reduce the impacts associated with the project to a less than significant level. The Initial Study
and Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project have been prepared in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
Other action as determined by the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
None by this action.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution
CEQA Document (available in the City Clerk's Reading File)
Page 2
Packet Pg. 146
8.a
RESOLUTION NO. 17-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 2017061002) FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE CANYON COUNTRY COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT IN THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council does hereby make the following
findings of fact:
a. On July 10, 2012, the City Council approved entering into a lease for a temporary
community center at the intersection of Sierra Highway and Flying Tiger Drive with
the intent of finding a location for a permanent center in the Canyon Country
community;
b. On September 23, 2014, the City Council approved the acquisition of
approximately 6.5 acres of property on the northeast corner of Soledad Canyon
Road and Sierra Highway with the intended purpose of locating a permanent
community center on this site;
C. City Council approved the Conceptual Master Plan for the Canyon Country
Community Center at its June 28, 2016, meeting. This master plan represented the
ultimate vision for the site;
d. The project site comprises Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 2844-003-004, 2844-003- z
005, 2844-003-006, 2844-003-009, 2844-003-902, 2844-003-903, 2844-003-904,
U
2844-005-016, 2844-005-028, 2844-005-029, 2844-005-906, 2844-005-907,
2844-005-908, 2844-005-909, and the surrounding street rights-of-way, and is
m
located in the San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian, Mint Canyon, California,
topographic quadrangle (Township 4 North, Range 15W, Section 21);
c
c
Y
O
e. The City of Santa Clarita's (City) General Plan designates the subject property as
Mixed Use -Corridor (MXC). Zoning on the property is Soledad Corridor Plan (CP),
Y
Mixed Use, with a Planned Development overlay;
w
The proposed project includes developing a new community center and outdoor
recreation facilities in the Canyon Country community of Santa Clarita. In addition,
the project includes improvements to Mint Canyon Channel, drainage
improvements, underground infiltration system, on-site parking and circulation
improvements, adjacent street improvements, and landscaping;
Packet Pg. 147
8.a
g. The surrounding land uses include commercial businesses to the north, apartments
across Solamint Road and a mobile home park to the east, commercial businesses
across Soledad Canyon Road to the south, and commercial businesses and vacant
land across Sierra Highway to the west;
h. A contract was awarded by the City Council at its August 23, 2016, meeting to
Michael Baker International for the preparation of the environmental documents
necessary for the Canyon Country Community Center project;
This project was reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and an Initial Study was prepared;
j. On July 11, 2017, a duly noticed public meeting was held before the City of Santa
Clarita City Council at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia
Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California, and
k. At this public meeting, the City Council considered the staff report, public
testimony, and responses if any.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS. Based
upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council finds as follows:
a. An Initial Study and a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project have been
prepared in compliance with CEQA;
b. The Initial Study has been circulated for review and comment by affected
governmental agencies and the public, and all comments received, if any, have been
considered. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted and advertised on
June 2, 2017, in accordance with CEQA. The public review period was open from
June 2, 2017, through July 3, 2017;
v
C. There is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the m
environment. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the
c
City of Santa Clarita; c
Y
O
d. The location of the documents and other material, which constitutes the record of
proceedings upon which the decision of the City Council is made, is on file within
Y
the Capital Improvement Projects division and is in the custody of the Director of w
Public Works; and E
t
e. The City Council, based upon the findings set forth above, hereby finds that the
Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project has been prepared in compliance
with CEQA.
Packet Pg. 148
SECTION 3. FINDINGS FOR ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION. Based upon the testimony and other evidence, if any, received by the public, and
upon studies and investigations made by the City Council and on its behalf, the City Council
further finds and determines the following:
a. That this project is consistent with the City's General Plan, including the land use
designation for the project site of Mixed Use -Corridor (MXC), Soledad Corridor
Plan (CP), Mixed Use, with a Planned Development overlay zone;
b. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Canyon Country Community Center is
adequate, complete, and has been prepared in accordance with CEQA; and
C. The City Council has independently reviewed and considered the environmental
documents and adopts the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and certify this
record to be a full, complete, and correct copy of the action taken.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this in day of 2017.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
DATE:
8.a
v
v
m
Packet Pg. 149
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Mary Cusick, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting
thereof, held on the "' day of 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
8.a
v
v
m
Packet Pg. 150
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
CANYON COUNTRY COMMUNITY
CENTER PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Prepared for:
CITY OF SANTA CARITA
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
23920 VALENCIA BLVD.
SANTA CLARITA, CA 91355
Prepared by:
INTERNATIONAL
3760 KILROY AIRPORT WAY, SUITE 270
LONG BEACH, CA 90806
JUNE 2017
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
CANYON COUNTRY COMMUNITY CENTER
PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Prepared for:
CITY OF SANTA CARITA
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
23920 VALENCIA BLVD.
SANTA CLARITA, CA 91355
Prepared by:
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
3760 KILROY AIRPORT WAY, SUITE 270
LONG BEACH, CA 90806
JUNE 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND SETTING..........................................................................................................2
A. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED..........................................................................21
B. DETERMINATION...............................................................................................................................................21
C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:..........................................................................................22
I. AESTHETICS....................................................................................................................................................22
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES........................................................................................22
III. AIR QUALITY................................................................................................................................................23
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.........................................................................................................................23
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES..............................................................................................................................24
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.................................................................................................................................24
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS...............................................................................................................25
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.........................................................................................25
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.....................................................................................................26
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING........................................................................................................................28
XI. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES.....................................................................................................28
XII. NOISE............................................................................................................................................................28
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING.................................................................................................................29
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES.....................................................................................................................................29
XV. RECREATION...............................................................................................................................................30
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC..................................................................................................................30
XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.........................................................................................................31
XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS...................................................................................................31
XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.......................................................................................32
D. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND/OR EARLIER ANALYSIS.......................................33
I. AESTHETICS....................................................................................................................................................33
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES........................................................................................34
III. AIR QUALITY................................................................................................................................................35
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.........................................................................................................................40
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES..............................................................................................................................49
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.................................................................................................................................51
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS...............................................................................................................54
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.........................................................................................56
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.....................................................................................................59
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING........................................................................................................................65
XI. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES.....................................................................................................66
XII. NOISE............................................................................................................................................................66
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING.................................................................................................................73
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES.....................................................................................................................................74
TABLE OF CONTENTS
XIV. RECREATION.............................................................................................................................................75
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/ TRAFFIC.................................................................................................................75
XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.........................................................................................................83
XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS...................................................................................................83
XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.......................................................................................85
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM..............................................................................................................86
I. AESTHETICS....................................................................................................................................................86
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES........................................................................................86
III. AIR QUALITY................................................................................................................................................86
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.........................................................................................................................86
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES..............................................................................................................................87
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.................................................................................................................................87
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS...............................................................................................................88
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.........................................................................................88
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.....................................................................................................88
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING........................................................................................................................88
XI. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES.....................................................................................................88
XII. NOISE............................................................................................................................................................88
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING.................................................................................................................89
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES.....................................................................................................................................89
XV. RECREATION...............................................................................................................................................89
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC..................................................................................................................89
XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.........................................................................................................90
XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS...................................................................................................90
OTHER INTERNET RESOURCES...........................................................................................................................91
REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................................93
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analyses
Appendix B: Biological Resources Report and Jurisdictional Delineation Report
Appendix C: Cultural Resources Report
Appendix D: Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix E: Phase I ESA, Phase II ESA
Appendix F: Noise Analysis
Appendix G: Traffic Impact Analysis
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLES
TABLE 1 PROPOSED PROJECT COMPONENTS....................................................................................................3
PROJECT LOCATION............................................................................................................................9
TABLE 2 PERMITS, ENTITLEMENTS, AND APPROVALS...................................................................................7
FIGURE 2 -
TABLE AQ -1 PROJECT AIR EMISSIONS/SCAQMD THRESHOLD COMPARISON MATRIX (MAX.
LBS/DAY)........................................................................................................................................................
37
TABLE AQ -2 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS AND LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE
FIGURE 4A
THRESHOLDS WITHOUT MITIGATION (MAX. LBS/DAY)....................................................................39
TABLE AQ -3 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS AND LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE
- INFILTRATION BASIN OPTION B.................................................................................................17
THRESHOLDS WITH MITIGATION (MAX. LBS/DAY)............................................................................39
FIGURE 5 -
TABLE BIO -1 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES/LAND USES WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE ............................40
TABLE GHG-1 CONSTRUCTION -RELATED AND OPERATIONAL GREENHOUSE
JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION MAP..........................................................................................47
GAS EMISSIONS (METRIC TONS PER YEAR)..........................................................................................55
TABLE GHG-2 PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS PER SERVICE POPULATION......................................................55
TABLE NOI-1 NOISE MEASUREMENTS...............................................................................................................67
TABLE NOI-2 NOISE LEVELS GENERATED BY TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ........................68
TABLE NOI-3 PREDICTED INCREASES IN TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS -EXISTING
PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS......................................................................................................................69
PROJECT LOCATION............................................................................................................................9
TABLE NOI-4 MAXIMUM NOISE LEVELS GENERATED BY PARKING LOTS..............................................71
FIGURE 2 -
TABLENOI-5 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT VIBRATION LEVELS.............................................72
TABLE TRF -1 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION
PROPOSED SITE PLAN.......................................................................................................................13
AND IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY........................................................................................................79
FIGURE 4A
TABLE TRF -2 OPENING YEAR 2019 CONDITIONS INTERSECTION
AND IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY........................................................................................................81
- INFILTRATION BASIN OPTION B.................................................................................................17
FIGURES
FIGURE 5 -
FIGURE 1 -
PROJECT LOCATION............................................................................................................................9
FIGURE 2 -
SITE BOUNDARY................................................................................................................................11
FIGURE 3 -
PROPOSED SITE PLAN.......................................................................................................................13
FIGURE 4A
- INFILTRATION BASIN OPTION A.................................................................................................15
FIGURE 4B
- INFILTRATION BASIN OPTION B.................................................................................................17
FIGURE 5 -
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF MINT CANYON CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS..............................19
FIGURE 6 -
JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION MAP..........................................................................................47
ui
TABLE OF CONTENTS
This page intentionally left blank
1v
Initial Study
Page 1 of 94
INITIAL STUDY E ''
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Project thle/master case number:
Canyon Country Community Center Project
Lead agency came and address:
City of Santa Clarita
Public Wodcs Department
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Contact person and phone number:
Christina Monde, PE
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
(661) 2554959
Project location:
The proposed Canyon County Community Center
project site is a 16.5 -acre asymmetrical -shaped site
located at 18410 Sierra Highway in Santa Clarita,
Los Angeles County, California, in the northeast
quadrant of the Soledad Canyon Road/Sierra
Highway intersection and partially bordering
Solamint Road to the east The proposed project also
includes improvements within the street rights-of-
way bordering the project site and at the intersection
of Sierra Highway and Dolan Way. The site is
bordered by existing retail and restaurant uses to the
north and by a mobile home park and apartments to
the east The project site comprises Assessor's Parcel
Numbers 2844-003-004, 2844-003-005, 2844-003-
006, 2844-003-009, 2844-003-902, 2844-003-903,
2844-003-904, 2844-005-016, 2844-005-028, 2844-
005-029, 2844-005-906, 2844-005-907, 2844-005-
908, 2844-005-909, and the surrounding street rights-
of-way, and is located in the San Bernardino Baseline
and Meridian, Mint Carryon, California, topographic
quadrangle (Township 4North, Range 15W, Section
21). See Figure 1, Project Location and Figure 2,
&te Bounduty.
Applicant's name and address:
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
General Plan designation:
Mixed Use—Corridor (MXC)
Zoning:
Soledad Corridor Plan (CP), Mixed Use, with a
Planned Development overlay zone on the portion of
the site west of the Mint Canyon Channel
Initial Study
Page 2 of 94
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND SETTING:
Proiect Site Backaround and Existina Conditions
The proposed Canyon Country Community Center is to be constructed on a project site that is entirely disturbed and
comprised primarily of vacant land, with five commercial buildings along the frontages. All of the existing buildings
on the property were built between 1960 and 1977. The existing one-story commercial building on the north end of
the project site is approximately 3,076 square feet with a connected parking lot, consisting of 27 parking spaces
(referred to herein as Commercial Building #1). Currently, this building is mostly vacant. The existing one-story
multi -tenant restaurant/retail building on the west side of the project site is approximately 5,015 square feet, with a
parking lot of approximately 22 spaces fronting the building. Current tenants in this building include the Caruso's II
Restaurant, Hairwave, Joe's Shoe Repair, and Doggie Den (referred to herein as Commercial Building #2). The
existing two-story multi -tenant commercial building on the south side of the project site at the comer of Sierra
Highway and Soledad Canyon Road is approximately 7,160 square feet. Current tenants include Metro PCS, Eternal
Art Tattoo, Sierra Auto Repair, and a phone repair shop (referred to herein as Commercial Building #3). There are
also two stand-alone restaurant buildings in the southern portion of the site along Soledad Canyon Roadthe3,062-
square-foot Casa Vieja restaurant and the 4,088 -square -foot Toppers Pizza restaurant. Surface parking lots with an
interconnected drive aisle network are arranged among the three buildings in the southern portion of the site,
providing a total of 115 parking spaces. The undeveloped portion of the property is vacant and largely devoid of
vegetation. The vegetation that does exist on the site consists of non-native grasses and forbs and seven individual
trees.
Two drainage channels exist on the project site. The Mint Canyon Channel enters the property at the northeast
corner and traverses the property in a southerly direction along the easterly boundary of the property. A storm drain
pipe enters the site at the northwest comer and daylights to create a man-made drainage ditch that traverses the
property in a southerly direction. This drainage ditch flows into the Mint Canyon Channel in the southeastern
portion of the site.
Surrounding land uses include commercial businesses to the north, apartments across Solamint Road and a mobile
home park to the east, commercial businesses across Soledad Canyon Road to the south, and commercial businesses
and vacant land across Sierra Highway to the west.
Proiect Summary
The proposed Canyon Country Community Center project consists of developing a new 20,000- to 24,000 -square -
foot community center and outdoor recreational facilities on a 16.5 -acre project site in the Canyon Country
community of Santa Clarita in Los Angeles County, California. The proposed project includes indoor and outdoor
amenities that would be open to the public for recreational activities, community programs, classes, community
events (e.g., farmers market, music programs, and fundraiser events), and private functions (e.g., banquets and
weddings). Proposed outdoor improvements include open play areas, water features, an outdoor market/mercado, an
event stage area, a basketball half -court, a tot lot, an events garden, shade structures, and a perimeter trail. Indoor
spaces in the proposed community center include a multipurpose room, a gymnasium, classrooms, a catering and
teaching kitchen, a fitness room, staff offices, a reception lobby, and supporting uses such as restrooms and storage
areas. In addition to the amenities listed above, the proposed project includes improvements to the Mint Canyon
Channel, drainage improvements, an underground stormwater infiltration system, on-site parking and circulation
improvements, adjacent street improvements, a pedestrian bridge over Soledad Canyon Road, and landscape
improvements. To make way for the proposed improvements, the proposed project includes the demolition of
Commercial Buildings #1, #2, and #3, with Casa Vieja and Toppers Pizza remaining on the site and unaltered.
The proposed project would provide a total of 285 permanent paved parking spaces, including overflow spaces
available within the proposed mercado area (approximately 53 spaces). The Commercial Buildings' parking lot and
the parking lots in the southern portion of the project site are proposed to remain, with improvements to circulation,
configuration, and design. An additional parking lot is proposed immediately north of these lots.
Initial Study
Page 3 of 94
See Table 1, Proposed Project Components, for a detailed list of the proposed improvements. Figure 3, Proposed
Site Plan, depicts the proposed improvements and the proposed layout of the site.
Table 1
Proposed Project Components
Within the Community Center (all sizes approximate)
• 4,000 -square -foot multipurpose room
7,500 -square -foot gymnasium
• General purpose classrooms (3)
Catering and teaching kitchen
• Fitness room
Staff offices (4)
• Reception lobby/staff counter
Restrooms serving interior programs/spaces
• Restrooms serving exterior programs/spaces
Storage appropriate for each program area
Outdoor Recreational Areas
• Event stage
Play areas with adjacent shade structures
• Outdoor market/mercado (or additional event
Events garden
parking for approximately 53 vehicles)
Half-courtbasketballcourt
• Perimeter trail, exercise area
Entry plaza with water feature
• Passive turf/open play
Parking
• Northern lot (80 parking spaces)
Central lot (126 parking spaces)
• Southern lot (26 parking spaces)
Mercado/overflow lot (approximately 53
parking spaces)
Pedestrian Bridge Connections
• Soledad Canyon Road (across vehicle travel
lanes)
Channel/Stormwater Improvements
• Mint Canyon Channel improvements
Stormwater infiltration system
• Conversion of secondary man-made drainage
ditch to underground storm drain
Street Improvements
• Install right-hand tum pocket, westbound
Improve sidewalks, asphalt, curbs, and gutters
Soledad Canyon Road onto northbound
along project boundaries (Soledad Canyon
Sierra Highway
Road, Sierra Highway, and Solammt Road)
• Install Class II bikeway on northbound
Bus stop improvements on Soledad Canyon
Sierra Highway
Road and Sierra Highway
• Improvements to the Sierra Highway/Dolan
Addition of medians on Sierra Highway
Way intersection
Existing and Proposed Use of the Project Site
The project site is primarily vacant, along with previously developed land with five existing buildings that are
currently used for commercial purposes. Commercial Building #1, Commercial Building #2, and Commercial
Building #3, including all respective tenant spaces, are proposed to be demolished, and in their place, a new
Initial Study
Page 4 of 94
community center and related landscaping, parking improvements, and recreational amenities would be constructed
The General Plan land use designation for the site is Mixed Use — Corridor (MXC), and the Zoning Map designates
the site as Soledad Corridor Plan (CP) — Mixed Use. The entire project site, except for the portion east of the Mint
Canyon Channel, is also part of an existing Planned Development overlay zone. The proposed project requires City
City Council approval.
Project Operations
The proposed park is anticipated to open at sunrise and close by 10:00 p.m., with community center hours generally
reflecting that time frame. The community center would be a public facility where community members can gather
for group activities, social support, public information, and other purposes, including cultural and entertainment
purposes, such as banquets and senior services. The proposed project includes indoor and outdoor amenities that
would be open to the public for recreational activities, indoor sport leagues (e.g., basketball and volleyball),
community programs, classes, community events (e.g., farmers market, music programs, and fundraiser events), and
private functions (e.g., banquets and weddings). Anticipated passive uses include playground use, picnicking,
exercising, pickup basketball, and other informal recreation.
Phvsical Characteristics of the Proiect
Community Center
The proposed layout of the 20,000- to 24,000 -square -foot community center would include spaces such as a
multipurpose room, a gymnasium, classrooms, catering and teaching kitchen, a fitness room, staff offices, a
reception lobby, and supporting uses such as restrooms and storage areas. Exterior design features of the proposed
community center would be in a Rustic Californian style in conformance with the Soledad Corridor Plan. Design
characteristics for the courtyard surrounding the proposed community center would also include Rustic Californian
styleaccent features, consisting of neutral -colored bricks and stone alongside various trees and shrubs.
Outdoor/Recreational Areas
The entry plaza would include a water feature with recirculating water to create an attractive, welcoming entrance to
the park. All outdoor areas of the project site are proposed for recreational use. The proposed layout of the outdoor
recreational areas is also shown in Figure 3, Proposed Site Plan, and includes inviting, interactive areas that would
be open to the public. The event stage and events garden would create an open green space for potential small-scale
concerts, weddings, and fundraisers to convene. The play areas would include adjacent shade structures to create
soft areas for patrons to gather, and the outdoor market/mercado would potentially hold space for a farmers market.
The passive turf/open play area would comprise primarily grasses and turf for family and community activities. The
perimeter trail would circulate around all borders of the project site, allowing access to various recreational facilities
and offering exercise opportunities. All of the proposed structures would integrate Rustic Californianstyle
architecture that would be consistent throughout the project site. Green space would be created throughout the
project site, including adjacent landscape features planted with various trees, shrubs, and drought -tolerant plants.
The recreational areas would also include lighting fixtures to allow for nighttime activities, consistent with
community center closing time.
The community center would include building -mounted lighting that would stay on all night for security. Lighting
would consist of wall -mounted, non -glare fixtures that would illuminate the building's exterior. Walkway lighting
would consist of 14- to 16 -foot fixtures that would come on at dusk and tum off at 10:00 p.m. Every fourth to fifth
light would stay on until dawn along the walkways for security. Lighting consisting of fixtures for recreational areas
such as the half -court basketball court, event garden, and event area would be a maximum of 15-20 feet in height
and would tum off at 10:00 p.m. The parking lots would include lighting fixtures of no more than 20 feet in height,
with a percentage of the fixtures having a second light which would remain on all night for security. There may be
additional low-level lighting to illuminate various park elements such as monuments or water features.
Street Improvements and Pedestrian Bridge
The proposed project would include sidewalk, asphalt, curb, and gutter improvements along the perimeter of the
project site on Soledad Canyon Road, Sierra Highway, and Solamint Road. Solamint Road would be widened by 12
feet on its west side, between the Mint Canyon Channel and the adjacent mobile home park. In addition, medians
would be constructed on Sierra Highway along the project frontage. Bus stop improvements are also proposed on
Initial Study
Page 5 of 94
Soledad Canyon Road and Sierra Highway, and a Class II bikeway is proposed along the Sierra Highway project
frontage. A new right-hand tum lane would be installed on westbound Soledad Canyon Road at the intersection with
Sierra Highway. Intersection improvements are also proposed at the intersection of Sierra Highway and Dolan Way.
All street improvements would be constructed in compliance with City of Santa Clarita standards.
The proposed project also includes a pedestrian bridge across Soledad Canyon Road just west of the Mint Canyon
Channel. The proposed pedestrian bridge would be similar to other such bridges in the city, with a steel -truss bridge
structure spanning travel lanes and pedestrian ramps and abutments on either side of the street. The proposed bridge
would include a concrete deck approximately 8 feet in width and with a minimum clearance of approximately 18
feet. Security lighting would be included if the final design of the bridge includes a cover.
Parking and Circulation
Parking on the site would be provided through renovation and reconfiguration of the existing lots as well as the
creation of new parking spaces, resulting in a total of 285 permanent parking spaces. This includes approximately 53
parking spaces in the proposed mercado area for events. The parking lot interconnected between the three southern
commercial buildings (Commercial Building #3, Toppers Pizza, and Casa Vieja) would be reconfigured and
redesigned to improve accessibility and efficiency. A new central parking lot is proposed between the southern
restaurants' parking lot and the proposed community center structure, and the northern parking lot would be
reconfigured to provide access to the site from Dolan Way.
Vehicle access to the project would be via six driveway access points on Sierra Highway, Soledad Canyon Road,
Dolan Way, and Solamint Road. The proposed driveway access points include two along Soledad Canyon Road into
the southern parking lot, one along Sierra Highway into the proposed central parking lot, one along Sierra Highway
into the northern lot, one along Dolan Way into the northern lot, and one along Solamint Road into the northern lot.
Vehicular access to the overflow/mercado parking lot would be via access from the central or northern parking lot.
Pedestrian access points would be via various pedestrian crosswalks, islands, and promenades developed throughout
the project site.
Pedestrian circulation patterns would include access to all facilities via the perimeter trail and pedestrian walking
paths. The proposed perimeter trail and pedestrian walking paths are shown in Figure 3, Proposed Site Plan. The
pedestrian path would be the main path allowing pedestrians to access all outdoor recreational areas. Access to the
pedestrian walking path would be available from the perimeter trail as well as from every parking lot on the site.
Stormwater, Drainage, and Channel Improvements
i. Mint Canyon Channel Design
The existing Mint Canyon Channel would be redesigned and improved, primarily through the use of concrete, to
promote efficient flow within the approximately 1,000 -foot segment that crosses the project site. Currently,
immediately upstream (northeast) of the site, Mint Canyon Channel is a buried/covered concrete box channel. As it
flows into the northeast comer of the site, it becomes an open concrete box channel, extending approximately 200
linear feet into the site from Solamint Road (referred to herein as the upper segment of the channel). The upper
segment also includes a maintenance access ramp from Solamint Road. After this 200 -foot open box concrete box
segment, the channel becomes a soft -bottom drainage with earthen sloped banks reinforced with wire revetment
fencing. This soft -bottom segment extends approximately 600 linear feet across the project site (referred to herein as
the middle segment of the channel). Over its final 200 linear feet on site, the channel reverts to an open concrete box
design (referred to herein as the channel's lower segment). Immediately south of the project site, the Mint Canyon
Channel flows under Soledad Canyon Road and remains an open concrete box channel for approximately 1,000
linear feet until its confluence with the Santa Clara River. The Mint Canyon Channel is currently maintained by the
Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) and is mostly devoid of any vegetation.
The proposed project would construct improvements to the Mint Canyon Channel, to increase its flood control
capacity, improve aesthetics, enhance maintenance activities, and provide for recreational and open space use over
the surface of the channel. All channel improvements would be constructed in compliance with City of Santa
Clarita and Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) standards. The upgraded channel would consist
Initial Study
Page 6 of 94
of a partially open/partially enclosed concrete channel, with the northern one-quarter (approximately 200 linear feet)
and the southern one-quarter (approximately 200 linear feet) being an open, concrete lined rectangular channel and
the middle portion (approximately 600 linear feet) being an enclosed box channel. A conceptual plan for this design
is depicted in Figure 5.
The LACFCD staging/storage area for periodic channel maintenance work would be relocated from the western side
to the eastern side of the channel, just north of the adjacent mobile home park and adjacent to Solamint Road. This
site would be landscaped and maintained by LACFCD. The same annual inspections, sediment removal and any
necessary repair work that currently occur would continue to occur. A new service road would extend from this
staging area along the eastern side of the channel, to facilitate access by LACFCD maintenance vehicles and crews.
ii. Infiltration Basin
The City is considering the development of an infiltration basin on site as a regional stormwater best management
practice (BMP), which would be a critical component to addressing the City's water quality treatment objectives as
stated in the Upper Santa Clara River Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP). The proposed
infiltration basin would also have the secondary benefit of groundwater recharge. The stormwater infiltration system
would be incorporated as an underground structure to reduce the volume of stormwater runoff being discharged
from Sierra Highway and the Mint Canyon Channel into the Santa Clara River. The proposed structure would use a
low impact development design to allow stormwater percolation into the substrate. The City is currently
contemplating two infiltration basin options. Figure 5a, Infiltration Basin Option A, and Figure5b, Infiltration Basin
Option B, depict the two options.
In the first option, an underground storage or infiltration facility would be constructed below the proposed event
stage, with a storage capacity of 2.1 acre-feet (approximately 680,000 gallons). Under the first option, the system
would be sized to meet the 85th percentile storm event for water quality. A dry weather diversion structure would be
installed in the upper segment (open concrete box) of the Mint Canyon Channel on the project site. From this
diversion structure, flows would be routed to an underground pretreatment unit and then to an underground dry
weather pump (approximately 5-10 horsepower). At Sierra Highway, the existing drainage ditch would be replaced
with an underground 60 -inch -diameter storm drain pipe, extending from Sierra Highway to the Mint Canyon
Channel. A diversion structure would be placed in the new drain pipe to direct flows to a pretreatment unit and then
into the infiltration basin. An overflow drain pipe would be installed to provide an outflow from the infiltration basin
to the proposed 60 -inch drain pipe.
In the second option, the capacity of the infiltration basin would be increased to 7.5 acre-feet (approximately 2.4
million gallons) to provide additional storage capacity and increased groundwater recharge. Similar to the first
option, diversion structures, pretreatment units, and underground pumps would be used to deliver flows from the
Mint Canyon Channel and the secondary drainage on site to the infiltration basin. An overflow drain pipe would be
installed to provide an outflow from the infiltration basin to the Mint Canyon Channel drainage system on the
project site.
Project Construction
Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to be built out in one phase. Construction is proposed to begin in
the spring of 2018 and be completed over the course of approximately 21 months. Construction activities include
demolition, grading, excavation, and trenching, construction of the building, shade structures, event stage,
pedestrian bridges, infiltration basin, and other structures; concrete lining of the Mint Canyon Channel, installation
of the playground equipment, landscaping, paving and striping, and painting and architectural coatings. The project
proposes to demolish three structures totaling approximately 15,251 square feet of building space. Given the
disturbed, vacant, and flat nature of the majority of the project site, grading is anticipated to be minimal, with most
of the excavation taking place for the creation of the infiltration basin and foundation support for the community
center building. Construction activities would comply with all recommendations and requirements of the project's
geotechnical and soil reports. Hours of construction will comply with the City of Santa Clarita's Municipal Code.
Initial Study
Page 7 of 94
As described above, street improvements would occur as part of the project. These improvements would occur
within the existing right-of-way. The City would establish a Construction Traffic Management Plan (TMP) prior to
construction of any improvements in accordance with standard City procedures. The TMP would require prior
notices, adequate sign -posting, detours, phased construction, and temporary driveways where necessary to allow
adequate access and traffic flow.
Permits, Entitlements and Approvals
This Initial Study is intended to cover all approvals by the City and other government agencies that may be needed
to construct, implement, or operate the project. The permits, entitlements, and approvals known to be required for
the project at this time are identified in Table 2, Permits, Entitlements, and Approvals. Please note that the other
state, regional, and local public agencies listed in Table 2 with discretionary approval authority would be considered
Responsible Agencies for the purposes of CEQA.
Table 2
Permits, Entitlements, and Approvals
Agency
Approval
City of Santa Clarita
• Lot Line Adjustment
• Approvals necessary to acquire private property parcels (e.g., Resolution
of Necessity, Purchase and Sale Agreements, etc.)
• Property transactions between the City of Santa Clarita and the Los
Angeles County Flood Control District
• Authorization of funding, agreements, contracts, licenses, or other
approvals necessary to undertake, construct, and operate the proposed
facility
Los Angeles County Flood
. Approval of design and construction of improvements to the Mint Canyon
Control District
Channel
• Agreements to provide funding for portions of the project
• Property transactions between the Los Angeles County Flood Control
District and the City of Santa Clarita
California Department of Fish
0 Streambed Alteration Agreement
and Wildlife
US Army Corps of Engineers
• Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit
Los Angeles Regional Water
Quality Control Board
Clean Water Act Section 401 Clean Water Certification
Initial Study
Page 8 of 94
Surrounding land uses:
Other public agencies whose
approval is required:
North: Commercial businesses along Dolan Way and multi -family
housing beyond along Sundowner Way, Calvary Chapel Golden
Valley to the northwest (across Sierra Highway)
South: Commercial businesses (retail and restaurant) across
Soledad Canyon Road
East: Canyon Palms Mobile Home Park (along east side of the
Mint Canyon Channel) and multi -family housing across Solamint
Road (Diamond Park Apartments)
West: Various uses across Sierra Highway, including commercial
businesses (including a Mobil gas station, retail outlets, restaurants,
and the Canyon Country Business Center), Santa Clarita Christian
Fellowship Church, Canyon Country KinderCare (day care,
preschool, pre -kindergarten, and after-school programming), and
vacant land/undeveloped hillside, with residential at the top of the
slope (off Shangri La Drive)
See Table 3, Permits, Entitlements, and Approvals, above.
Have California Native American tribes
Consultation with affected Native American tribal representatives
traditionally and culturally affiliated with
was completed and is reported in the responses in subsection XVII,
the project area requested consultation
Tribal Cultural Resources, in Section C, Evaluation of
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
Environmental Im acts, of this Initial Stud /Miti ated Ne ative
p y g g
21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun?
Declaration.
"m
Michael Baker
�' C-• -�1 �•c. f 1 -
Ax
/
rr Ab
• -
_ � J
�� R
} .4% 1�
t.. i
:?C. 1 �---
� ` Y
MEAN
iv
Legend
Project Area
CANYON COUNTRY COMMUNITY CENTER
I 0 100 200 400 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
INTERNATIONAL O Feet Site Boundary
Source: ESRI USA Topographic Basemap Figure 2
CANYON COUNTRY COMMUNITY CENTER
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
�I Q Not to Scale Proposed Site Plan
Figure 3
�• / wrr�
1
niw�
4
,�.��
a�a
i
�
V
1 �
�• / wrr�
� r
DOLAN WAY
4
,�.��
a�a
i
on
V
�• / wrr�
4
,�.��
a�a
i
on
i
-naNN rl
/
I
ax Canyon
al 11h 11h, I
1' I
IN
ba
City of Santa Clarifa
CANYON COUNTRY COMMUNITY CENTER
STORMWATER BMP PROJECT CONCEPT
ALTERNATIVE 1, WATER QUALITY CONCEPT
CANYON COUNTRY COMMUNITY CENTER
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
O0 125 250 500
Feet Infiltration Basin Option A
Source Tetra Tem
Figure 4a
11 (112 RC D, B11t
a�a
i
on
IN
ba
City of Santa Clarifa
CANYON COUNTRY COMMUNITY CENTER
STORMWATER BMP PROJECT CONCEPT
ALTERNATIVE 1, WATER QUALITY CONCEPT
CANYON COUNTRY COMMUNITY CENTER
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
O0 125 250 500
Feet Infiltration Basin Option A
Source Tetra Tem
Figure 4a
� � �_ [)()LAN WAV
/ l-
/
m oh.F° n
-
/..41 ae, �
- 1 luw a)
1ra
—al; �Z
., Ile,nal1�7 Ice-
I
/
ell
/ w
/ ( .. �2 /Ir
/
1 �If
s
r /
[ � 5
r
i i •�', ,��� -
r....P a
"eow:m np.c arm
el rvcommunln Genie, '
;�- ;. '<S
n
i
i I ❑h I.—L. e." City of Santa Clarity
I vn omaeg CANYON COUNTRY COMMUNITY CENTER
/ % ! o Gall STORMWATER BMP PROJECT CONCEPT
/IALTERNATIVE 2, FLOOD CONTROL UPGRADE
( ^S i6
CANYON COUNTRY COMMUNITY CENTER
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
O0 125 250 500
Feet Infiltration Basin Option B
Scheme Tetra Tern
Figure 4b
CANYON COUNTRY COMMUNITY CENTER
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Q NotToSCa,e Mint Canyon Channel -Proposed Improvements
Figure 5
Initial Study
Page 21 of 94
A. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact
that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' or "Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation' as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
[ ] Aesthetics
[ ] Agriculture and Forestry Resources
[X ]
Air Quality
[X] Biological Resources
[X] Cultural Resources
[X ]
Geology and Soils
[ ] Greenhouse Gas Emissions
[ ] Hazards and Hazardous Materials
[X]
Hydrology and Water Quality
[ ] Land Use and Planning
[ ] Population and Housing
[X] Transportation/Traffic
[ ] Mandatory Findings of
Significance
B. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[ ] Mineral Resources
[ ] Public Services
[X] Tribal Cultural Resources
[X ] Noise
[ ] Recreation
[ ] Utilities and Service Systems
[ ] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[X] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the
project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an
earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
[ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature �--Q���
Name, Title�D[�Q. ��'(1�eP—fes Date+�
Signature
Name, Title Date
21
Initial Study
Page 22 of 94
C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
I. AESTHETICS -Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less Than
Potentially Significant
Less Than
Significant Impact With
Significant No
Impact Mitigation
Impact Impact
II II
[Xj II
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not [ ] [ ] [ j [Xj
limited to, primary/secondary ridgelines, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic
highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of [ j [ j [Xj [ j
the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
■
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In
determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest
Legacy Assessment project, and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by
the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of [ ] [ ] [ j [Xj
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to
nonagricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a [ ] [ ] [ j [Xj
Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
forestland (as defined in Public Resources Code Section
12220(8)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code
Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code Section 51104(8))?
d) Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forestland to [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
non -forest use?
22
Initial Study
Page 23 of 94
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Impact With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due [ ] [ ] [ j [Xj
to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forestland to
non -forest use?
III. AIR QUALITY '
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution
control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X]
quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an [ j [ j [ X] [ j
existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any [ j [ j [ X] [ j
criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment
under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant [ ] [X ] [ ] [ ]
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X]
people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -Would the project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through [ ] [X] [ ] [ ]
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or [ j [ j [ j [Xj
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
23
Initial Study
Page 24 of 94
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an [ ] [X] [ ] [ ]
archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy or impact a unique [ ] [X] [ ] [ ]
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
it) Strong seismic ground shaking? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
in) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? [ ] [X] [ ] [ ]
iv) Landslides? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
24
Less Than
Potentially
Significant Less Than
Significant
Impact With Significant No
Impact
Mitigation Impact Impact
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident [ ]
[X] [ ] [ ]
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting [ ]
[ ] [X] [ ]
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance, including oak trees?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation [ ]
[ ] [ ] [X]
plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
g) Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or Significant
Natural Area (SNA) as identified on the City of Santa Clarita [ ]
[ ] [ ] [X]
ESA Delineation Map?
'
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an [ ] [X] [ ] [ ]
archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy or impact a unique [ ] [X] [ ] [ ]
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
it) Strong seismic ground shaking? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
in) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? [ ] [X] [ ] [ ]
iv) Landslides? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
24
Initial Study
Page 25 of 94
b) Result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil, either on- or off-site?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life
or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
f) Result in a change in topography or ground surface relief
features?
g) Result in earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards
or more?
h) Involve development and/or grading on a slope greater than
10% natural grade?
i) Result in the destruction, covering, or modification of any
unique geologic or physical feature?
Less Than
Potentially Significant
Less Than
Significant Impact With
Significant No
Impact Mitigation
Impact Impact
I I
[X] I
[] I [X]
[] I []
[] I []
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emission, either directly or indirectly, [ ] [ ]
that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted [ ] [ ]
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving explosion or the release of hazardous materials into
the environment (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides,
chemicals, fuels, or radiation)?
25
Initial Study
Page 26 of 94
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Impact With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely [ ] [ ] [ j [Xj
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous [ j [ j [ j [Xj
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where [ ] [ ] [ j [Xj
such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the [ ] [ ] [ j [Xj
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an [ ] [ j [Xj [ j
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, [ j [ j [ j [Xj
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
i) Expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards [ ] [ ] [ j [Xj
(e.g., electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines)?
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge [ ] [ j [Xj [ j
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere [ j [Xj [ j [ j
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off-site?
26
Initial Study
Page 27 of 94
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? [ j [ j [Xj [ j
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped [ j [ j [ j [Xj
on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which [ j [Xj [ j [ j
would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, [ j [j [ X] [ j
or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of
the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
k) Result in changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course and [ j [ j [Xj [ j
direction of surface water and/or groundwater?
1) Other modification of a wash, channel creek, or river? [ j [ j [Xj [ j
m) Impact storawater management in any of the following ways:
i) Potential impact of project construction and project post- [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
construction activity on storawater runoff?
it) Potential discharges from areas for materials storage, [ j [ j [Xj [ j
vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment
maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous
materials handling or storage, delivery areas or loading docks,
or other outdoor work areas?
in) Significant environmentally harmful increase in the flow [ j [ j [Xj [ j
velocity or volume of stormwater runoff?
iv) Significant and environmentally harmful increases in [ j [ j [Xj [ j
erosion of the project site or surrounding areas?
27
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Significant No
Impact
Mitigation
Impact Impact
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or [ ]
[ ]
[X] [ ]
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? [ j [ j [Xj [ j
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped [ j [ j [ j [Xj
on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which [ j [Xj [ j [ j
would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, [ j [j [ X] [ j
or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of
the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
k) Result in changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course and [ j [ j [Xj [ j
direction of surface water and/or groundwater?
1) Other modification of a wash, channel creek, or river? [ j [ j [Xj [ j
m) Impact storawater management in any of the following ways:
i) Potential impact of project construction and project post- [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
construction activity on storawater runoff?
it) Potential discharges from areas for materials storage, [ j [ j [Xj [ j
vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment
maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous
materials handling or storage, delivery areas or loading docks,
or other outdoor work areas?
in) Significant environmentally harmful increase in the flow [ j [ j [Xj [ j
velocity or volume of stormwater runoff?
iv) Significant and environmentally harmful increases in [ j [ j [Xj [ j
erosion of the project site or surrounding areas?
27
Initial Study
Page 28 of 94
XI. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES -Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan, or other land use plan?
c) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
manner?
XII. NOISE —Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess [ ] [ X] [ ] [ ]
of standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
28
Less Than
Potentially
Significant Less Than
Significant
Impact With Significant No
Impact
Mitigation Impact Impact
v) Stormwater discharges that would significantly impair or [ ]
[ ] [X] [ ]
contribute to the impairment of the beneficial uses of
receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefits
(e.g., riparian corridors, wetlands, etc.)?
vi) Cause harm to the biological integrity of drainage systems, [ ]
[ ] [X] [ ]
watersheds, and/or water bodies?
vii) Does the proposed project include provisions for the [ ]
[ ] [X] [ ]
separation, recycling, and reuse of materials both during
construction and after project occupancy?
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project:
a) Disrupt or physically divide an established community [ ]
[ ] [ ] [X]
(including a low-income or minority community)?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation [ ]
[ ] [ ] [X]
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan, natural [ ]
[ ] [ ] [X]
community conservation plan, and/or policies by agencies with
jurisdiction over the project?
XI. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES -Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan, or other land use plan?
c) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
manner?
XII. NOISE —Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess [ ] [ X] [ ] [ ]
of standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
28
Initial Study
Page 29 of 94
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Impact With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne [ ] [X ] [ ] [ ]
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the [ ] [ X] [ ] [ ]
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise [ ] [ ] [X ] [ ]
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X]
such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X]
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (especially
affordable housing)?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES -Would the project result in:
a) Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times, or other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire protection?
29
[] [] [X] []
Initial Study
Page 30 of 94
it) Police protection?
in) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
XV. RECREATION -Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
Less Than
Potentially Significant
Less Than
Significant Impact With
Significant
Impact Mitigation
Impact
[] []
[] []
�I
[] []
[X]
I
I
I
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -Would the project:
■
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy [ ]
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of
the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation system, including
but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, [ ]
including, but not limited to, level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other standards established by the
county congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an [ ]
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., [ ]
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
30
[X]
No
Impact
I
[X]
[X]
[X]
Initial Study
Page 31 of 94
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Impact With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES .
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resources, defined in
Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, place, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register or [ ] [ ] [ j [Xj
Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources
as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020. l (k)?
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and [ j [Xj [ j [ j
supported by substantial evidence, to be significant in
accordance with criteria set forth in Subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set
forth in Subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native American tribe.
XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable [ j [ j [ j [Xj
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project [ j [ j [Xj [ j
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to
the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
related to solid waste?
31
Initial Study
Page 32 of 94
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Impact With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the [ ] [ X] [ ] [ ]
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but [ ] [ ] [ X] [ ]
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause [ ] [X ] [ ] [ ]
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
32
Initial Study
Page 33 of 94
D. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND/OR EARLIER ANALYSIS
Section and Subsections I Evaluation of Impacts
I. AESTHETICS a) Less Than Significant Impact: The project proposes to construct a new
20,000- to 24,000 -square -foot community center and outdoor recreational
facilities. The proposed community center will be a one-story building. The
proposed outdoor improvements include open play areas, water features, an
outdoor market/mercado, an event stage area, a basketball half -court, a tot lot,
an events garden, group picnic areas, shade structures, and a perimeter trail. The
proposed community center and outdoor recreational facilities would be
constructed on a 16.5 -acre project site that is primarily vacant, undeveloped
land. The site currently contains five commercial buildings, and construction
would involve demolition of three of the five existing buildings. As shown in
Figure 3, Proposed Site Plan, the proposed community center would front Sierra
Highway and would be visible from that roadway. Major freeways and
roadways serve a dual purpose as transportation corridors through the Santa
Clarita Valley and as view corridors. In portions of the Santa Clarita Valley, the
freeways and canyon roads are surrounded by undisturbed mountains,
ridgelines, and forestland. Much of the planning area along Interstate 5 (I-5) and
States Routes (SR) 14 and 126, and various canyon roads offers scenic vistas.
Views of mountainous features are available from the project site and vicinity,
however, the land surrounding the project site is largely developed, with
development at a scale consistent with the Canyon Country Community Center
project Furthermore, the proposed project meets all established City
development standards, including height limits and setback requirements.
Similar to all of the surrounding structures, the proposed community center
could partially obstruct certain views of the nearby hillsides and mountainous
backdrop, but the majority of the primary views in the project area would
remain unobstructed. The community center would also complement
surrounding scenic views along the corridor by providing a cohesive
architectural aesthetic design that incorporates landscape elements and greenery.
In addition, colors and materials are required to meet the City's Architectural
Design Guidelines. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a significant
adverse effect on a scenic vista, and a less than significant impact would occur.
b) No Impact: The only roadway in Santa Clarita that is identified in the
California Department of Transportation's State Scenic Highway program is
Interstate 5, which is designated as an eligible state scenic highway. This
designated eligible segment of I-5 extends from the I-210 interchange to the SR
126/Newhall Ranch Road interchange. SR 126 from the city's boundary at I-5
west to SR 150 in Ventura County is also designated an eligible state scenic
highway. The proposed project is not visible from either I-5 or SR 126.
Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on scenic resources
within a state scenic highway.
c) Less Than Significant Impact: The project site is zoned Soledad Corridor Plan
(CP), Mixed Use, with a Planned Development overlay zone on the portion of
the site west of the Mint Canyon Channel. The proposed site currently consists
of five commercial buildings and primarily comprises disturbed, vacant land.
The proposed project would be consistent with the existing uses in the project
vicinity and the uses planned for the CP zone The proposed project would
33
Initial Study
Page 34 of 94
new community center and recreational amenities. The proposed community
center would be in a Rustic Californian style. The outdoor amenities would
include natural features such as water features and drought -tolerant landscapes,
with a variety of plants and grasses. There are residential units located north,
east, and west of the project site that would have a view of the proposed project.
The properties with the most significant view of the proposed project are located
in the Canyon Palms Mobile Home Park. While certain residents would be able
to view the proposed project from their homes, the community center and
associated outdoor recreational amenities would be an improvement to the
visual quality of the site, which primarily consists of barren land. Additionally, a
landscape buffer is proposed to be developed between the project site and the
adjacent mobile home park. The proposed project also does not include any
obtrusive or offensive visual attributes, such as utility equipment, or exposed
industrial operations. In addition, the proposed structures are subject to the
City's standards, and the aesthetic details of the project, including the site's
architectural and landscape plans, are subject to City review. This ensures that
the development would be consistent with the aesthetic character of the Canyon
Country community. Therefore, although the project would alter the site's
aesthetics, the project would not substantially degrade the visual character or
quality of the site or surroundings and would cause no related significant
impacts.
d) Less Than Significant Impact: The project proposes light sources that would
be scattered evenly throughout the landscape, outdoor recreational facilities, and
surface parking areas. In accordance with the City's Unified Development
Code, the proposed outdoor light sources would be covered and facing down in
order to minimize glare and ambient light sources that could impact surrounding
commercial and residential areas. The project site is in an urban/suburban
portion of Santa Clarita, with existing light sources that include streetlights,
parking lot lights, lighted signage, landscape and building accent lights, safety
lighting, and vehicle headlights. Given the project area's existing illumination
level and the level and type of lighting proposed as part of the project, the
proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that
would adversely affect day or nighttime views. Therefore, the project would not
cause significant lighting or glare impacts.
II. AGRICULTURE a) No Impact: where are currently no agricultural operations being conducted on
the project site, and the City of Santa Clarita's General Plan does not identify
AND FORESTRY any important farmlands or any lands for farmland use. In addition, the site is
RESOURCES zoned Soledad Corridor Plan, Mixed Use with a Planned Development overlay
zone, except for the portion east of the Mint Canyon Channel and is not in an
area of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland,
Grazing Land, or Farmland of Local Importance as identified by the California
Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection on the Los
Angeles County Important Farmland 2002 map (California Department of
Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, 2004). Therefore, the
proposed project would have no impact on Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance.
b) No Impact: The City of Santa Clarita does not have any agricultural zoning
designations, nor does the City's General Plan identify any agricultural land use
designations. Further, there is no Williamson Act contract land in the city.
Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with zoning for agricultural
use or Williamson Act contracts and would have no related impacts.
34
Initial Study
Page 35 of 94
c) No Impact: The proposed project site is not currently used for agricultural
purposes, nor are there any agricultural uses in the project vicinity. Furthermore,
the proposed project would not, in any way, hinder the operations of any
existing agricultural practices. Therefore, the project would not have an impact
that could result in the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use.
d) No Impact: The vacant project site is not currently used for forestland purposes,
nor are there any forest uses in the project vicinity. Therefore, the project would
not have an impact that could result in loss of forestland or conversion of
forestland to non -forest use.
e) No Impact: Refer to Responses a) through d), above.
QUALITY a) No Impact: Santa Clarita is in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), which is
III. AIR
Q bounded by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto mountains to the
north and east and by the Pacific Ocean to the south and west. The air quality in
the Basin is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD).
The Basin has a history of recorded air quality violations and is an area where
both state and federal ambient air quality standards are exceeded. Because of the
violations of the California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS), the
California Clean Air Act requires triennial preparation of an Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP). The AQMP analyzes air quality on a regional level
and identifies region -wide attenuation methods to achieve the air quality
standards. These region -wide attenuation methods include regulations for
stationary -source polluters, facilitation of new transportation technologies, such
as low -emission vehicles, and capital improvements, such as park-and-ride
facilities and public transit improvements.
The current plan is the 2016 AQMP adopted on March 3, 2017. This plan is
designed to meet the state and federal Clean Air Act planning requirements and
focuses on federal ozone and ultra -fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standards. The
SCAQMD's AQMP was prepared to accommodate growth, to reduce the high
levels of pollutants within the areas under the jurisdiction of SCAQMD, and to
attain clean air within the region. Projects that are considered to be consistent
with the AQMP would not interfere with attainment, because this growth is
included in the projections used to formulate the AQMP.
Projects, uses, and activities that are consistent with the applicable assumptions
used in the development of the AQMP would not jeopardize attainment of the
air quality levels identified in the AQMP, even if they exceed the SCAQMD's
recommended daily emissions thresholds. AQMPs utilize projections of
population and transportation activity forecasted by SCAG in their Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP). If the project is consistent with the General Plan and
zoning, it has been assumed in the AQMP and won't obstruct implementation of
the AQMP.
The project site has a General Plan designation of Mixed Use- Corridor (MX -C)
with a Planned Development overlay zone on the portion of the site west of the
Mint Canyon Channel, and is zoned for Soledad Corridor Plan, Mixed Use. The
proposed Community Center and recreational amenities are allowed uses within
the Soledad CP, Mixed Use zone. The proposed project is consistent with the
zoning and General Plan land use designation for the site. As a result, the
35
Initial Study
Page 36 of 94
project is consistent with the growth expectations for the region. The proposed
project is therefore consistent with the AQMP and would have no associated
impacts.
b) Less Than Significant Impact: Air quality standards in Southern California are
identified by both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the California Air
Resources Board (CARE) in the California Ambient Air Quality Standards
(CAAQS). The air quality standards of the following five criteria pollutants
relate to development projects: ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen
dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter (PMio and PM2.5). Of
these criteria pollutants, the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), in which Santa
Clarita lies, is a designated nonattainment basin for 03 and particulate matter,
meaning the basin has recorded exceedances of the air quality standards for
these pollutants in recent years.'
The SCAQMD has developed significance thresholds that correspond to all five
criteria pollutants. These thresholds are shown in Table AQ -1, Project Air
Emissions/SCAQMD Threshold Comparison Matrix, and identify the quantity of
daily project emissions the SCAQMD considers to be a significant air quality
impact.
The proposed project would generate short-term air pollutants from construction
activities and long-term air pollutants from vehicle emissions and typical area
source emissions (i.e., landscaping). The proposed project's potential air
emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model
(CaIEEMod) as recommended by the SCAQMD. Variables factored into
estimating the total construction emissions include the level of activity, length
of construction period, number of pieces and types of equipment in use, site
characteristics, weather conditions, number of construction personnel, and the
amount of materials to be transported on- or off-site.
Mobile and stationary source operational emissions would result from normal
daily activities on the project site after occupancy (i.e., increased concentrations
Of 03, particulate matter, and CO). Mobile source emissions would be generated
by the motor vehicles traveling to and from the project site. Stationary area
source emissions would be generated by consumption of natural gas for space
and water heating devices, operation of landscape maintenance equipment, and
use of consumer products. Stationary energy emissions would result from
energy consumption associated with the project.
Table AQ -1 compares the estimated air quality emissions of the existing
buildings with the proposed project as calculated with CaIEEMod. The
difference between the proposed project and existing buildings are compared to
the SCAQMD thresholds. As shown in Table AQ -1, neither the construction
emissions nor the operational emissions of the proposed project would be
significant air quality impacts, per the SCAQMD standards. Therefore, the
proposed project would not result in significant air quality impacts related to the
air quality standards.
1 A portion of the Basin is also designated a non attainment basin for lead, which is not a criteria pollutant that is relevant to
this project, since air emissions of lead would not be generated by the project.
36
Initial Study
Page 37 of 94
37
Project Air Emissions/SCAQMD Threshold
Comparison Matrix (max. lbsoday)
ROG I NOx* CO SO2 PM10 PMzs
Operational Emissions (Difference Between Proposed and Existing)
Winter Operational Emissions 0.39 1.91 4.55 0.03 2.62 0.71
Summer O erational Emissions 0.40 1.85 5.20 0.03 2.62 0.71
Daily Operational Emission Threshold 1 55 1 55 1 550 1 150 1 150 55
Exceed Operational Threshold? I No I No No No I No No
Construction Emissions
Winter Construction Emissions 6.40 11 211170 0.10 11.21 6.71
Summer Construction Emissions 6.32 73.97 42.53 0.10 11.21 6.70
Daily Construction Emission Threshold 1 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceed Construction Threshold? I No I No No No No No
*ROG (reactive organic gas) through a series of chemical reactions with NOx forms ground -level
ozone.
Periodic LACFCD maintenance activities within the Mint Canyon Channel
would continue to occur, originating at the relocated staging/storage area, and
generally involving the same equipment for the same activities and at the same
times of the year. This would result in a minor level of dust and exhaust
emissions which could affect the adjacent mobile home park and nearby
apartment residents, at levels similar to or less than what occurs for maintenance
of the existing channel, which has more open/unlined area than the proposed
channel. Emissions would be less than levels associated with project
construction and would be less than significant.
c) Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed in Response b), the proposed
project would not exceed the thresholds of significance established by the
SCAQMD. The SCAQMD established these thresholds in consideration of
cumulative air pollution in the Basin. As such, projects that do not exceed the
SCAQMD's thresholds are not considered to not significantly contribute to
cumulative air quality impacts.
With respect to the proposed project's construction -related air quality emissions
and cumulative Basin -wide conditions, the SCAQMD has developed strategies
to reduce criteria pollutant emissions outlined in the AQMP pursuant to federal
Clean Air Act (CAA) mandates. Accordingly, the proposed project would
comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements. Rule 403 requires that fugitive
dust be controlled with the best available control measures in order to reduce
dust so that it does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property
line of the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project would comply
with adopted AQMP emissions control measures. Per SCAQMD rules and
mandates, as well as the CEQA requirement that significant impacts be
mitigated to the extent feasible, these same requirements (i.e., Rule 403
compliance, the implementation of all feasible control measures, and
compliance with adopted AQMP emissions control measures) would also be
imposed on construction projects throughout the Basin, which would include
related projects.
As discussed previously, the proposed project would not result in long-tenn air
quality impacts. Additionally, adherence to SCAQMD rules and regulations
would alleviate potential impacts related to cumulative conditions on a project -
by -project basis. Emission reduction technology, strategies, and plans are
constantly being developed. As a result, the proposed project would not
contribute a cumulatively considerable net increase of any nonattainment
37
Initial Study
Page 38 of 94
criteria pollutant. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with implementation
of the proposed project would be less than significant.
d) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation: Certain residents, such as the
very young, the elderly, and those suffering from certain illnesses or disabilities,
are particularly sensitive to air pollution and are considered sensitive receptors.
In addition, active park users, such as participants in sporting events, are
sensitive air pollutant receptors due to increased breathing rates. Land uses
where sensitive air pollutant receptors congregate include schools, daycare
centers, parks, residences, recreational areas, medical facilities, rest homes, and
convalescent care facilities.
The SCAQMD developed localized significance threshold (LST) methodologies
and mass rate look -up tables by Source Receptor Area (SRA) that can be used to
determine whether or not a project may generate significant adverse localized
air quality impacts that could affect sensitive receptors. LSTs represent the
maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an
exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard, and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that
pollutant for each source receptor area. The LST methodology is described in
Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology and is based on LST
tables published by SCAQMD (October 21, 2009), both documents are
available on the SCAQMD website.
The LST mass rate look -up tables (i.e., screening thresholds) provided by the
SCAQMD allow one to determine if the daily emissions for proposed
construction or operational activities could result in significant localized air
quality impacts. If the calculated on-site emissions for the proposed construction
activities are below the LST emission levels found on the LST mass rate look-
up tables, then the proposed construction or operation activity is not significant
for air quality.
The LST mass rate look -up tables are applicable to the following pollutants
only: oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter
less than 10 microns and 2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter (PMIo and
PM2.5). Table entries are derived based on the location of the activity (i.e., the
source/receptor area), the emission rates of NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5, and the
distance to the nearest exposed individual.
The LST methodology presents mass emission rates for each SRA, project sizes
of 1, 2, and 5 acres, and nearest receptor distances of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500
meters. For project sizes between the values given, or with receptors at distances
between the given receptors, the methodology uses linear interpolation to
determine the thresholds. The SCAQMD recommends that LSTs be analyzed
using the CalEEMod equipment list based on the maximum amount of
maximum number of acres disturbed on the peak day. Accordingly, the
construction emissions estimated for the proposed project estimate
approximately 3.5 acres would be disturbed per day. The project is located in
SRA 13 (Santa Clarita Valley). The nearest sensitive receptor in the proposed
project vicinity that has the largest potential to be affected by construction
activities are the mobile residences located approximately 40 feet (12 meters) to
the east of the project site. The SCAQMD recommends using the LSTs for 25
meters for receptors within that distance.
Total worst-case construction emissions for the proposed project are included in
38
Initial Study
Page 39 of 94
39
Table AQ -2 (Total Construction Emissions and Localized Significance
Thresholds). Emissions for the construction activities were calculated using the
CalEEMod, utilizing the construction equipment data provided by the applicant.
Detailed assumptions and CalEEMod inputs and outputs are included in
Appendix A (CalEEMod Air Quality Data).
Table AQ -2, Total Construction Emissions and Localized Significance
Thresholds without Mitigation, shows the maximum unmitigated on-site
construction emissions LST screening thresholds would be exceeded for PM10
and PMZ.5.
Table AQ -2
Total Construction Emissions and Localized Significance
Thresholds without Mitigation (max. lbs/day)
Maximum On -Site Quantity of PollutantLST Screening Exceeds
Pollutant Construction Threshold Exceeding Thresh
Emissions Threshold old?
CO 42.53 1260.5 0 N
NOi 74.33 190 0 N
PM10 11.21 9 2.21 Y
PM21 6.71 5 1.71 Y
Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ -1, is required reduce the
impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure AQ -1 requires the
heavy-duty construction equipment fleet to meet EPA Tier 3 (or better) engine
standards. Table AQ -3 shows the mitigated maximum on-site construction
emissions LSTs would not be exceeded with Mitigation Measure AQ -1.
Therefore, the impact is less than significant with mitigation.
Table AQ -3
Total Construction Emissions and Localized Significance
Thresholds With Mitigation (max. lbs/day)
Maximum On -Site Quantity of PollutantLST Screening Exceeds
Pollutant Construction Threshold Exceeding Thresh
Emissions Threshold old?
CO 29.54 1260.5 0 N
NOi 45.20 190 0 N
PM10 8.16 9 0 N
PMis 4.65 5 0 N
Mitigation Measure AQ -1: Prior to construction, the construction
contractor shall provide evidence that all off-road diesel -fueled equipment
(e.g., rubber -tired dozers, graders, scrapers, excavators, asphalt paving
equipment, cranes, and tractors) associated with project construction shall
be at least California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 3 Certified or
better.
e) No Impact: The proposed use of the site and the surrounding uses are not
shown on Figure 5-5, Land Uses Associated with Odor Complaints, of the
SCAQMD's 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Uses shown on this figure
include agricultural, wastewater treatment plant, food processing plants,
chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass
molding. Anticipated indoor and outdoor activities at the proposed community
center would not include any significant odor sources. Therefore, the proposed
project would have no odor -related impacts.
39
Initial Study
Page 40 of 94
IV. BIOLOGICAL A Biological Resources Report and a Jurisdictional Delineation Report were
prepared for the proposed project by Michael Baker International and are included
RESOURCES as Appendix B of this Initial Study. The analysis below is based primarily on these
technical studies.
a) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation: Michael Baker International
conducted a field investigation and records search of the project site in
November 2016. The project site primarily consists of a relatively flat and
generally unvegetated lot, with a few commercial businesses and associated
paving along portions of the southern, western, and northern sides. The project
site is almost entirely surrounded by developed land. Undeveloped lands
surrounding the project are limited to vacant parcels and hills to the west (across
Sierra Highway) that become more expansive to the north. The Santa Clara
River, which conveys flows generally east to west, is located approximately
1,000 feet south of the project site.
The Mint Canyon Channel drainage within the project site consists of an
approximately 50 -foot -wide open channel that conveys storm flows southwest
and south through the eastern side of the project site. Approximately 200 feet of
the northern and southern portions, conveying flows under Solamint Road and
Soledad Canyon Road, respectively, are concrete -lined. An unnamed
approximately 20 -foot -wide excavated ditch conveys storm flows from near the
northwestern corner of project site to the southeastern comer where itjoins Mint
Canyon drainage. Vegetation removal within both drainages occurs regularly,
as part of maintenance activities by the Los Angeles County Flood Control
District.
Veaetatiion Communities
One terrestrial vegetation community and one other land use were identified on
the project site during the field survey. Table BIO -1, Vegetation
Communities/Land Uses within the Project Site, lists the acreages of the
vegetation community and land use on site, with each discussed in detail below.
Vegetation classification was based on Holland (1986), and modifications were
made based on Oberbauer et al. (2008).
* Total may not equal sum due to rounding.
Disturbed Habitat (11300)Bare Ground
Disturbed habitat on the project site consists of areas that have undergone
substantial disturbance, and either are frequently and repeatedly disturbed
through grading or compaction or are dominated by non-native, annual,
opportunistic weed species that preclude the reestablishment of native
vegetation communities. Bare ground on the site includes the portions of the
project site that are devoid of vegetation but are not covered with hardscape.
40
Initial Study
Page 41 of 94
Urban/Developed (12000)
Developed portions of the project site include buildings and other structures,
streets, paved parking lots, concrete -lined portions of the Mint Canyon Channel
(Drainage A), and ornamental landscaping.
No special -status vegetation communities were observed on the project site. No
impacts to special -status vegetation communities are expected as a result of the
project.
Wildlife Communities
The project site contains minimal vegetation suitable to support wildlife.
Species common to disturbed and urban areas, which were observed during the
survey, include American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), rock pigeon
(Columba livia), and common side -blotched lizard (Uta stansbunana).
Special -Status Species
The results of a nine -quadrangle database records search revealed documented
occurrences for a total of 26 special -status plant species and a total of 42
special -status wildlife species. Nearly all of the special -status species with
documented occurrences were evaluated in the Biological Resources Report as
having a "low" or "not expected" potential for occurrence and are therefore not
discussed further. Species determined to have a "moderate" or "high' potential
for occurring and that were observed on site during the survey (includes one
special -status plant species not previously documented in the area by the
California Natural Diversity Database [CNDDB] or the California Native Plant
Survey [CNPS]) are discussed below.
Special -Status Plant Species
Proposed impacts to special -status plant species with a California Rare Plant
Rank (CRPR) 1 or 2 would require CEQA disclosure. Although the species
warrant no legal protection, a lead agency may require mitigation in the form of
off-site preservation or translocation, for example. Impacts to CRPR 3 and 4
plant species are not considered significant under CEQA and warrant no legal
protection, but may simply require CEQA disclosure. Federally and/or State -
listed plant and wildlife species would be subject to "take" under the provisions
of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and/or the California Endangered
Species Act (CESA), respectively.
No special -status plant species was observed on the project site during the
survey. However, it was determined that southern implant (Centromadia panyi
ssp. australis), a CRPR 113.1 species, has a moderate potential to occur on the
project site.
Southern tarplant is typically found in disturbed sites, near the coast at marsh
edges, in alkaline soils, associated with grasslands, and on vernal pool margins.
There is a moderate potential for this species to occur within the project site, as
the majority of the site consists of disturbed areas.
As previously discussed, the project site lacks suitable habitat for nearly all of
the special -status plant species documented in the vicinity of the project site.
Only one special -status plant species was determined to have a moderate
potential for occurrence on the project site: southern implant, a CRPR 1.13
species. Mitigation Measure BIO -1 is included below to ensure the proposed
project would not significantly impact this species, should any individuals be
41
Initial Study
Page 42 of 94
found on site during preconstruction surveys. No impacts to any other special -
status plant species are expected as a result of the project
Mitigation Measure BIO -1: Prior to project implementation, a clearance
survey shall be conducted to document the presence/absence of southern
implant within the boundaries of the project site. The clearance survey
shall be conducted during the appropriate blooming period (March
through November) for southern tarplant in accordance with the
California Department of Fish and Game's (2009) Protocols for
Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant
Populations and Natural Communities and the CAPS Botanical Survey
Guidelines (CNPS 2001). [Note that the agency formerly known as the
California Department of Fish and Game is now the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).] If southern implant is
observed within the project site and cannot be avoided, the City of Santa
Clarita shall contact the CDFW to determine the appropriate techniques
to minimize and/or offset project impacts to this species, which may
include seed collection and dispersal. Minimization and offset techniques
shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the CDFW.
Special -Status Wildlife Species
No special -status wildlife species were observed on the site. Further, it was
determined that none of the special -status wildlife species known to occur in the
vicinity of the project site have a moderate or high potential for occurring on the
project site (see the Biological Resources Report in Appendix B). No impacts to
special -status wildlife species are expected as a result of project implementation.
Special -Status Vegetation Communities
The CNDDB records search revealed a total of 12 special -status
habitats/vegetation communities. No special -status habitats/vegetation
communities were observed on the project site.
Critical Habitat
No critical habitat has been mapped within or surrounding the project The
nearest US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) designated Critical Habitat, for
the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), is located
approximately 1.25 miles to the southeast. Farther away is USFWS-designated
Critical Habitat for spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis) approximately 2
miles to the north, and for arroyo toad (Anaxyrus califomicus) over 4.5 miles to
the east in the Santa Clara River.
With the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -1, impacts would be less
than significant.
b) No Impact: According to the Biological Resources Report and the
Jurisdictional Delineation Report prepared for the project site (see Appendix B),
the project site contains no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or the
USFWS. Undeveloped land on the project site consists of disturbed habitat and
bare ground. This includes Drainages A and B, which are regularly cleared of
vegetation and debris during ongoing maintenance activities by the Los Angeles
County Flood Control District. Therefore, the project would have no impact on
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community.
42
Initial Study
Page 43 of 94
c) Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed above, a Jurisdictional
Delineation was prepared by Michael Baker International in November 2016 for
the project site (see Appendix B). Drainage A (Mint Canyon Channel) on the
project site consists of an approximately 50 -foot -wide open channel that
conveys storm flows southwest and south through the eastern side of the project
site. Approximately 200 linear feet of the northern and southern portions of
Drainage A (including portions south of Soledad Canyon Road), which convey
flows under Solamint Road and Soledad Canyon Road, respectively, are
concrete -lined and include access ramps to the drainage bottom.
An unnamed approximately 20 -foot -wide excavated ditch constructed in
uplands (Drainage B) conveys urban runoff south from near the northwestern
corner of project site along southbound Sierra Highway to the southeastern
corner where it converges with Drainage A. This feature conveys flows through
a 36 -inch culvert under a dirt access road near the middle of the project site.
Further, a 36 -inch culvert that conveys urban runoff from the west side of Sierra
Highway contributes to Drainage B just north of the previously mentioned
culvert. Evidence of flows averaging approximately 6 feet wide, with active
stream banks averaging approximately 8 feet in width, were observed within
Drainage B.
The streambed and banks associated with Drainage A is subject to CDFW
jurisdiction pursuant to Sections 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game
Code (FGC). Proposed impacts to streambed and banks within Drainage A
(approximately 1.05 acres, of which 0.20 acre is enclosed within box culverts
associated with Sierra Highway and Soledad Canyon Road) and Drainage B
(approximately 0.17 acre) may require a Notification of Lake or Streambed
Alteration to, and subsequent authorization (e.g., Streambed Alteration
Agreement [SAA]) from, the CDFW prior to initiating construction -related
activities. Refer to Figure 6, Jurisdictional Delineation Map.
Drainage A (Mint Canyon Channel) qualifies as non -wetland waters of the
United States subject to jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) under
Clean Water Act Sections 404 and 401, respectively. This includes conveyance
of flows under Solamint Road and Soledad Canyon Road. Proposed impacts to
approximately 0.296 acre of non -wetland waters of the United States within
Drainage A may require the submittal of a Pre -Construction Notification to, and
subsequent authorization from, the USACE for Nationwide Permit 39—
Commercial and Institutional Developments, provided that the USACE concurs
that the ephemeral and intermittent features qualify for waiver of the normal 300
lineal foot threshold of impact. If they do not, then an Individual Permit maybe
required. The final USACE determination would be made prior to issuance of
any construction permits. Simultaneously, a request for Water Quality
Certification (WQC) and subsequent issuance from the RWQCB will be
required.
Drainage B displays evidence of conveying flows. However, in a letter dated
August 23, 2016, the USACE provided a completed Approved Jurisdictional
Determination form stating, "The stormwater ditch constructed in uplands is
NOT a water of the United States as defined in 33 Code of Federal Regulations
[CFR] part 323.8(a)." Therefore, the entire length (approximately 0. 10 acre) of
this feature is only considered potential waters of the State subject to the
jurisdiction of the Regional Board under the Porter -Cologne Water Quality
Control Act. It is anticipated that proposed impacts to waters of the State can be
43
Initial Study
Page 44 of 94
addressed through the WQC process in lieu of obtaining Waste Discharge
Requirements from the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Prior to work within Drainage A (Mint Canyon Channel), the City is required to
obtain an appropriate Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the USACE, a
Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB, and a Streambed
Alteration Agreement from the CDFW. Similarly, prior to work within Drainage
B (unnamed upland ditch), the City is required to submit an application for a
Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFW and a Water Quality
Certification from the RWQCB. With the required compliance with the Clean
Water Act and the California Fish and Game Code, and the obtainment of
corresponding authorizations, impacts would be less than significant.
d) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation: Bird nesting opportunities
and wildlife movement on the project site are limited and relatively restricted
due to a lack of vegetative cover on site and the presence of existing
development and infrastructure surrounding the project site. To avoid disturbing
migratory bird nesting, should any occur on site, project construction activities
conducted within the bird breeding season would require preconstruction
nesting bird surveys, and the appropriate setbacks of active nests if found, as
detailed in Mitigation Measure BIO -2.
Mitigation Measure 13I0-2: Proposed project construction activities
shall avoid the general bird breeding season (typically January through
July for raptors and February through August for other avian species), if
feasible. If breeding season avoidance is not feasible, a qualified biologist
shall conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey to determine the
presence/absence, location, and status of any active nests on or adjacent
to the project site. To avoid the destruction of active nests and to protect
the reproductive success of birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act (MBTA) and the California Fish and Game Code (FGC), nesting bird
surveys shall be performed twice per week during the three weeks prior
to scheduled project construction activities. In the event that active nests
are discovered, a suitable buffer (distance to be determined by the
biologist or overriding agencies) shall be established around such active
nests and no construction within the buffer allowed until the biologist has
determined that the nest is no longer active (i.e., the nestlings have
fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest). No project -related activities
shall occur within this buffer until the biologist has confirmed that
breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest.
With the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -2, impacts would be less
than significant.
e) Less Than Significant Impact: The City maintains an Oak Tree Preservation
ordinance (Unified Development Code Section 17.51.040), which states, "No
person shall cut, prune, remove, relocate, endanger, damage or encroach into the
protected zone of any oak tree on any public or private property within the City
except in accordance with the conditions of a valid oak tree permit issued by the
City, in conformance with Section 17.23.170 (Oak Tree Permit)." Further, the
ordinance states that the area 5 feet outside of the dripline (outermost portion of
the tree canopy) or no less than 15 feet from the trunk constitutes the "Oak tree,
protected zone." On the project site, two individuals of coast live oak (Quercus
agnfoha), appearing as one, each approximately 2 inches in diameter (i.e., over
6 inches in circumference, which precludes them from exemption) measured
44
Initial Study
Page 45 of 94
approximately 4.5 feet above grade, are located at the southern edge of the
project site at the boundary between developed property and disturbed areas.
Pursuant to Section 17.51.040 (Oak Tree Preservation), it is the City's policy to
require the preservation of all healthy oak trees unless compelling reasons
justify the removal of such trees. In this instance, the oak trees cannot be
avoided and an Oak Tree Permit in compliance with Uniform Development
Code Section 17.23.170 will be required prior to the initiation of project -related
activities. Compliance with the City's Oak Tree Permit process would reduce
potential impacts to less than significant.
I) No Impact: The project site is not within a habitat conservation plan (HCP),
natural community conservation plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional,
or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with
any adopted habitat conservation plans, and the project would have no related
impacts.
g) No Impact: The project site is not within a Significant Ecological Area (SEA)
identified on Exhibit CO -5 (Significant Ecological Areas) of the City's General
Plan Conservation Element The nearest SEA to the project site, the Santa Clara
River SEA, is located approximately 1,000 feet south of the project site.
Additionally, the project site is also not within a Significant Natural Area
identified by the CDFW. Therefore, the proposed project would not affect a
Significant Ecological Area or Significant Natural Area.
45
Initial Study
Page 46 of 94
This page intentionally left blank
46
CANYON COUNTRY COMMUNITY CENTER
® 125 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
H T, q„, T„„„ Q O�Feet Jurisdictional Delineation Map
Figure 6
Initial Study
Page 49 of 94
V. CULTURAL As part of the cultural resources evaluation, Michael Baker International conducted
a Cultural Resources Study. The records search was conducted at the South Central
RESOURCES Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) of the California Historical Resources
Information System, California State University, Fullerton conducted a records
search (#16985.3046) on November 16, 2016, with a half -mile search radius of the
project limits. The SCCIC, an affiliate of the California Office of Historic
Preservation (OHP), is the official state repository of cultural resources records and
reports for Los Angeles County. As part of the records search, the following federal
and state of California inventories were reviewed:
• California Inventory of Historic Resources (OHP 1976)
• California Points of Historical Interest (OHP 1992 and updates)
• California Historical Landmarks (OHP 1996)
• Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility (OHP 2012a). The directory
includes determinations for eligibility for archaeological resources in Los
Angeles County.
Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File (OHP 2012b). The
directory includes the listings of the National Register, National Historic
Landmarks, the California Register, California Historical Landmarks, and
California Points of Historical Interest within Los Angeles County.
Publications, maps, local historical directories and websites for archeological,
ethnographic, historical, and environmental information about the project area/APE
and its vicinity were consulted to further understand the development of the project
site.
a) No Impact: Based on research and evaluation for historical significance, the
property at 18340 Sierra Highway, consisting of a commercial building and
parking lot ,was evaluated for inclusion in the National Register and California
Register. Research findings are as follows:
• Research did not identify the building as significant for the area. Therefore,
the property does not appear eligible,
• The property does not appear to be associated with any historical important
individuals and does not appear eligible,
• The property does not represent a work of a master architect or designer,
and
• The property is not likely to yield valuable information which will
contribute to our understanding of human history.
The property at 18340 Sierra Highway does not appear eligible for listing in
either the National Register under Criteria A, B, C, or D, or in the California
Register under Criteria 1, 2, 3, or 4, either individually or as a contributor to a
historic district. Additionally, the resource was evaluated in accordance with
Section 15064.5(a)(2)—(3) of the CEQA Guidelines using the criteria outlined in
Section 5024.1 of the California Resources Code, and it does not appear to be a
historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. Additionally, two previous
studies were completed within a portion of the project area.
49
Initial Study
Page 50 of 94
• 1996 Cultural Resources Investigation Pacific Pipeline Emidio Route
(Including West Liebre Gulch Ridge Alignment and Mojave Alternatives),
Los Angeles and Kern Counties, California. Prepared for Aspen
Environmental Group. Santa Barbara, California.
• 2014 Cultural Resources Records Search and Native American
Consultation Results, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
Mint Canyon and Whites Canyon Projects, Los Angeles County, California.
U1traSystems, Irvine, CA.
Eleven additional reports were identified within a quarter -mile of the project
area/APE and are available in Appendix C. None of the studies identified
cultural resources and concluded that it was very unlikely that historic properties
would be adversely affected by the project (Michael Baker 2016b). Therefore,
the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource, and the project would have no related
impacts.
b) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation: An archaeological and built
environment field survey of the project area/APE was conducted on November
29, 2016. Field survey observations were documented with field notes and
digital photographs, and cultural resources were evaluated on DPR 523 Series
forms. Additionally, field methods for identifying potential cultural resources
consisted of intensive pedestrian survey corridors using five meter transects.
Ground visibility was excellent and 90 percent surface coverage of the project
area was completed. A small portion located in the far northeast comer of the
project area was restricted by barbed wire fences and not surveyed. The
pedestrian survey revealed that the project area is covered in fill dirt, concrete,
and asphalt. Modem trash and a very low density of historic refuse debris were
identified on the surface of fill -dirt areas.
The historic refuse debris appeared to have been conveyed to the project area
from fill -dirt operations, illegal dumping, flooding events, or a combination of
all of these. Historic refuse debris is not diagnostic and consisted of fragments
of cans, solarized class, domestic ceramics, bolts, and metal pipes. Based on
literature, records search, and pedestrian survey, no archaeological artifacts,
features, materials, or residues were identified in the project area. Therefore, the
proposed project would have no impact on archeological resources (Michael
Baker 2016b). In the unexpected event that archeological resources are
discovered during grading, Mitigation Measure CUL -1 is included to ensure the
proper handling of significant resources. With the incorporation of this measure,
impacts are less than significant.
Mitigation Measure CUL -1: If deposits of prehistoric or historical
materials are encountered during project construction, it is recommended
that all work within 50 feet be halted until an archaeologist can evaluate
the findings and make recommendations. Prehistoric materials can include
flaked -stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, choppers) or obsidian,
chert, or quartzite toolmaking debris, culturally darkened soil (i.e., midden
soil often containing heat -affected rock, ash, and charcoal, shellfish
remains, and cultural materials), and stone milling equipment (e.g.,
mortars, pestles, handstones). Historical materials might include wood,
stone, or concrete footings, walls, and other structural remains, debris -
50
Initial Study
Page 51 of 94
filled wells or privies, and deposits of wood, metal, glass, ceramics, and
other refuse.
c) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation: The City's General Plan EIR
identifies that Los Angeles County, including the Santa Clarita Valley, is
sensitive for paleontological resources, with more than 1,100 known vertebrate
fossil localities countywide. Most of these localities are generally scattered
within 700 square miles (about 17 percent of the county) of hilly terrain that is
underlain by fossil -producing rock formations. Most of the potential fossil -
producing rock formations in the City's planning area are located within hilly
terrain. The proposed project however, would be located on a flat and semi-
developed site. The General Plan EIR specifically notes that the Santa Susana
Mountains, along the city's southwest boundary, are sensitive to paleontological
resource impacts, as are the Sierra Pelona Mountains to the north of the city.
However, the Santa Susana Mountains are located approximately 25 miles
southwest and the Sierra Pelona Mountains are located approximately 13 miles
northeast of the project site. The project site is not located in hilly terrain and
the project does not involve excavation for subterranean levels [or excavation to
similar depths]. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed project would
encounter any paleontological resources. In the unexpected event that
paleontological resources are discovered during grading, Mitigation Measure
CUL -2 is included to ensure the proper handling of significant resources. With
the incorporation of this measure, impacts are less than significant.
Mitigation Measure CUL -2: If paleontological resources are encountered
during project construction, all construction activities in the vicinity of the
find shall halt until a paleontologist meeting the satisfaction of the Los
Angeles County Museum of Natural History examines the site, identifies
the significance of the find, and recommends a course of action.
Construction in the vicinity of the find shall not resume until the
paleontologist states in writing that the proposed construction activities
will not damage significant paleontological resources.
d) Less Than Significant Impact: There are no known human remains on the site.
The project site is not part of a formal cemetery and is not known to have been
used for the disposal of historic or prehistoric human remains. Thus, human
remains are not expected to be encountered during construction of the proposed
project. In the unlikely event that human remains are encountered during project
construction, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires the
project to halt until the county coroner has made the necessary findings as to the
origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
5097.98. Compliance with these regulations would ensure the proposed project
would not significantly impact human remains.
VI. GEOLOGY AND a) i. No Impact: No known active faults were recorded to project into or cross the
project site; the project site is not located in a State of California Alquist-Priolo
SOILS Earthquake Fault Zone (RTF&A 2016) and as identified in Figure 3.9-3 of the
City's General Plan EIR. Regardless, the proposed project is required to comply
with the California Building Code that establishes regulations for structures in
potentially hazardous areas in order to withstand impacts caused by localized
earthquake activity. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or
structures to potential adverse effects from the rupture of a known earthquake
fault and would cause no associated impacts.
51
Initial Study
Page 52 of 94
a) ii. Less Than Significant Impact: Santa Clarita is in the seismically active
region of Southern California. Consequently, the proposed project would likely
be subject to strong seismic ground shaking. However, the risks of earthquake
damage can be minimized through proper engineering, design, and construction.
The proposed community center and associated amenities are required to be
built according to the California Building Code and other applicable codes, and
are subject to building inspection during and after construction. Structures for
human habitation must be designed to meet or exceed Building Code standards
for Seismic Zone 4. Conformance to these required standards ensures that the
proposed project would not result in significant impacts due to strong seismic
ground shaking.
a) iii. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: Liquefaction occurs when
saturated, loose to medium dense, cohesionless soils are densified by ground
vibrations of sufficient magnitude and duration. The project site is located in a
liquefaction hazard area, as shown on Exhibit S-3 of the City's General Plan
Safety Element and in the State of California Seismic Hazard Map Mint Canyon
Quadrangle (1999) (RTF&A 2016). Habitable structures within a potential
liquefaction zone require a site-specific liquefaction investigation as part of a
comprehensive site geotechnical investigation for projects. It is anticipated that
the proposed community center building and restrooms would be considered
habitable structures from a regulatory perspective, which will necessitate a site-
specific liquefaction investigation. The remainder of the proposed
improvements at the subject site are not expected to be considered habitable
structures and will not require that a liquefaction investigation be performed for
these other improvements (RTF&A 2016). The Geotechnical Study found the
project site to be mantled by an undetermined depth of Holocene alluvial
deposits over bedrock units of the Mint Canyon Formation. A review of
adjacent water well data and historic groundwater data indicates that historic
high groundwater depth varied from approximately 10 to 20 feet below the
existing site. Based on the geotechnical analysis findings, Mitigation Measures
GEO-1 and GEO-2 are included to ensure the proposed project does not expose
people or structures to potential substantial adverse effect, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death, involving placing habitable structures in a liquefaction
zone. With the incorporation of this measure, impacts are less than significant.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Within the footprint of the proposed
Community Center building, the alluvial and/or artificial fill soils should
be removed to a depth of at least 10 feet below the present grade. In other
proposed building or structural areas (i.e. restroom building, pedestrian
bridge, shade structure, clock tower), alluvial and/or artificial fill soils
should be removed to a depth of at least 5 feet below the present grade, or
to a depth of at least 3 feet below the bottoms of foundations, whichever is
deeper. At a minimum, removal excavation bottoms in building areas must
expose alluvial soils; all artificial fill soils encountered must be removed
within their entirety. Soil removal shall extend beyond the perimeter of
each building area a lateral distance of at least 8 feet outside the perimeter
of building foundations.
Mitigation Measure GEO-2: Structural mitigation would consist of
designing the foundation system for the proposed buildings so that they
could withstand potential seismic and liquefaction related settlements.
The geotechnical report (RTF&A, 2017) indicates that conventional or
52
Initial Study
Page 53 of 94
post -tension floor slabs are feasible, provided that the soil subgrade
consists of properly compacted fill material
a) iv. No Impact: The project site is not within a landslide hazard zone identified
on city or state mapping, as shown on Exhibit S-3 of the City's General Plan
Safety Element. Furthermore, there are no unstable slopes on the project site.
Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to
potential adverse effects from landslides and would have no associated impacts.
b) Less Than Significant Impact: During construction of the proposed project,
the soils on the project site may become exposed and thus subject to erosion.
However, the project is required to comply with existing regulations that reduce
erosion potential. The proposed project is required to comply with SCAQMD
Rule 403, which requires additional construction control measures during
periods of high winds, these measures would sufficiently reduce the potential
for significant wind -driven soil erosion during construction. Similarly, water
erosion during construction would be substantially reduced by complying with
the General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit
for storm water discharges associated with construction and land disturbance.
As further detailed in subsection IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this
report, the NPDES Permit requires the construction of the project to incorporate
best management practices (BMPs) to reduce erosion and prevent eroded soils
from washing off site. Thus, the potential to increase erosion during any
construction activity would be substantially reduced through required
compliance with existing regulations. Operation of the proposed community
center and associated amenities would not cause wind or water erosion or the
loss of topsoil.
c) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. The project site is a flat
parcel that is not located on a cliff, mountainside, or bluff. The geotechnical
investigations conducted on site determined that lateral spreading is not
expected to occur (RTF&A, 2017). However, the project site is located in a
liquefaction hazard area, as shown on Exhibit S-3 of the City's General Plan
Safety Element and in the State of California Seismic Hazard Map Mint Canyon
Quadrangle (1999) (RTF&A 2016). Geographic stability concerns in a portion
of the project site could potentially affect the community center building and
restrooms. See Response a.iii) regarding liquefaction hazards. With the
incorporation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2, impacts are less than
significant
d) No Impact: The project site is mantled by an undetermined depth of Holocene
alluvial deposits over bedrock units of the Mint Canyon Formation (RTF&A
2016). This type of surface material has a low expansion potential. Therefore,
the proposed project would not result in impacts related to expansive soils.
e) No Impact: The project will be required to connect to the existing public sewer
system. Therefore, soil suitability for septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems is not applicable in this case, and the proposed project would
have no associated impacts.
f, g) Less Than Significant Impact: The topography of the project site, as
existing, is effectively flat. The northern portion of the project site generally
ranges from 1,458 feet above mean sea level (amsl) to 1,462 feet amsl and
slopes downward toward the southern portion with elevations ranging from
approximately 1,442 to 1,446 feet amsl. The project proposes the grading of
53
Initial Study
Page 54 of 94
' Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (COie) -A metric measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse gases based upon their global
warming potential.
54
approximately 26,190 cubic yards of earth (18,875 cubic yards of cut quantities
and 7,315 cubic yards of fill quantities) to prepare the site for construction, for
the installation of the proposed underground infiltration basin, and for utility
trenching/installation. The project does not involve any landform changes. The
site's minimum relief is man-made, and no natural topography features exist on
the site. The development of the project site is not expected to include the
manufacturing of any significant cut or fill slopes due to the existing
topographic relief and proposed grades (RTF&A 2016). Therefore, although the
project requires 26,190 cubic yards of earthwork, the proposed topographic
changes and earth movement have less than significant impacts.
h) No Impact: As discussed, the project site is largely flat. There are no natural
slopes greater than 10 percent grade. Therefore, the proposed project would not
cause any impacts from development or grading slopes greater than 10 percent
natural grade.
i) No Impact: As discussed, the topography of the project site, as existing, is
effectively flat. The site does not contain any ridgelines or other regionally
notable topographic features. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in
the destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical
feature, and the project would have no related impact.
a) Less Than Significant Impact: On September 28, 2010, the SCAQMD
VII. GREENHOUSE
recommended an interim screening level numeric "bright -line" threshold of
GAS EMISSIONS
3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent' (COze) annually and an
efficiency -based threshold of 4.8 metric tons of COze per service population
(residents plus employees) per year in 2020 and 3.0 metric tons of COze per
service population per year in 2035. These thresholds were developed as part of
the SCAQMD GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group. The
Working Group was formed to assist the SCAQMD's efforts to develop a GHG
significance threshold and comprises a wide variety of stakeholders including
the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR), CARB, the Attorney
General's Office, a variety of city and county planning departments in the South
Coast Air Basin, various utility purveyors such as sanitation and power
companies throughout the Basin, industry groups, and environmental and
professional organizations. The numeric bright -line and efficiency -based
thresholds were developed to be consistent with CEQA requirements for
developing significance thresholds, are supported by substantial evidence, and
provide guidance to CEQA practitioners with regard to determining whether
GHG emissions from a proposed project are significant.
Emissions resulting from implementation of the proposed project have been
quantified and the quantified emissions are compared with the recommended
SCAQMD GHG screening threshold. The anticipated GHG emissions during
project construction and operation are shown in Table GHG-1, Construction -
Related and Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The project's operation
phase emission levels represent the predicted increase in GHG emissions
beyond existing operations. In accordance with the SCAQMD guidance,
projected GHGs from construction have been quantified and amortized over 30
' Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (COie) -A metric measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse gases based upon their global
warming potential.
54
Initial Study
Page 55 of 94
' Based on South Coast Air Quality Management District methodology (South Coast Air Quality Management District, Minutes for the GHG
CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #I3, August 26, 2009).
55
years, which is the number of years considered to represent the life of the
project.' The amortized construction emissions are added to the annual average
operational emissions. Detailed assumptions and CaIEEMod inputs and outputs
are included in Appendix A (CalEEMod Greenhouse Gas Data).
Construction -Related and Operational Greenhouse
Gas Emissions (Metric Tons per Year)
Emission Type CO2e
Construction Emissions
Construction (amortized over 30 ears)
30
Operational Emissions (Difference Between Proposed and Existing)
Area Source (landscaping, hearth)
0
Energy
72
Mobile
540
Waste
61
Water
28
Total EmissionsConsWction+O erational
Tota 731
SCA MD Greenhouse Gas Threshold 3,000
Exceed Threshold? No
Per Table GHG-1, the increase of GHG emissions over the baseline would not
exceed the SCAQMD greenhouse gas screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons
Of COze per year.
Furthermore, the project is compared with the efficiency -based threshold of 4.8
metric tons of COze per service population per year by the year 2020 and 3.0
metric tons of COze per service population per year in 2035.
The majority of people visiting nonresidential land uses would be patrons and a
smaller number of vendors. In order to estimate the number of patrons and
vendors that visit the site, the number of potential nonresidential -related daily
vehicle trips is divided by two to account for each service population member
making one trip to and one trip from the nonresidential use, therefore, each
project patron and vendor would count for two trips. This is a conservative
assumption since each vehicle is assumed to accommodate only one person,
whereas many of the vehicles would accommodate more than one person.
Based off of trip rates provided in the traffic report, the proposed project would
generate approximately 474 net new trips per day (Appendix G). The total
number of trips per day is divided by two (237) to derive the service
population.
Project GFIG Emissions per Service Population
Per Capita Service MTCO2e/ Exceed
Emissions Emissions Population SP/Year Threshold Threshold?
Year 2020 731 237 3.01 4.8 No
Year 2035 449 237 1.90 3.0 No
As shown m Table GHG-2, Project GHG Emissions per Service Population,
' Based on South Coast Air Quality Management District methodology (South Coast Air Quality Management District, Minutes for the GHG
CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #I3, August 26, 2009).
55
Initial Study
Page 56 of 94
dividing the GHG emissions for each time period yields a metric ton per
service population ratio of 3.01 for year 2020 conditions and 1.90 for year
2035 conditions. The proposed project would not exceed the year 2020 and
year 2035 significance thresholds.
The project does not exceed the screening threshold nor the service population
thresholds. Therefore, the project's contribution of GHG emissions would be
less than significant
b) Less Than Significant Impact: The City of Santa Clarita's Climate Action
Plan (CAP) identifies the amount of greenhouse gases (GHG) emitted within
Santa Clarita and establishes a set of strategies that reduces the amount of GHGs
produced in the city to a level that is consistent with the reduction goals
identified in the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32)
(Health and Safety Code Sections 38500, 38501, 28510, 38530, 38550, 38560,
38561 38565, 38570, 38571, 38574, 38580, 38590, 38592-38599). A large
portion of the GHG reductions would be achieved by the decrease in vehicle
miles traveled in the City via changes in land use patterns and a greater
emphasis of transit and alternative transportation programs. Other significant
reductions are due to the creation or acquisition of new vegetated space in line
with the goals of the City's Open Space Preservation District and water use
measures. Although the City's CAP does not outline project specific
requirements, its GHG inventory is based on the City's General Plan. The
General Plan for the City of Santa Clarita is the foundation for making land use
decisions based on goals and policies related to land use, population growth and
distribution, development, open space, resource preservation and utilization, air
and water supply and other factors. The CAP builds from the goals, objectives
and policies delineated in the General Plan and develops specific actions to be
implemented and monitored to achieve GHG reduction goals. The City's
general plan process developed a number of goals, objectives and policies that
address climate change. Accordingly, the General Plan goals, objectives and
policies are incorporated into the Climate Action Plan's mitigation plan
component and to the extent feasible are translated into measures that result in
reductions in GHG emissions. The proposed project would be consistent with
the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Because goals, objectives, and policies
approved under the General Plan are forecast to meet the GHG emission
reduction targets mandated by AB 32, development projects that are able to
demonstrate consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance are by
association consistent with the CAP. Since the project is consistent with the
General Plan land use designation and zoning for the site, impacts relating to
GHG emissions are less than significant.
VIII. HAZARDS AND A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was initially prepared for the project site
by Rincon Associates in October 2014, and supplemented with additional
HAZARDOUS investigations completed by Rincon Associates in May 2017. A Phase II
MATERIALS Environmental Site Assessment was conducted for the project site by Rincon
Associates in March 2017. The analysis below is based primarily on these reports,
which are included in Appendix E of this Initial Study.
a) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed community center and
recreational amenities are not anticipated to store, use, or generate substantial
amounts of hazardous materials and are not anticipated to utilize any acutely
hazardous materials. The only hazardous materials expected to be utilized on
site are typical cleansers, solvents, pesticides, and fertilizers for the normal
maintenance of structures and landscaping. These chemicals are used for normal
maintenance and are not typically of sufficient quantity or concentration to pose
56
Initial Study
Page 57 of 94
hazards to the public. Any transport, use, or disposal activities associated with
hazardous or potentially hazardous materials would comply with all applicable
federal, state, and local agencies' policies and regulations. Both short-term
construction and long-term operation of the project would comply with the
policies and programs established by agencies such as the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the California Department of Toxic Substances
Control (DTSC), and the Los Angeles County Fire Department. Therefore, the
proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials and would have less than significant impacts.
b) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. As addressed in Response a) above,
any transport, use, or disposal activities associated with hazardous or potentially
hazardous materials would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local
agencies' policies and regulations. Both short-term construction and long-term
operation of the project would comply with the policies and programs
established by agencies such as the EPA, the DTSC, and the Los Angeles
County Fire Department. Adherence with the applicable policies and programs
of these agencies would ensure that any interaction with hazardous materials
would occur in the safest possible manner, reducing the opportunity for the
accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment.
Any handling of hazardous materials would be limited in both quantities and
concentrations. Although hazardous materials such as fertilizers, herbicides,
pesticides, and similar materials could be stored on site, only the amounts
needed would be stored; these materials would not be stored in excessive
amounts. In addition, as mandated by the US Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), all hazardous materials stored on site would be
accompanied by a Material Safety Data Sheet Q\4SDS), which, in the case of
accidental release, would inform personnel as to the necessary remediation
procedures.
As previously noted, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for
the City -owned part of the project site in 2014. According to the assessment,
there were no Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) identified on site.
However, the report identified two potential RECs:
• If the land use were to change from vacant, undeveloped land to
residential, commercial, or industrial uses, or if building permit records
indicate that automotive repair or chemical or fuel storage was occurring
on the site, the presence of a former trucking facility on site would then
constitute a potential REC.
• If the land use were to change from vacant undeveloped land to
residential, commercial, or industrial uses, the presence of an upgradient
dry cleaner may constitute a potential REC.
Based on the findings of the Phase I ESA, a Phase II ESA was conducted by
Rincon Consultants, Inc. in the northern and southern portions of the site, to
determine whether contamination from past auto repair, trucking, gas station,
and unknown prior land uses was present. A geophysical survey was conducted,
using ground penetrating radar to image the subsurface in an attempt to locate
any underground feature associated with past land uses. This survey found
telecom and natural gas lines, but no evidence of any underground storage
tanks. Three soil borings were drilled in the southern area and two in the
northern area. Soil samples from the borings were analyzed for metals, total
57
Initial Study
Page 58 of 94
petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and/or volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
Soil vapor samples were also collected on the southern portion of the site and
were analyzed for VOCs. Based on the laboratory analytical results, detected
concentrations of arsenic exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) Regional Screening Level (RSL)4 of 0.68 milligrams per kilogram
[mg/kg]. The detected concentrations ranged from 3.2 to 4.4 mg/kg which are
well within the typical background concentrations of arsenic found in California
soils, which range from 0.6 mg/kg to 11 mg/kg. USEPA does not require
cleanup of soils with arsenic levels below natural background levels, therefore,
the presence of arsenic in the subsurface materials on site is not considered to be
a significant hazard to the environment or human health. TPH and VOCs were
not detected above method detection limits in both soil matrix and soil vapor
samples.
Based on the findings of the Phase II ESA, it was concluded that there are no
Recognized Environmental Concerns for the City -owned part of the site and no
further assessment is warranted.
A Phase I ESA was completed for the private parcels within the project site in
May 2017. No REC's were identified, however, based on the history of
automobile repair and service businesses conducted on the parcel in the
southwestern comer of the site, it was recommended that a soil management
plan be prepared in the event that some soil contamination is encountered when
the existing auto service business is demolished as part of the project's initial
construction phase. This recommendation is incorporated as Mitigation Measure
HAZ-1, listed below. Given this mitigation measure, the threat of an accidental
release of hazardous substances during site construction is considered to be less
than significant.
Mitigation Measure HA7-1: Prior to commencement of any construction
activities within the southwestern parcel, the City shall cause to be prepared
a soil management plan that will specify procedures to be followed during
construction to identify and properly remediate any contaminated soils that
may be encountered. This plan shall be implemented during site clearance
and grading of that portion of the project site.
c) No Impact: The project site is within one-quarter mile of the Canyon Country
Preschool, located at 18324 Soledad Canyon Road, and the Canyon Country
KinderCare facility, located at 18525 Soledad Canyon Road. However, as
discussed in Response a) above, the proposed uses (a community center and
associated recreational amenities) are not anticipated to store, use, or generate
substantial amounts of hazardous materials and are not anticipated to use any
acutely hazardous materials. Regular operations within the community center
facilities and during special events would not generate emissions of hazardous
or acutely hazardous substances. Based on the findings of the Phase II ESA as
discussed in the preceding response, there is no evidence of site contamination,
therefore, grading and site preparation associated with construction of the
proposed project would not present a threat of an accidental release of
hazardous substances that could affect these two schools.
d) No Impact: Irrespective of the results of the site's hazardous material studies,
the site is not found on any list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
4 US EPA Screening Levels were developed to facilitate risk assessments at federal CERCLA hazardous waste sites, as a
preliminary indicator for further investigations and potentially cleanup. These are not cleanup standards.
58
Initial Study
Page 59 of 94
to Government Code Section 65962.5 (DTSC 2007, SWRCB 2015) and, as a
result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
e) No Impact: There are no airports located within 2 miles of the project site, and
the project site is not within an airport land use plan. Therefore, the project
would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in proximity
to an airport, and the proposed project would have no associated impacts.
I) No Impact: The project site is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip. There are
no airplane transportation facilities, public or private, within 2 miles of the
project site. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in proximity to a private airstrip, and the proposed project
would have no associated impacts.
g) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would not place any
permanent physical barriers on any existing public streets. Furthermore, the
project site is not used by any emergency response agencies, and no emergency
response facilities exist in the project vicinity. Vehicle access to the project
would be via six driveway access points via Sierra Highway, Soledad Canyon
Road, Dolan Way, and Solamint Road. The proposed driveway access points
include two along Soledad Canyon Road into the southern parking lot, one
along Sierra Highway into the proposed central parking lot, one along Sierra
Highway into the northern lot, one along Dolan Way into the northern lot, and
one along Solamint Road into the northern lot. Additionally, as further discussed
in the Project Description and in subsection XVI, Transportation/Traffic, street
improvements would occur as part of the project.
These improvements would occur within the existing right-of-way. It is possible
that implementation of the improvements could create temporary impacts. These
temporary construction -related impacts would be avoided with implementation
of a Construction Traffic Management Plan (TMP), to be established by the City
prior to construction of any improvements in accordance with standard City
procedures. The TMP would require prior notices, adequate sign -posting,
detours, phased construction, and temporary driveways where necessary to
reduce construction -related impacts that may result from the proposed project.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
h) No Impact: As identified on the City's online GIS system, Fire Zone layer, the
project site is not within a fire hazard zone. Therefore, the proposed project
would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving wildland fires, and the project would have no associated
impacts.
i) No Impact: The site is not known or expected to contain any electrical
transmission lines, gas lines, oil lines, or other hazardous material conduits or
storage facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people to
existing sources of potential health hazards, and the project would have no
related impacts.
IX HYDROLOGY a) Less tnan signmcant impact: me city is consiaenng the aeveiopment of an
infiltration basin on the project site as a regional stormwater best management
AND WATER practice (BMP), which would be a critical component to addressing the City's
QUALITY water quality treatment objectives as stated in the Upper Santa Clara River
Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP). The proposed infiltration
basin would also have the secondary benefit of groundwater recharge. The
59
Initial Study
Page 60 of 94
proposed stormwater infiltration system would be incorporated as an
underground structure to reduce the volume of stormwater runoff being
discharged from Sierra Highway and the Mint Canyon Channel into the Santa
Clara River. The proposed structure would use a low impact development
design to allow stormwater percolation into the substrate. The City is currently
contemplating two infiltration basin options. Figure 5a, Infiltration Basin Option
A, and Figure 5b, Infiltration Basin Option B, depict the two options.
In the first option, an underground storage or infiltration facility would be
constructed below the proposed event stage, with a storage capacity of 2.1 acre-
feet (approximately 680,000 gallons). Under the first option, the system would
be sized to meet the 85th percentile storm event for water quality. A dry weather
diversion structure would be installed in the upper segment (open concrete box)
of the Mint Canyon Channel on the project site. From this diversion structure,
flows would be routed to an underground pretreatment unit and then to an
underground dry weather pump (approximately 5-10 horsepower). At Sierra
Highway, the existing drainage ditch would be replaced by an underground 60 -
inch -diameter storm drain pipe, extending from Sierra Highway to the Mint
Canyon Channel. A diversion structure would be placed in the new drain pipe to
direct flows to a pretreatment unit and then into the infiltration basin. An
overflow drain pipe would be installed to provide an outflow from the
infiltration basin to the proposed 60 -inch drain pipe.
In the second option, the capacity of the infiltration basin would be increased to
7.5 acre-feet (approximately 2.4 million gallons) to provide additional storage
capacity and increased groundwater recharge. Similar to the first option,
diversion structures, pretreatment units, and underground pumps would be used
to deliver flows from the Mint Canyon Channel and the secondary drainage on
site to the infiltration basin. An overflow drain pipe would be installed to
provide an outflow from the infiltration basin to the Mint Canyon drainage
system on the site.
Section 303 of the federal Clean Water Act requires states to develop water
quality standards to protect the beneficial uses of receiving waters. In
accordance with California's Porter -Cologne Water Quality Act, the Regional
Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) of the State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB) are required to develop water quality objectives that ensure
each region meets the requirements of Clean Water Act Section 303.
Santa Clarita is within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles RWQCB, which
adopted water quality objectives in its Stonnwater Quality Management Plan
(SQMP). This SQMP is designed to ensure stormwater achieves compliance
with receiving water limitations. Thus, stormwater generated by a development
that complies with the SQMP does not exceed the limitations of receiving
waters and does not exceed water quality standards.
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, which is known as the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, regulates point source and
non -point source discharges to surface waters. Under this section, municipalities
are required to obtain permits for the water pollution generated by stormwater in
their jurisdiction. These permits are known as Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
Systems (MS4) permits. Stormwater and non-stormwater flows enter and are
conveyed through the MS4 and discharged to surface water bodies of the Los
Angeles region. These discharges are regulated under countywide waste
discharge requirements contained in Order No. R4-2012-0175 (NPDES Permit
60
Initial Study
Page 61 of 94
No. CAS004001, Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer System [MS4] Discharges Within the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles
County, Except Discharges Originating from the City of Long Beach MS4),
which was adopted November 8, 2012. Chapter 17.90 of the City's Unified
Development Code prescribes the requirements of NPDES compliance for all
grading plans.
The MS4 permit requires low impact development (LID) practices to be
implemented and requires submittal of a comprehensive LID Plan and analysis
to demonstrate compliance with the LID Standards Manual. Thus, the project is
required to prepare an LID Plan for review and approval by the City that
includes (1) feasibility of infiltration, including a percolation report, (2) source
control measures, (3) calculation of the Stormwater Quality Design Volume
which must be retained on-site, (4) discussion of the feasibility of stormwater
runoff harvest and use, (5) stormwater quality control measures, and
(6) proposed operation and maintenance plan. Given that the proposed project
includes an infiltration basin to improve regional water quality, the project
would achieve all MS4 and LID requirements.
As a land development project, the proposed project would add typical urban,
nonpoint-source pollutants to stormwater runoff. As discussed, stormwater
discharges containing urban pollutants are regulated by the countywide MS4
permit. Compliance with the MS4 permit requirements, including LID, would
ensure that the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact: The project would not install any groundwater
wells and would not otherwise directly withdraw any groundwater. In addition,
there are no known aquifer conditions at the project site or in the surrounding
area that could be affected by significant excavation or development of the
project. Therefore, the proposed project would not physically interfere with any
groundwater supplies.
Per the City's General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, the Santa
Clara River and its tributaries are the primary groundwater recharge areas for
the Santa Clarita Valley. The site's runoff currently flows into an engineered
storm drain system (including the Mint Canyon Channel) that empties into the
Santa Clara River approximately 1,000 feet downstream of the project site. The
proposed project would alter the drainage of the site by adding impermeable
surfaces; however, the project would not significantly reduce groundwater
recharge. Conversely, as discussed in Response a), above, the project includes
an infiltration basin that would increase groundwater recharge. Therefore, the
proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, and the project would have no
related significant impacts.
c) Less Than Significant Impact: Development projects that increase the
volume or velocity of surface water can result in an increase in erosion and
siltation. Increased surface water volume and velocity causes an increase in
siltation and sedimentation by increasing both soil/water interaction time and the
sediment load potential of water.
As previously discussed, the project proposes to redesign and improve the
existing Mint Canyon drainage channel to promote efficient flow within the
approximately 1,000 -foot segment that crosses the project site and allow
61
Initial Study
Page 62 of 94
expansion of the park area.
Currently, immediately upstream (northeast) of the site, the Mint Canyon
Channel is a buried/covered concrete box channel. As it flows into the northeast
corner of the site, it becomes an open concrete box channel, extending
approximately 200 linear feet into the site from Solamint Road (referred to
herein as the upper segment of the channel). The upper segment also includes a
maintenance access ramp from Solamint Road. After this 200 -foot open
concrete box segment, the channel becomes a soft -bottom drainage with earthen
sloped banks reinforced with wire revetment fencing. This soft -bottom segment
extends approximately 600 linear feet across the project site (referred to herein
as the middle segment of the channel). Over its final 200 linear feet on site, the
channel reverts back to an open concrete box design (referred to herein as the
channel's lower segment). Immediately south of the project site, the Mint
Canyon Channel flows under Soledad Canyon Road and remains an open
concrete box channel for approximately 1,000 linear feet until its confluence
with the Santa Clara River. The Mint Canyon Channel is currently maintained
by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District and is mostly devoid of any
vegetation.
As noted in the Project Description at the beginning of this report, the proposed
Project includes improvements to the Mint Canyon Channel, consisting of:
• Partially open/partially enclosed concrete channel, with the northern one-
quarter (approximately 200 linear feet) and the southern one-quarter
(approximately 200 linear feet) being an open, concrete lined rectangular
channel and the middle portion (approximately 600 linear feet) being an
enclosed box channel. Please refer to Figure 5, which illustrates this set of
improvements.
All channel improvements would be constructed in compliance with City of
Santa Clarita and Los Angeles County Flood Control District standards. The
project would line the existing soft -bottom portion of the channel with concrete,
thus reducing the channel's erosion and siltation potential. Similarly, the project
would convert the existing soft -bottom drainage ditch on site to an underground
drain pipe, which would reduce the potential for erosion and siltation from this
drainage. Therefore, the proposed project would not alter the drainage pattern of
the site or area in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation.
Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
d) Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed in Responses a) and c), above, the
proposed project would include an infiltration basin that would reduce the
volume of water flowing off of the project site. In addition, the proposed
community center and recreational improvements on the project site include a
drainage system that is required to comply with the MS4 permit to handle both
the runoff that currently flows to the site from surrounding development and the
increased runoff from the proposed impermeable surfaces on site. Therefore, the
project would not result in flooding on or off the project site, and the project
would cause no related significant impacts.
e) Less Than Significant Impact: The project is required to comply with the
City's engineering standards for the volume of water discharged in the storm
drain system and will comply with the City's Standard Urban Stormwater
Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) ordinance to ensure that stormwater flows are
properly treated before entering the storm drain system. Therefore, the proposed
project would not affect the capacity of the stormwater drainage system and
62
Initial Study
Page 63 of 94
would not create any source of polluted runoff.
I) Less Than Significant Impact: As noted above, the proposed project includes
an infiltration basin on site that would be a regional stormwater BMP and a
critical component to addressing the City's water quality treatment objectives.
Therefore, the proposed project is expected to improve water quality. In
addition, the proposed project would not be a point -source generator of water
pollutants. Compliance with the City's SUSMP ordinance would ensure that the
proposed project would not generate stormwater pollutants that would
substantially degrade water quality.
The project has the potential to generate short-term water pollutants during
construction, including sediment, trash, construction materials, and equipment
fluids. The countywide MS4 permit requires construction sites to implement
best management practices to reduce the potential for construction -induced
water pollutant impacts. These BMPs include methods to prevent contaminated
construction site stormwater from entering the drainage system and preventing
construction -induced contaminants from entering the drainage system. The MS4
identifies the following minimum requirements for construction sites in Los
Angeles County:
1. Sediments generated on the project site shall be retained using adequate
treatment control or structural BMPs.
2. Construction -related materials, wastes, spills, or residues shall be retained
at the project site to avoid discharge to streets, drainage facilities,
receiving waters, or adjacent properties by wind or runoff.
3. Non-stormwater runoff from equipment and vehicle washing and any
other activity shall be contained at the project site.
4. Erosion from slopes and channels shall be controlled by implementing an
effective combination of BMPs (as approved in Regional Board
Resolution No. 99-03), such as the limiting of grading scheduled during
the wet season, inspecting graded areas during rain events, planting and
maintenance of vegetation on slopes, and covering erosion susceptible
slopes.
Dischargers whose projects disturb 1 acre or more of soil, or whose projects
disturb less than 1 acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that
in total disturbs 1 acre or more, are required to obtain coverage under the
General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and
Land Disturbance Activity 2009-0009-DWQ.1, as amended by Order 2010-
0014-DWQ and Order 2012-0006-DWQ. Since the proposed project involves
greater than 1 acre of land disturbance, the project is required to submit to the
SWRCB a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the State's General
Construction Activity Storm Water Permit This NOI must include a stormwater
pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that outlines the BMPs that will be
incorporated during construction. These BMPs minimize construction -induced
water pollutants by controlling erosion and sediment, establishing waste
handling/disposal requirements, and providing non-stormwater management
procedures.
Compliance with both the MS4's construction site requirements and the State's
General Construction Permit, as well as implementing a SWPPP, ensures that
future construction activity on the project site would not significantly impact
water quality.
63
Initial Study
Page 64 of 94
g) No Impact: The project does not propose housing within a 100 -year Flood
Hazard Boundary. No impacts would occur.
h) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation: According to the City's
Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) Flood Zone Figure, the project site
is located in a High Risk Zone for flooding. No portion of the project site is
located in a mapped floodway (defined by FEMA as channel of a river or other
watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to
discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface
elevation more than a designated height), but is located within a floodplain (an
area of low-lying ground adjacent to a river, formed mainly of river sediments
and subject to flooding). Two drainages exist on-site. The Mint Canyon Channel
enters the property at the northeast corner and traverses the property in a
southerly direction generally along the easterly boundary of the property. A
storm drain pipe enters the site at the northwest comer and daylights to create a
drainage ditch that traverses the property in a southerly direction. This man-
made drainage ditch flows into the Mint Canyon Channel in the southeastern
portion of the site. Improvements to both of these drainages are proposed as part
of the project.
As previously discussed, structures currently exist on the project site. Three of
the existing structures are proposed to be removed as part of the project These
existing structures currently have the potential to redirect on-site flood flows.
Once these structures are removed and new structures are constructed, flood
flows may be redirected in a slightly different manner than under existing
conditions. To ensure that flows are not redirected in a manner that would
adversely affect surrounding areas, Mitigation Measure HYD -1 would be
implemented.
Mitigation Measure HYD -1: All drainage plans for the project must
demonstrate adequate conveyance and capacity for surface runoff, and BMPs
shall be implemented to slow runoff flows, avoid debris accumulation, and
provide opportunities for recharge. The project's drainage plans must
demonstrate that the project would not increase flood flows on surrounding
properties.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD -1, impacts would be less than
significant
i) Less Than Significant Impact: As previously discussed in Response h), above,
according to the City's Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) Flood Zone
Figure, the project site is located in a High Risk Zone for flooding. In order to
reduce the potential for on-site flooding, City Municipal Code Chapter
10.06.050 (Provisions for Flood Hazard Reduction) would require that the
finished floor of all buildings be elevated at a minimum of 1 foot above the 100 -
year base flood elevation. With implementation of the requirements identified in
Municipal Code Chapter 10.06.050, impacts would be less than significant.
j) No Impact: No bodies of water in the vicinity of the project site are capable of
producing a seiche or tsunami. Similarly, the project site is not in an area prone
to landslides, soil slips, or slumps. Therefore, the proposed project would not be
impacted by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
Less Than Significant Impact: The project would alter the site's
64
Initial Study
Page 65 of 94
patterns. However, as discussed above in Responses c) and d), compliance with
City engineering requirements and the City's SUSMP ordinance would ensure
proper design of the proposed drainage system. The project does not involve
grading or excavation into the groundwater table and would not place any
subterranean structures or foundations that would encroach into groundwater
aquifer. Consequently, groundwater flows would not be affected. Therefore, the
proposed project would not result in significant impacts from changes in the rate
of flow, currents, or the course and direction of surface water and groundwater.
1) Less Than Significant Impact: The project would not cause any other
significant impacts due to the modification of a wash, channel, creek, or river.
See Responses c) and d), above.
m (vii) Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed above in Responses a), c),
d), and e), the project is required to comply with the City's SUSMP ordinance,
the countywide MS4 permit, and the State's NPDES General Construction
Permit and is required to implement a SUSMP compliance plan and a
stormwater pollution prevention plan. Compliance with the requirements of the
Clean Water Act and the NPDES will ensure the proposed project would not
significantly impact stormwater management
X. LAND USE AND a) No Impact: The proposed project would not disrupt or physically divide an
established community, including a low-income or minority community. The
PLANNING subject property has a General Plan designation of Mixed Use — Corridor (IvlX-
C) and has a zoning designation of Soledad Corridor Plan, Mixed Use (CP) with
a Planned Development overlay zone on the portion of the site west of the Mint
Canyon Channel. The project site consists of 5 existing commercial buildings
and is primarily vacant. The project would construct a community center and
outdoor recreational amenities with associated parking and circulation
improvements. The proposed project also includes the creation of two pedestrian
bridges, a perimeter walking trail, and a bike lane along Sierra Highway. As
such, the proposed project would reduce barriers and obstructions for
pedestrians and cyclists. Therefore, the project would have no adverse impact
related to physically dividing a community
b) No Impact: The project site is not part of a specific plan area or any other plan
designed with the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Santa Clarita is not within the Coastal Zone. The project site has a General Plan
designation of Mixed Use, Corridor (MX -C) with a Planned Development
overlay zone on the portion of the site west of the Mint Canyon Channel, and is
zoned for Soledad Corridor Plan — Mixed Use. The proposed Community
Center and recreational amenities are allowed uses within the Soledad CP,
Mixed Use zone and said uses are complementary to the surrounding uses,
which include commercial, residential, and other neighborhood amenities (e.g.,
churches and educational facilities). Therefore, the proposed project would not
cause adverse environmental impacts due to conflicts with applicable land use
plans, policies, or regulations.
c) No Impact: As discussed in subsection IV, Biological Resources, Response f)
of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, the project site is not
within a habitat conservation plan (HCP), natural community conservation plan
(NCCP), or other approved environmental resource conservation plan.
Therefore, the project would not conflict with any adopted environmental
conservation plans, and the project would have no related impacts.
65
Initial Study
Page 66 of 94
XI. MINERAL AND a, b) No Impact: The project site is not within a mineral area identified on Exhibit
CO -2 (Mineral Resources) of the City's General Plan Conservation and Open
ENERGY Space Element and is not otherwise known to contain mineral resources.
RESOURCES Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource, and the project would have no related impacts.
c) Less Than Significant Impact: The project would utilize building materials
and human resources for construction of the project. Many of the resources used
in construction are nonrenewable, including manpower, sand, gravel, earth, iron,
steel, and hardscape materials. Other construction resources, such as lumber, are
slowly renewable. In addition, the project would commit energy and water
resources as a result of the construction, operation, and maintenance of the
proposed development. Much of the energy that would be utilized on site would
be generated through the combustion of fossil fuels, which are nonrenewable
resources.
Market -rate conditions encourage the efficient use of materials and manpower
during construction. Similarly, the energy and water resources that would be
used by the proposed project would be supplied by the regional utility
purveyors, which participate in various conservation programs. Furthermore,
there are no unique conditions that would require excessive use of nonrenewable
resources on site, and the project is expected to use energy or water resources in
the same manner as typical modem development. Therefore, the proposed
project would not use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner, and the project would have no related significant impacts.
XII. NOISE I EXISTING CONDITIONS
Stationary Sources
The project area is located within an urbanized area. The primary sources of
stationary noise in the project vicinity are urban -related activities (i.e., mechanical
equipment, commercial areas, parking areas, and pedestrians). The noise associated
with these sources may represent a single -event noise occurrence, short-term, or
long-term/continuous noise.
Mobile Sources
The majority of the existing noise in the project area is generated from vehicle
sources along Sierra Highway and Soledad Canyon Road.
Sensitive Receptors
Certain land uses are particularly sensitive to noise, including schools, hospitals,
rest homes, long-term medical and mental care facilities, and parks and recreation
areas. Residential areas are also considered noise sensitive, especially during the
nighttime hours. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are a mobile
home park adjacent to the eastern project boundary (east of the Mint Canyon
Channel) and apartments to the east across Solamint Road.
Noise Measurements
In order to quantify existing ambient noise levels in the project area, three noise
measurements were taken on January 17, 2017, refer to Table NOI-1, Noise
Measurements. The noise measurement sites were representative of typical existing
66
Initial Study
Page 67 of 94
67
noise exposure within and immediately adjacent to the project site. Ten-minute
measurements were taken, between 11:08 a.m. and 11:50 a.m. Short-term (Leq)
measurements are considered representative of the noise levels throughout the day.
Measurements were taken during off-peak traffic hours to characterize baseline
noise levels with without exposure to heavy traffic or noise -generating activities.
The measured noise levels range between 52.1 dBA Leg and 56.9 dBA Leg.
Meteorological conditions were clear skies, warm temperatures, with light wind
speeds (0 to 5 miles per hour), and low humidity. Noise monitoring equipment used
for the ambient noise survey consisted of a Larson Davis Model 820 sound level
meter. The monitoring equipment complies with applicable requirements of the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for sound level meters.
Table NOI-1
Noise Measurements
Site Location L, L„ L_ Peak Time
No. dBA dBA dBA dBA
Along the east side of Solamint
Road, in front of the Diamond
11:08
1
Park Apartments and
53.2
42.3
75.5
73.1
approximately 175 feet south of
a.m.
Dolan Way.
Along the east side of Solamint
11:21
2
Road, approximately 60 feet south
56.9
37.8
82.2
89.2
of Golden Rain Lane.
a.m.
Canyon Palms Mobile Home Park,
near the eastern boundary of the
11:38
3
project site. Approximately 360
52.1
44.9
63.7
72.4
feet north of Soledad Canyon
a.m.
Road.
Source: Michael Baker International, January 17, 2017.
a) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation
Land Use Noise Compatibility
The proposed project involves the development of a community center, which
will be classified as a neighborhood park for the purposes of this analysis. The
Noise Element in the City's General Plan (Exhibit N-8) identifies the City's
normally acceptable noise level for neighborhood park areas at 65 dBA. Based
on the City's Noise Contour Map (General Plan Exhibit N-6), the proposed
community center would be placed within a 60 dBA Contour area and thus in an
area acceptable for neighborhood park uses.
Short -Term Noise
Construction of the project would generate short-term noise. Examples of the
level of noise generated by construction equipment at 50 feet from the source is
presented in the Table NOI-2, Noise Levels Generated by Typical Construction
Equipment
67
Initial Study
Page 68 of 94
Table
Noise Levels Generated by
Type of Equipment
NOI-2
Typical Construction Equipment
Range of Suggested Sound
Sound Levels Levels for
Analysis
(dBA at 50 feet)
Pile driver (12,000-18,000
ft-Ib/blow)
81-96
93
Rock drill
83-99
96
Jackhammer
75-85
82
Pneumatic tools
78-88
85
Pumps
68-80
77
Dozer
85-90
88
Tractor
77-82
80
Concrete mixer
75-88
85
Front-end loader
86-90
88
Hydraulic backhoe
81-90
86
Hydraulic excavator
81-90
86
Grader
79-89
86
Air compressor
76-86
86
Truck
81-87
86
Source: EPA 1971
Noise levels decrease substantially with distance. Tractors, trucks, and graders
result in noise levels in the 80-86 dBA level at 50 feet.
Section 11.44.080 of the Municipal Code places the following limitations on
construction times for purposes of limiting noise impacts and the project will be
subject to this limitation:
No person shall engage in any construction work which requires a
building permit from the City on sites within three hundred (300) feet
of a residentially zoned property except between the hours of seven
a.m. to seven p.m. Monday through Friday and eight a.m. to six p.m. on
Saturday. Further, no work shall be performed on the following public
holidays: New Year's Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving,
Christmas, Memorial Day, and Labor Day.
Project construction is required to meet these standards, and the project poses no
unique conditions that require excessive noise to be generated during
construction, such as jackhammering or demolition. Therefore, the proposed
project would not cause any significant impacts from temporarily generating
noise during construction.
Periodic LACFCD maintenance activities within the Mint Canyon Channel
would continue to occur, within the relocated staging/storage area, generally
involving the same equipment for the same activities and at the same times of
the year. This would result in a minor level of noise from maintenance
machinery and vehicles that could affect the adjacent mobile home park and
nearby apartments, at levels similar to what occurs for maintenance of the
existing channel, which has more open/unlined area than the proposed channel.
Noise levels would be less than levels associated with project construction and
would be less than significant.
Lon1? Terrn Noise
Off -Site Operational Traffic Noise
68
Initial Study
Page 69 of 94
project would generate vehicle trips that may increase traffic noise levels in the
surrounding roadway areas.
Table NOI-3, Predicted Increases in Traffic Noise Levels -Existing plus Project
Conditions, shows the calculated roadway noise levels under existing traffic levels
compared to the condition with the project. In comparison to existing traffic noise
levels, the project would result in a predicted increase in traffic noise levels of
approximately 0.1 dBA at the maximum. For purposes of this analysis, a
substantial increase in noise levels is defined as an increase of 3.0 dB (a barely
perceptible increase) or greater.
Table NOI-3
Predicted Increases in Traffic Noise
Levels - Existing plus Project Conditions
La„ at 100 Feet from
Centerline of
Roadway Segment Roadway Increase
Threshold Impact Adjacent Land
Use
Without With
Project Project
Sierra Highway
Linda Vista Street to
Commercial/
Avalon Drive/American
63.3
63.3
0
3.0
No
Residential
Beaut Drive
Avalon Drive/American
Beauty Drive to Dolan
63.9
63.9
0
3.0
No
Residential
Way
Dolan Way to Soledad
64.3
64.3
0
3.0
No
Commercial
Canyon Road
Soledad Canyon Road to
Commercial/
Jakes Way
66.1
66.2
0.1
3.0
No
Residential
Jakes Way to SR -14
Commercial/
Ramps
66.3
66.3
0
3.0
No
Residential
Soledad Canyon Road
Whites Canyon Road to
65.6
65.5
-0.1
3.0
No
Commercial/
Shangri-La Drive
Residential
Shangri-La Drive to
Commercial/
Sierra Highway
65.8
65.8
0
3.0
No
Residential
Sierra Highway to
Commercial/
Solamint Road
645
.
.
645
0
30
.
No
Residential
Solamint Road to
Commercial/
Galeton Road/River
63.6
63.7
0.1
3.0
No
Residential
Circle
Galeton Road/River
Circle to Anne Freda
63.2
63.2
0
3.0
No
Residential
Street
Notes: Traffic noise levels were calculated using the FHWA roadway noise prediction model bared on
data obtained from the traffic analysis prepared for this project (see Appendix Ffor model output files).
As shown in Table NOI-2, predicted increases in traffic noise levels associated
with the project would be less than 3 dBA. Therefore, no significant long-term
traffic noise impacts are anticipated from the project.
On -Site Operational Noise
Operation of the project would generate noise from indoor and outdoor
amenities including community programs, classes, community events (e.g.,
farmers market, music programs, and fundraiser events) and private functions
(e.g., banquets and weddings). Title 11, Chapter 44, Noise Regulations of the
City's Municipal Code (Section 11.44.040) provides the following noise
production limitations:
69
Initial Study
Page 70 of 94
A. It shall be unlawful for any person within the city to produce or cause or
allow to be produced noise which is received on property occupied by
another person within the designated region, in excess of the following
levels, except as expressly provided otherwise herein:
Region Time
Sound Level dB
Residential zone a
65
Residential zone i ht
55
Commercial and manufacturinga
Jight
s0
Commercial and manufacturing
70
At the boundary line between a residential property and a commercial and
manufacturing ro ert , the noise level of the quieter zone shall be used.
B. Corrections to Noise Limits. The numerical limits given in Subsection A
above shall be adjusted by the following corrections, where the following
noise conditions exist:
Noise
Condition Correction (in dB)
(1) Re etitive impulsive noise
-5
2 Steady whine, screech or hum
-5
The following corrections apply to day only:
(3) Noise occurring more than 5 but less than 15
minutes per hour
+5
(4) Noise occurring more than 1 but less than 5
minutes per hour
+10
(5) Noise occurring less than 1 minute per hour
+20
The project proposes new community center facilities, outdoor recreation areas,
and parking facilities. Primary noise sources associated with these facilities are
mechanical equipment (i.e., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC]),
recreational noise, event noise, and parking lot noise.
Mechanical Equipment. The proposed project would require the use of HVAC
units for the indoor community center facilities. The HVAC systems would be
located at the proposed buildings (either inside or roof mounted) and typically
result in noise levels that average between 40 and 50 dBA Leg at 50 feet from
the equipment. Because the buildings would be located approximately 300 feet
from the closest sensitive receptors to the east, HVAC noise levels would be 34
dBA or less and would not exceed the City's noise standard (65 dBA in the
daytime and 55 dBA at night).
Communitv Center. The community center would include various rooms that
include classrooms, a catering and teaching kitchen, a fitness room, offices,
restrooms, and storage. The community center would also support the
gymnasium. Noise associated with these uses primarily consists of
conversations from groups of people and occasional cheering in the gymnasium.
Noise impacts to nearby sensitive receptors would be nominal, as the
community center is located approximately 300 feet away from the nearest
sensitive receptors, and would host indoor events. Therefore, impacts would be
less than significant.
Recreational Noise. The passive turf/open plan area would be approximately
150 feet away from the closest sensitive receptors. Recreational/playground
noise is typically 60 dBA at approximately 40 feet away (Edward L. Pack
Associates 2015). Recreational noise from the passive turf/open area would be
approximately 34 dBA at the closest sensitive receptors. Both of these noise
levels are within the City's standards. Impacts would be less than significant in
this regard.
70
The outdoor market/mercado (i.e., farmers market
Initial Study
Page 71 of 94
area) would be located along Sierra Highway, approximately 250 feet from the
closest sensitive receptors to the east. The primary source noise of noise
associated with this use would be from groups of people congregating in the
area. Noise generated by groups of people (i.e., crowds) is dependent on several
factors including vocal effort, impulsiveness, and the random orientation of the
crowd members. Crowd noise is estimated at 60 dBA at one meter (3.28 feet)
away for raised normal speaking (Hayne, Rumble, and Mee 2006). This noise
level would have a +5 dBA adjustment for the impulsiveness of the noise
source, and a -3 dBA adjustment for the random orientation of the crowd
members (Hayne, Rumble, and Mee 2006). Therefore, crowd noise would be
approximately 62 dBA at one meter from the source. Noise has a decay rate due
to distance attenuation, which is calculated based on the Inverse Square Law for
sound propagation. Based on the Inverse Square Law, sound levels decrease by
6 dBA for each doubling of distance from the source (Harris 1994). Noise from
this area would attenuate to 24 dBA at the closes receptors. Impacts would be
less than significant.
Event Stage. The various activities at the community center could also involve
events with amplified live or recorded music. Amplified music is typically 88
dBA at 20 feet and would be 67 dBA at the closest receptors (located
approximately 230 feet east of the event stage). As such, noise levels have the
potential to exceed the City's noise standards. Therefore, Mitigation Measure
NOI-1 is required to ensure that amplified noise sources (speakers, bandstands,
etc.) are limited to 86 dBA at 20 feet during the day. Additionally, Mitigation
Measure NOI-1 prohibits amplified music after 9:00 p.m., unless the volume of
the amplification system is adjusted to not exceed 76 dBA at 20 feet from the
source. This adjustment would ensure that noise levels do not exceed the City's
nighttime standard at the property line. Impacts would be less than significant
with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1.
Parking. Noise associated with parking lots is typically not of sufficient volume
to exceed community noise standards, which are based on a time -averaged scale
such as the CNEL scale. Also, noise would primarily remain on-site and would
be intermittent (during peak -events). However, the instantaneous maximum
sound levels generated by a car door slamming, engine starting up, and car pass-
bys may be an annoyance to adjacent noise -sensitive receptors. Parking lot noise
can also be considered a "stationary" noise source. Estimates of the maximum
noise levels associated with some parking lot activities are presented in Table
NOI-4, Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Parking Lots.
The project would include a parking lot on the northern portion of the project
site and a parking lot on the southern portion of the project site. The noise
generated in the parking lot would be at a distance of approximately 130 and
150 feet from the nearest sensitive receptors in the north and south, respectively.
Additionally, parking lot noise currently occurs at the project site from the
existing uses. Although the parking lot is proposed to expand, noise associated
with parking activities would not expose sensitive receptors to noise levels in
excess of the City's Noise Standards as the noise would be reduce to below 55
dBA from distance attenuation. Noise would also be partially masked by
71
Initial Study
Page 72 of 94
72
landscaping and intervening topography. Additionally, the noise levels in Table
NOI-4 are event noise levels and would not occur for long enough periods of
time to result in an exceedance of the City's time -averaged standards. Therefore,
the sensitive receptors would not be exposed to excessive noise from parking
areas. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Prior to occupancy of the community
center/park, the City shall develop and implement a Noise Control Plan for
outdoor events that have live or recorded amplified music. The Noise
Control Plan shall contain the following elements:
• Amplification systems that would be used during the daytime (7:00
a.m. to 9:00 p.m.) shall include and utilize a processor to control the
maximum output that the speakers can reach. Noise levels during this
period shall not exceed 86 dBA at 20 feet from the source.
• Amplification systems that would be used after 9:00 p.m. shall
include and utilize a processor to control the maximum output that the
speakers can reach. Noise levels during this period shall not exceed 76
dBA at 20 feet from the source.
• The contact telephone number and email addresses of the appropriate
Parks Division representatives shall be posted at each facility entrance
for neighbors to lodge noise complaints or other concerns. Complaints
shall be addressed in a diligent and responsive manner.
b) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation: Project construction would
have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary groundbome
vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and the
operations involved. Vibration generated by construction equipment spreads
through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance.
Since there are no established vibration standards in the City of Santa Clarita,
Caltrans's (2002) recommended standard of 0.2 inches per second peak particle
velocity with respect to the prevention of structural damage for normal buildings
is used. This is also the level at which vibrations may begin to annoy people in
buildings. Table NOI-5, Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels,
displays vibration levels for typical construction equipment.
Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels
Peak Particle Velocity Peak Particle Peak Particle
Equipment at 30 Feet Velocity at 25 Feet Velocity at 5 Feet
(inches/second) (inches/second) (inches/second)
Large Bulldozer
0.068 0.089 0.445
Loaded Trucks
0.076 0.076 0.38
Vibratory Compactor/
Roller
0.16 0.210 2.348
Rock Breaker
0.045 0.059 0.295
Jackhammer
0.027 0.035 0.175
Small Bulldozer/Tractors
0.002 0.003 0.015
Source: FTA 2006,Caltrans 2004
It is acknowledged that construction activities would occur throughout the
project site and would not be concentrated at the point closest to the nearest
structure. The nearest off-site structures to any of the construction areas include
commercial buildings 5 feet to the north. Based on the vibration levels presented
in Table NOI-5, ground vibration generated by heavy-duty equipment would be
up to 0.445 inches per second peak particle velocity at 5 feet. Therefore, the use
72
Initial Study
Page 73 of 94
of some construction equipment would result in a groundbome vibration
velocity level above 0.2 inches per second at the nearest off-site structure.
Although this would be a temporary impact and would cease completely when
construction ends, the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2 is required
to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Once operational, the project
would not be a source of groundbome vibration. Impacts would be less than
significant
Mitigation Measure N0I-2: The following measures shall be required
during construction of the proposed project:
Applicable project plans and specifications shall prohibit large
bulldozers, large loaded trucks, rock breakers, and vibratory
compactor/rollers from being operated on the project site within 30
feet of a structure.
• All construction equipment on construction sites shall be operated as
far away from vibration -sensitive sites as reasonably possible.
c) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation: See Response a), Long -Terni
Noise, above.
d) Less Than Significant Impact: See Response a), Short -Term Noise, above.
e) No Impact: There are no public use airports in Santa Clarita, and no portion of
the city is within an airport land use plan.
I) No Impact: There are no private airstrips in Santa Clarita.
XIII. POPULATION a) Less Than Significant Impact: Growth -inducing impacts are caused by those
characteristics of a project that foster or encourage population and/or economic
AND HOUSING growth. These characteristics include adding residential units or businesses,
expanding infrastructure, and generating employment opportunities. The project
would involve the development of recreational uses and a community center and
would not directly induce growth through the addition of housing or businesses.
The proposed facility is intended to meet the existing recreation and community
services needs of the Canyon Country community. Therefore, although the
proposed project would add additional recreational amenities in Santa Clarita, it
would not cause significant growth -inducing impacts.
The project will also entail roadway and utility improvements. These proposed
improvements are sized to serve the project and are not oversized in a way that
would encourage off-site development. The proposed roadway enhancements
would alleviate existing vehicular circulation deficiencies and would improve
multimodal transportation opportunities. None of the proposed new utility or
roadway facilities would extend into or through any land that is currently
inaccessible or underserved. Therefore, these improvements are not growth
inducing.
Since the project is designed to meet the existing needs of the community and
the infrastructure improvements included in the project are not oversized, the
project would not have significant growth -inducing impacts.
b) No Impact: The project site currently consists of both vacant land and
commercial uses. The project site does not currently contain any housing.
Therefore, the proposed project would not displace any housing and would have
73
Initial Study
Page 74 of 94
74
no associated impacts.
c) No Impact: The project site currently consists of both vacant land and
commercial uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not displace any people
and would have no associated impacts.
i) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would not result in the
XIV. PUBLIC
need for additional new or altered fire protection services and would not alter
SERVICES
acceptable service ratios or response times. The project site is primarily served
by Los Angeles County Fire Department Station 107, which includes a three-
person engine company and a two -person paramedic squad. The project does
not propose any structures or uses that cannot be adequately served by the Fire
Department's existing facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not
significantly impact fire protection services.
ii) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would not result in the
need for additional new or altered police protection services and would not alter
acceptable service ratios or response times. The proposed project would develop
a community center and recreational amenities, and, in tum, could increase the
demand for police services, which are provided by the Los Angeles County
Sheriffs Department. The project site is primarily served by the Santa Clarita
Valley Station located at 23740 Magic Mountain Parkway, approximately 5.5
miles west of the project site. According to the City's General Plan Safety
Element, in 2008, the station has 242 budgeted personnel, including deputies,
sergeants, and support staff. Equipment and services provided in Santa Clarita
include 24-hour designated county cars, helicopters, search and rescue, mounted
posse, and emergency operation centers.
iii)No Impact: The project would be within the Sulphur Springs Union School
District for elementary school and the William S. Hart School District for junior
high and high school. However, the proposed project would not develop any
new residential dwellings and thus would not increase the population of school -
aged children served by either school district. Therefore, the proposed project
would not impact school services.
iv)No Impact: The proposed project would not contribute new residences to the
area that would lead to an increase in the use of the local and regional parks
systems. Conversely, the proposed project would develop additional park
amenities for both local and regional residents. Therefore, the proposed project
would have no adverse impact on park services.
v) No Impact: The project would not result in the need for new or expanded
public facilities. The proposed project would not contribute new residences to
the area that would lead to an increase in the use of the local library system.
Therefore, the proposed project would have no adverse impact on library
services or other public facilities.
74
Initial Study
Page 75 of 94
XIV. RECREATION a) No Impact: The proposed development involves indoor and outdoor amenities
that would be open to the public for recreational activities, community
programs, classes, community events (e.g. farmers market, music programs,
fundraiser events), and private functions (e.g., banquets and weddings). The
proposed project would not construct any new residences. Santa Clarita has two
regional parks, Central Park and the Santa Clarita Sports Complex/Aquatics
Center. Project implementation would not result increase the demand for these
or any other off-site recreational facilities. As such, the proposed project is not
expected to increase the use of off-site public parks. Therefore, the project
would have a less than significant impact to the recreational facilities in Santa
Clarita and would not contribute to the physical deterioration of any existing
recreational facilities.
b) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation: The proposed development
involves indoor and outdoor amenities that would be open to the public for
recreational activities, community programs, classes, community events (e.g.
farmers market, music programs, fundraiser events), and private functions (e.g.,
banquets and weddings). The project includes the implementation of new
recreational facilities, however, as demonstrated in this document, project
implementation is not expected to have any significant adverse physical effect
on the environment after the implementation of the mitigation measures
included in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Therefore, the
project would have a less than significant impact on the environment from the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities after mitigation.
XVI A Traffic Impact Analysis was completed for the project by Michael Baker
International in May 2017. This study is included in this Initial Study as Appendix
TRANSPORTATION/ G.
TRAFFIC
a) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation: The Traffic Impact Analysis
(TIA) was prepared based on the City of Santa Clarita's traffic study
requirements and is consistent with the Congestion Management Plan (CMP)
for Los Angeles County. The traffic study analyzed weekday AM, weekday PM,
and Saturday midday peak -hour conditions for existing and Opening Year 2019
conditions with and without the proposed project. The Opening Year 2019
conditions were forecast based on an annual growth rate of 2.8 percent, per the
CMP general traffic volume growth factor, as well as adding traffic generated
by other cumulative developments in the area.
Construction
Construction impacts are not expected to result in changes to levels of service
(LOS) in the vicinity of the project site. Because of the site's limited size, in
addition to the limited duration of construction, it is not anticipated that there
would be sufficient construction -related traffic to impact traffic flows in the
area. In addition, as noted in the project description, the City would establish a
Construction Traffic Management Plan (TMP) prior to the construction of any
improvements in accordance with standard City procedures. The TMP would
require prior notices, adequate sign -posting, detours, phased construction, and
temporary driveways where necessary for adequate access and traffic flow.
Operations
Under 2016 conditions, all study intersections are operating at an acceptable
LOS D or better, with the exception of Sierra Highway at Dolan Way, which is
operating at LOS E in the AM peak hour and LOS F in the PM peak hour, and
Sierra Highway at Soledad Canyon Road, which is operating at a LOS E in the
PM peak hour.
75
Initial Study
Page 76 of 94
Existing plus Project Intersection Analysis
The proposed project would generate approximately 964 new weekday daily
trips, with 115 new weekday AM peak -hour trips and 294 weekday new PM
peak -hour trips. On weekends, the project will generate approximately 1,045
new Saturday daily trips with 376 new Saturday midday peak -hour trips.
Table TRF -1, Existing plus Project Conditions Intersection and Impact Analysis
Summary, summarizes the weekday AM, weekday PM, and Saturday midday
peak -hour intersection operations analysis results for Existing plus Project (EP)
conditions, based on existing geometry, plus the project's proposed addition of a
westbound right tum lane at the intersection of Sierra Highway at Soledad
Canyon Road (#1).
As shown in Table TRF -1, all study intersections are projected to operate at
LOS D or better, except for the following two intersections:
Sierra Highway at Dolan Way —LOS E (AM, LOS F (PM and midday)
• Sierra Highway at Soledad Canyon Road —LOSE (PM)
Table TRF -1 shows that the project would contribute to a significant impact at
these two intersections for Existing plus Project conditions based on the City's
threshold criteria. Mitigation Measure TRA -1 requires the installation of
improvements to both intersections, which would reduce the project's impacts to a
less than significant level.
In addition, on-site improvements are needed to accommodate the project access
at the following driveways:
Sierra Highway at South Project Driveway
• Westbound stop sign
• Westbound right tum lane
• Sierra Highway at North Project Driveway
• Westbound stop sign
• Westbound right tum lane
• Solamint Road at Project Driveway
• Eastbound stop sign
• Eastbound all -way lane
• Piccola Driveway at Dolan Way
• Northbound stop sign
• Northbound all -way lane
These project driveway requirements are included in Mitigation Measure
TRA -2.
Opening Year 2019 with Project Intersection Analysis
Table TRF -2, Opening Year 2019 Conditions Intersection and Impact Analysis
Summary, summarizes the weekday AM, weekday PM, and Saturday midday
peak -hour intersection operations analysis results for Opening Year 2019 with
Project conditions, based on existing and initial intersection geometry.
As shown in Table TRF -2, all study intersections are projected to operate at
76
Initial Study
Page 77 of 94
• Sierra Highway at Soledad Canyon Road — LOS E (midday), LOS F (AM
and PM)
• Sierra Highway at Dolan Way —LOS F (AM, PM, and midday)
• Sierra Highway at Via Princessa — LOS E (AM)
• Whites Canyon Road at Soledad Canyon Road — LOS F (AM), LOS E
(PM)
The intersection of Sierra Highway at the North Project Driveway (#9) is a new
project access point, and it replaces the existing driveway for the commercial
building that would be demolished with project implementation.
Table TRF -2 also shows that the project would contribute to a significant
project impact at two study intersections for Opening Year 2019 conditions,
based on the City's threshold criteria. Additional off-site roadway
improvements are recommended at the following intersection to mitigate the
traffic impact:
• Sierra Highway at Soledad Canyon Road
• Provide westbound right tum lane (part of the project development)
• Sierra Highway at Dolan Way
• Restrict westbound left turn
Based on the above information, Mitigation Measures TRA -1 and TRA -2 would
be required.
Mitigation Measure TRA -1: The following off-site improvements are
required to mitigate the project's traffic impacts:
• Sierra Highway at Soledad Canyon Road
• Provide westbound right tum lane (part of the project
development)
• Sierra Highway at Dolan Way
• Restrict westbound left -tum
Mitigation Measure TRA -2: To ensure proper traffic control and flow at
project driveways, the following improvements are required:
• Sierra Highway at South Project Driveway
• Westbound stop sign
• Westbound right tum lane
• Sierra Highway at North Project Driveway
• Westbound stop sign
• Westbound right tum lane
• Solamint Road at Project Driveway
• Eastbound stop sign
• Eastbound all -way lane
• Piccola Driveway at Dolan Way
• Northbound stop sign
• Northbound all -way lane
With the implementation of Mitigation Measures TRA -1 and TRA -2, impacts
would be less than significant
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation: As discussed in
77
Initial Study
Page 78 of 94
above, the proposed project will contribute significant impacts at study
intersections. However with the implementation of Mitigation Measures TRA -1
and TRA -2, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
c) No Impact: The project site is not within an airport land use plan or within 2
miles of a public airport or public use airport. There are no airports in Santa
Clarita. Consequently, the proposed project would not affect any airport
facilities and would not cause a change in the directional patterns of aircraft.
Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact to air traffic patterns.
d) No Impact: The project has been evaluated by the City's Traffic Division. The
project's circulation design has been found to not contain any hazardous
conditions. In addition, the project's circulation design meets the City's
engineering standards. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase
hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use and would have no
associated impacts.
e) Less Than Significant Impact: The project's ingress/egress and circulation are
required to meet the Los Angeles County Fire Department's standards, which
ensure new developments provide adequate access for emergency vehicles. The
project site and surrounding roadway network do not pose any unique conditions
that raise concerns for emergency access, such as narrow, winding roads or dead-
end streets. Thus, standard engineering practices are expected to achieve the Fire
Department's standards. Furthermore, final project plans are subject to review and
approval by the Fire Department to ensure that the site's access complies with all
Fire Department ordinances and policies. With the required compliance with all
Fire Department ordinances and policies, the project would not cause significant
impacts due to inadequate emergency access.
During construction of the proposed improvements within the existing right-of-
way, temporary lane closure and/or rerouting is possible. Disruption during
construction would be minimized with implementation of a Construction Traffic
Management Plan (TMP), to be established by the City prior to construction of
any improvements in accordance with standard City procedures. The TMP
would require prior notices, adequate sign -posting, detours, phased construction,
and temporary driveways where necessary to reduce construction -related
impacts that may result from the proposed project Therefore, the project would
have no significant impacts related to emergency access.
t) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation: The proposed project is
served by City of Santa Clarita Transit. Bus routes that serve the project site
include Route 5, 6, 12, 101, 626, 628, 629, and 632. The proposed project would
not directly or indirectly cause City of Santa Clarita Transit to change its service
to the project area. The proposed project would result in significant impacts to
one of the identified study intersections, and these transit services would
experience a delay in service due to traffic generated by the proposed project.
However, as discussed above, the implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA -1
would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
In addition, the proposed project would include sidewalk, curb, and gutter
improvements along the perimeter of the project site, and a Class II bikeway is
proposed along the Sierra Highway project frontage. The proposed project also
includes a pedestrian bridge across Soledad Canyon Road just west of the Mint
Canyon Channel. No additional mitigation measures would be required to
reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
78
Initial Study
Page 79 of 94
Table TRF -1
Existing plus Project Conditions Intersection and Impact Analysis Summary
Ir
(1)
(2)
(3)
Existing
Existing plus
Significant
Intersection
Conditions
Project Conditions
Project Impact
AM
PM
MD
AM
PM
MD
Increase
Project
No.
Name
T*
YP
vic
LOS
V/C
LOS
V/C
LOS
V/C
LOS
V/C
LOS
Vic
LOS
AM
PM
MD
Impact
Delay`
Delay`
Delay`
Delay`
Delay`
Delay
Sierra Hwy/Soledad Cyn
1
TS
0.801
D
0.883
D
0.735
C
0.803
D
0.901
E
0.754
C
0.002
0.018
0.019
Yes
• With WB Right Turn
Lane Addition
TS
0.798
C
0.862
D
0.737
C
-0.003
0.021
0.002
No
2
Sierra Hwy/Dolm Way
CSS
39.4
E
387.7
F
40.9
E
44.4
E
686.1
F
70.0
F
5.0
298.4
29.1
• WithRight-Turn-OnlyCSS
Restriction
11.0
B
21.2
C
12.6
B
-28.4
-366.5
-28.3
No
SRollamint Rd/Soledad Cyn
3
TS
0.545
A
0.464
A
0.438
A
0.561
A
0.532
A
0.527
A
0.016
0.068
0.089
No
4
Solamint Rd/Dolan Way
CSS
8.1
A
7.9
A
7.8
A
8.1
A
7.9
A
7.8
A
0.0
0.0
0.0
No
Topper's Pizza -Boot Barn
5
Plaza/Soledad Cyn Rd
CSS
9.0
A
10.3
B
10.4
B
9.0
A
10.4
B
10.6
B
0.0
0.1
0.2
No
Santa Clara River Bridge
6
Median/Soledad Cyn Rd
CSS
10.6
B
14.3
B
11.2
B
10.6
B
14.4
B
11.3
B
0.0
0.1
0.1
No
ViejaDwy/Soledad
7
CynCasa
CSS
0.0
A
14.8
B
15.4
C
0.0
A
15.4
C
16.2
C
0.0
0.6
0.8
No
Sierra Hwy/Topper's Pizza
8
Dwy-South Project Dwy
CSS
10.6
B
15.7
C
11.4
B
10.9
B
16.3
C
12.0
B
0.3
0.6
0.6
No
SSiiew�a Hwy/North Project
9
CSS
20.5
C
24.2
C
13.3
B
10.2
B
15.9
C
11.5
B
-10.3
-8.3
-1.8
No
9oollammt Rd/North Project
10
CSS
0.0
A
0.0
A
0.0
A
9.1
A
8.9
A
9.1
A
9.1
8.9
9.1
No
11
Piccola Dwy/Dolm Way
CSS
9.6
A
9.8
A
9.3
A
9.6
A
10.4
B
10.2
B
0.0
0.6
0.9
No
12
Sierra Hwy/Jakes Way
TS
0.594
A
0.707
C
0.512
A
0.601
B
0.722
C
0.530
A
0.007
0.015
0.018
No
Hwy/SR-14 NB Off-
13
Ramp
TS
13.7
B
16.2
B
14.7
B
13.7
B
16.4
B
14.9
B
0.0
0.2
0.2
No
14
1 Sierra HwyNia Princessa
TS
0.657
B
0.632
B
0.605
B
0.657
B
0.640
B
0.611
B
0.000
0.008
0.006
No
SR -14 SB On-Ramp/Via
15
Princessa
CSS
0.0
A
0.0
A
0.0
A
0.0
A
0.0
A
0.0
A
0.0
0.0
0.0
No
79
Initial Study
Page 80 of 94
Notes
* Intersection Type: TS= Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross -Street Stop
' Signalized Intersections: Intersection Capacity Utilization OCU) Analysis Method, Volume/Capacity (V/C) Ratio.
Unsignalized Intersections: Highway Capacity Manual 03CM) Analysis Method, Average Delay (seconds per vehicle).
z Impacts at intersections are considered to be significantwhen the following changes in the volume -to -capacity N/C) ratios occurs between the "without project' and the "with project'
conditions, and operating at LOS E or worse:
Level of Service Change in V/C
D > 0.02
E, F > 0.01
ZE
(1)
(2)
(3)
Existing
Existing plus
Significant
Intersection
Conditions
Project Conditions
Project Impact
AM
PM
MD
AM
PM
MD
Increase
Project
No.
Name
T*
YP
vic
LOS
v/C
LOS
v/C
LOS
v/C
LOS
v/C
LOS
v/C
LOS
AM
PM
MD
Impact
Delay`
Delay`
Delay`
Delay`
Delay`
Delay
Sh gri-LaDr/Soledad Cyn
16
Rd
TS
0.747
C
0.597
A
0.534
A
0.748
C
0.603
B
0.538
A
0.001
0.006
0.004
No
Whii esdCyn Rd/Soledad
17
TS
0.822
D
0.749
C
0.760
C
0.821
D
0.753
C
0.759
C
-0.001
0.004
-0.001
No
Sierra Hwy/Avalon Dr -
18
American Beauty Dr
TS
0.485
A
0.550
A
0.334
A
0.491
A
0.554
A
0.324
A
0.006
0.004
-0.010
No
19
Sierra Hwy/Linda Vista St
TS
0.360
A
0.445
A
0.234
A
0.363
A
0.454
A
0.257
A
0.003
0.009
0.023
No
Galeton Rd -River
20
TS
0.578
A
0.607
B
0.366
A
0.583
A
0.611
B
0.386
A
0.005
0.004
0.020
No
Cir/Soledad Cyn Rd
Freda St/Soledad Cyn
21
Rd
TS
0.563
A
0.485
A
0.404
A
0.570
A
0.491
A
0.419
A
0.007
0.006
0.015
No
Notes
* Intersection Type: TS= Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross -Street Stop
' Signalized Intersections: Intersection Capacity Utilization OCU) Analysis Method, Volume/Capacity (V/C) Ratio.
Unsignalized Intersections: Highway Capacity Manual 03CM) Analysis Method, Average Delay (seconds per vehicle).
z Impacts at intersections are considered to be significantwhen the following changes in the volume -to -capacity N/C) ratios occurs between the "without project' and the "with project'
conditions, and operating at LOS E or worse:
Level of Service Change in V/C
D > 0.02
E, F > 0.01
ZE
Initial Study
Page 81 of 94
Table TRF -2
Opening Year 2019 Conditions Intersection and Impact Analysis Summary
a]
(1)
(2)
(3)
Opening Year 2019
Opening Year 2019
Significant
Intersection
Without Project Conditions
With Project Conditions
Project Impact
AM
PM
MD
AM
PM
MD
Increase
Project
No.
Name
T*
YP
V/C
LOS
V/C
LOS
V/C
LOS
V/C
LOS
V/C
LOS
V/C
LOS
AM
PM
MD
Impact'
Delay`
Delay`
Delay`
Delay`
Delay`
Delay
Sierra Hwy/Soledad Cyn
1
TS
1.103
F
1.184
F
0.938
E
1.108
F
1.213
F
0.971
E
0.005
0.029
0.033
Yes
• With WB Right Tum
Lane Addition
TS
1.084
F
1.136
F
0.898
D
-0.019
-0.048
-0.040
No
2
Sierra Hwy/Dolm Way
CSS
1661.6
F
9172.1
F
1051.6
F
1853.0
F
1853.0
F
1729.0
F
191.4
6693.9
677.4
• WithRight-Turn-OnlyCSS
Restriction
16.4
C
99.2
F
19.8
C
-1645.2
-9072.9
-1031.8
No
SRollamint Rd/ Soledad Cyn
3
TS
0.645
B
0.589
A
0.547
A
0.660
B
0.658
B
0.637
B
0.015
0.069
0.090
No
4
Solamint Rd/Dolan Way
CSS
8.2
A
8.0
A
7.9
A
8.2
A
8.0
A
7.9
A
0.0
0.0
0.0
No
Topper's Pizza -Boot Barn
5
Plaza/
CSS
9.6
A
9.0
A
8.8
A
9.6
A
9.0
A
8.8
A
0.0
0.0
0.0
No
Soledad Cyn Rd
Santa Clara River Bridge
6
Median/
CSS
13.0
B
17.2
C
15.1
C
13.2
B
17.4
C
15.2
C
0.2
0.2
0.1
No
Soledad Cyn Rd
Casa Vieja Dwy/
7
Soledad Cyn Rd
CSS
0.0
A
20.4
C
20.7
C
0.0
A
21.3
C
21.9
C
0.0
0.9
1.2
No
Sierra Hwy/ Topper's
8
Pizza Dwy-South Project
CSS
14.4
B
30.6
D
15.4
C
14.9
C
30.8
D
16.3
C
0.5
0.2
0.9
No
Dwy
SSiiew�a Hwy/North Project
9
CSS
27.7
D
76.6
F
21.5
C
13.7
B
29.9
D
15.8
C
-14.0
-46.7
-5.7
No
9olammt Rd/North Project
10
ol
CSS
0.0
A
0.0
A
0.0
A
9.1
A
9.0
A
9.2
A
9.1
9.0
9.2
No
11
Piccola Dwy/Dohm Way
CSS
9.7
A
9.9
A
9.4
AM9.7A
10.6NBB10.4
B
0.0
0.7
1.0
No
12
Sierra Hwy/Jakes Way
TS
0.741
C
0.880
D
0.629
B
C
0.8960.646
B
0.000
0.016
0.017
N13
SierraHwy/SR-14NB
Off -Ramp
.B
26.2
C
16.8
BB
27.816.9
B
0.0
1.6
0.1
No
a]
Initial Study
Page 82 of 94
Notes
* Intersection Type: TS= Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross -Street Stop
' Signalized Intersections: Intersection Capacity Utilization OCU) Analysis Method, Volume/Capacity (V/C) Ratio.
Unsignalized Intersections: Highway Capacity Manual 03CM) Analysis Method, Average Delay (seconds per vehicle).
Impacts at intersections are considered to be significantwhen the following changes in the volume -to -capacity (V/C) ratios occurs between the "without project" and the "with project" conditions,
and operating at LOS E or worse:
Level of Service Change in V/C
D > 0.02
E, F > 0.01
M
(1)
(2)
(3)
Opening Year 2019
Opening Year 2019
Significant
Intersection
Without Project Conditions
With Project Conditions
Project Impact
AM
PM
MD
AM
PM
MD
Increase
Project
No.
Name
T*
YP
v/C
LOS
v/C
LOS
v/C
LOS
v/C
LOS
v/C
LOS
v/C
LOS
AM
PM
MD
Impact
Delay`
Delay`
Delay`
Delay`
Delay`
Delay
14
Sierra HwyNia Princessa
TS
0.912
E
0.825
D
0.749
C
0.912
E
0.826
D
0.750
C
0.000
0.001
0.001
No
SR -14 SB On-Ramp/Via
15
Princessa
CSS
0.0
A
0.0
A
0.0
A
0.0
A
0.0
A
0.0
A
0.0
0.0
0.0
No
Shangri-La Dr/
16
Soledad Cyn Rd
TS
0.864
D
0.713
C
0.627
B
0.865
D
0.720
C
0.631
B
0.001
0.007
0.004
No
Whites Cyn Rd/
17
Soledad Cyn Rd
TS
1.052
F
0.925
E
0.896
D
1.051
F
0.929
E
0.896
D
-0.001
0.004
0.000
No
Sierra Hwy/Avalon Dr -
18
American Beauty Dr
TS
0.804
D
0.851
D
0.510
A
0.809
D
0.855
D
0.516
A
0.005
0.004
0.006
No
SielraHwy/
19
Linda Vista St
TS
0.694
B
0.740
C
0.412
A
0.701
C
0.749
C
0.422
A
0.007
0.009
0.010
No
onRd-River
20
TS
0.681
B
0.736
C
0.466
A
0.685
B
0.739
C
0.486
A
0.004
0.003
0.020
No
Cir/Soledad Cyn Rd
Cir/S
Anne Freda St/
21
TS
0.698
B
0.646
B
0.550
A
0.705
C
0.652
B
0.565
A
0.007
0.006
0.015
No
Soledad Cyn Rd
Notes
* Intersection Type: TS= Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross -Street Stop
' Signalized Intersections: Intersection Capacity Utilization OCU) Analysis Method, Volume/Capacity (V/C) Ratio.
Unsignalized Intersections: Highway Capacity Manual 03CM) Analysis Method, Average Delay (seconds per vehicle).
Impacts at intersections are considered to be significantwhen the following changes in the volume -to -capacity (V/C) ratios occurs between the "without project" and the "with project" conditions,
and operating at LOS E or worse:
Level of Service Change in V/C
D > 0.02
E, F > 0.01
M
Initial Study
Page 83 of 94
XVII. TRIBAL On November 16 and November 30, 2016, Michael Baker sent letters/emails
describing the project, with maps depicting the project site, to the Native American
CULTURAL contacts on the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Los Angeles
RESOURCES County contact list asking for any information or concerns regarding tribal cultural
resources within the project area. Michael Baker followed up on consultation by
emailing and calling regarding the original consultation request on November 30,
2016, or December 13, 2016. One response was received from the Fernandeno
Tataviam Band of Mission Indians. See Appendix C for the consultation log.
a) No Impact. As discussed in the prior response to issue V.a), no historic
resources have been identified on the project site.
b) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. In their response to the
City's request for consultation under AB 52, the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of
Mission Indians indicated that the project site is considered to be of High
Sensitivity concerning potential tribal cultural resources. This was based on its
Project Sensitivity Assessment Point System. Key factors in this determination
include proximity to a Tataviam village and ancestors in Placenta Canyon, and
proximity to the Santa Clara River, along which Tataviam ancestors are known
to have inhabited. The Tribe requested and the City has agreed to engage with
the Tataviam Band to conduct monitoring of soil disturbing activities that are
five feet or more in depth, to help identify and recover possible tribal cultural
resources that might be uncovered during those construction activities. This
measure would avoid significant impacts to potential tribal cultural resources.
This agreement will be implemented through Mitigation Measure TCR -1,
below.
Mitigation Measure TCR -1: All soil disturbing activities performed on
the Project Site at five feet or deeper shall be monitored by a professional
Native American monitor.
XVIII. UTILITIES a) No Impact: The project proposes developing public recreational uses. None of
the proposed uses would generate atypical wastewater such as industrial or
AND SERVICE agricultural effluent. All wastewater generated by the proposed project is
SYSTEMS expected to be domestic sewage. Since the project would not generate atypical
wastewater, the project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements.
The project would have no associated impacts.
b) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed development would increase the
demand for water and wastewater service. However, as discussed in Responses
d) and e), below, the increase in water/wastewater service demand is minimal in
comparison to the existing service areas of the water and wastewater service
purveyors, and the facilities currently maintained by the service purveyors are
adequate to serve the proposed increase in demand. The only water and
wastewater improvements required for the project are on-site pipelines and unit
connections to the infrastructure systems, which are subject to connection fees.
Therefore, the proposed project would not require or result in the construction or
expansion of new water or wastewater treatment facilities off-site, and the
project would have no significant impacts.
c) Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed in subsection IX, Hydrology and
Water Quality, Responses c) and d), the proposed project would implement a
stormwater infiltration system that would be incorporated as an underground
structure to reduce the volume of stormwater runoff discharged from Sierra
Highway and the project site. The existing Mint Canyon Channel would also be
83
Initial Study
Page 84 of 94
redesigned and improved, primarily through the use of concrete to promote
efficient flow within the approximately 1,000 -foot segment that crosses the
project site. As required by the City of Santa Clarita and the countywide MS4
permit, the final design of the project's drainage system must be engineered so
that post -development peak runoff discharge rates are equal to or less than pre -
development peak runoff rates. Therefore, the proposed project would not
require or result in the construction of new off-site stormwater drainage
facilities or the expansion of existing facilities off-site, and the project would
have no related significant impacts.
d) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project is consistent with the
City's General Plan and zoning. The Santa Clarita Water Division (SCWD)
provides water services to the project site. The SCWD's water sources are
derived from the State Water Project and local groundwater resources generated
primarily from the Santa Clara River. These existing water supplies are
sufficient to serve the proposed project. In addition, the proposed infiltration
system would increase groundwater recharge and could improve local water
supplies. Therefore, the proposed project would not require new or expanded
water entitlements, and the project would have no related significant impacts.
e) Less Than Significant Impact: The Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District (of
the County of Los Angeles Sanitation Districts) provides wastewater services to
the project site. The district's existing facilities are sufficient to accommodate
the proposed development. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a
determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it has adequate capacity
to serve the proposed development, and the project would have no related
significant impacts.
i) Less Than Significant Impact: The project would be primarily served by the
Sunshine Canyon Landfill (Solid Waste Information System [SWIS] Facility
Number 19 -AA -2000) located at 14747 San Fernando Road, Sylmar. This
facility receives 12,100 tons per day for all materials received for disposal
and/or beneficial reuse and recycling, and its maximum design capacity for solid
waste is 140,900,000 cubic yards. According to the California Department of
Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) SWIS, the Sunshine Canyon
Landfill has sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid
waste disposal needs. The Sunshine Canyon Landfill's permit will be due for
review in December 2018, and this facility has an estimated closure year of
2037. The project would have a less than significant impact in this regard.
g) Less Than Significant Impact: The California Integrated Waste Management
Act requires that jurisdictions maintain a 50 percent or better diversion rate for
solid waste. The City implements this requirement through the City's franchised
Solid Waste Management Services. Per the agreements between the City and the
franchised trash disposal companies, each franchisee is responsible for meeting
the minimum recycling diversion rate of 50 percent on a quarterly basis.
Franchisees are further encouraged to meet the City's overall diversion rate goal
of 75 percent. The proposed project is required to comply with the applicable
solid waste franchise's recycling system and thus, would meet the City's and
California's solid waste diversion regulations. Therefore, the project would not
cause any significant impacts from conflicting with statutes or regulations
related to solid waste.
84
Initial Study
Page 85 of 94
XIX. MANDATORY a) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation: Based on the analysis in
subsection IV, Biological Resources, of this document, with the incorporation of
FINDINGS OF mitigation measures, the proposed project would not have substantial impacts to
SIGNIFICANCE special -status species, stream habitat, and wildlife dispersal and migration.
Furthermore, the proposed project would not affect the local, regional, or
national populations or ranges of any plant or animal species and would not
threaten any plant communities. As discussed in subsection V, Cultural
Resources, of this document, the proposed project would not have substantial
impacts to historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources, and would
not eliminate any important examples of California history or prehistory.
Therefore, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, the proposed project
does not have a Mandatory Finding of Significance due to impacts to biological
or cultural resources.
b) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would not cause impacts
that are cumulatively considerable. The project has the potential to contribute to
cumulative air quality, greenhouse gas, biological resource, hydrology, water
quality, noise, population, housing, public services, recreation, traffic, and
utility impacts. However, based on the analysis contained in this document, the
project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to any
significant cumulative impact. Therefore, with the incorporation of mitigation
measures, the proposed project does not have a Mandatory Finding of
Significance due to cumulative impacts.
c) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation: As discussed in subsection III,
Air Quality, construction period and long-term operational emissions would be
well below significance thresholds established by the SCAQMD. As discussed
in subsection XII, Noise, temporary construction noise, and vibration impacts
will be reduced and sufficiently mitigated through routine construction control
measures, and no significant long-term noise impacts have been identified. As
discussed in subsections VIII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and XVI,
Transportation/Traffic, of this document, the proposed project would not expose
persons to hazardous substances or wastes or airborne emissions of any toxic or
acutely hazardous substances, or to any transportation hazards. Subsection VI,
Geology and Soils, of this document explains that occupants of the proposed
project could be exposed to strong seismic earth shaking due to the potential for
earthquakes in Southern California. The earth and geology conditions of the site
would be alleviated by the required compliance with the California Building
Code; thus, the proposed project would not result in adverse effects on human
beings from geotechnical considerations. Therefore, the project would not create
environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on humans.
85
Initial Study
Page 86 of 94
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Identification of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Activities
I. AESTHETICS
None required
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
None required
III. AIR QUALITY
Mitigation Measure AQ -1: Prior to construction, the construction contractor shall provide evidence that all off-
road diesel -fueled equipment (e.g., rubber -tired dozers, graders, scrapers, excavators, asphalt paving equipment,
cranes, and tractors) associated with project construction shall be at least California Air Resources Board
(CARB) Tier 3 Certified or better.
Party Responsible for Mitigation: City of Santa Clarita Department of Public Works
Monitoring Action/Timing: Prior to construction, the construction contractor shall provide evidence
that all off-road diesel fueled equipment associated with project construction shall be at least California
Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 3 certified or better.
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure 11I0-1: Prior to project implementation, a clearance survey shall be conducted to document
the presence/absence of southern tarplant within the boundaries of the project site. The clearance survey shall be
conducted during the appropriate blooming period (March through November) for southern tarplant in accordance
with the California Department of Fish and Game's (2009) Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to
Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities and CNPS Botanical Survey Guidelines
(CNPS 2001). [Note that the agency formerly known as the California Department of Fish and Game is now the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).] If southern tarplant is observed within the project site and
cannot be avoided, the City of Santa Clarita shall contact the CDFW to determine the appropriate techniques to
minimize and/or offset project impacts to this species, which may include seed collection and dispersal.
Minimization and offset techniques shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the CDFW.
Party Responsible for Mitigation: City of Santa Clarita Department of Public Works
Monitoring Action/Timing: Review of preconstruction survey results prior to construction, and
inspection of any necessary minimization and offset techniques during construction
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division
Mitigation Measure 11I0-2: Proposed project construction activities shall avoid the general bird breeding season
(typically January through July for raptors and February through August for other avian species), if feasible. If
breeding season avoidance is not feasible, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey
to determine the presence/absence, location, and status of any active nests on or adjacent to the project site. To
avoid the destruction of active nests and to protect the reproductive success of birds protected by the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the California Fish and Game Code (FGC), nesting bird surveys shall be performed
twice per week during the three weeks prior to scheduled project construction activities. In the event that active
nests are discovered, a suitable buffer (distance to be determined by the biologist or overriding agencies) shall be
established around such active nests and no construction within the buffer allowed until the biologist has
86
Initial Study
Page 87 of 94
Identification of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Activities
determined that the nest is no longer active (i.e., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest).
No project -related activities shall occur within this buffer until the biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting
is completed and the young have fledged the nest.
Party Responsible for Mitigation: City of Santa Clarita Department of Public Works
Monitoring Actionffiming: Review of bird nesting surveys prior to and during and vegetation removal
during the bird nesting season, and inspection of any necessary avoidance measures
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure CUL -1: If deposits of prehistoric or historical materials are encountered during project
construction, it is recommended that all work within 50 feet be halted until an archaeologist can evaluate the
findings and make recommendations. Prehistoric materials can include flaked -stone tools (e.g., projectile points,
knives, choppers) or obsidian, chert, or quartzite toolmaking debris, culturally darkened soil (i.e., midden soil
often containing heat -affected rock, ash, and charcoal, shellfish remains, and cultural materials), and stone
milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones). Historical materials might include wood, stone, or
concrete footings, walls, and other structural remains, debris-filled wells or privies, and deposits of wood, metal,
glass, ceramics, and other refuse.
Mitigation Measure CUL -2: If paleontological resources are encountered during project construction, all
construction activities in the vicinity of the find shall halt until a paleontologist meeting the satisfaction of the
Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History examines the site, identifies the significance of the find, and
recommends a course of action. Construction in the vicinity of the find shall not resume until the paleontologist
states in writing that the proposed construction activities will not damage significant paleontological resources.
Party Responsible for Mitigation: City of Santa Clarita Department of Public Works
Monitoring Actionffiming: During grading operations
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Within the footprint of the proposed Community Center building, the alluvial
and/or artificial fill soils should be removed to a depth of at least 10 feet below the present grade. In other
proposed building or structural areas (i.e. restroom building, pedestrian bridge, shade structure, clock tower),
alluvial and/or artificial fill soils should be removed to a depth of at least 5 feet below the present grade, or to a
depth of at least 3 feet below the bottoms of foundations, whichever is deeper. At a minimum, excavation
bottoms in building areas must expose alluvial soils, all artificial fill soils encountered must be removed within
their entirety. Soil removal shall extend beyond the perimeter of each building area a lateral distance of at least 8
feet outside the perimeter of building foundations.
Mitigation Measure GEO-2: Structural mitigation would consist of designing the foundation system for the
proposed buildings so that they could withstand potential seismic and liquefaction related settlements. The
geotechnical report (RTF&A, 2017) indicates that conventional or post -tension floor slabs are feasible, provided
that the soil subgrade consists of properly compacted fill material.
Party Responsible for Mitigation: City of Santa Clarita Department of Public Works
Monitoring Actionffiming: Prior to approval of grading and/or building plans
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division
87
Initial Study
Page 88 of 94
Identification of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Activities
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
None required
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to commencement of any construction activities within the southwestern
parcel, the City shall cause to be prepared a soil management plan that will specify procedures to be followed
during construction to identify and properly remediate any contaminated soils that may be encountered. This
plan shall be implemented during site clearance and grading of that portion of the project site.
Party Responsible for Mitigation: City of Santa Clarita Department of Public Works
Monitoring Action/Timing: Prior to approval of grading and/or building plans, and during grading
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Mitigation Measure I"-1: All drainage plans for the project must demonstrate conveyance and capacity for
surface runoff. Best management practices shall be implemented to slow runoff flows, avoid debris accumulation
and provide opportunities for recharge. The project's drainage plans must demonstrate that the project would not
increase flood flows on surrounding properties.
Party Responsible for Mitigation: City of Santa Clarita Department of Public Works
Monitoring Action/Timing: Prior to approval of grading and/or building plans
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING
None required
XI. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES
None required
XII. NOISE
Mitigation Measure N0I-1: Prior to occupancy of the community center/park, the City shall develop and
implement a Noise Control Plan for event operations that have live or recorded amplified music. The Noise
Control Plan shall contain the following elements:
• Amplification systems that would be used during the daytime (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.) shall include and
utilize a processor to control the maximum output that the speakers can reach. Noise levels during this
period shall not exceed 86 dBA at 20 feet from the source.
• Amplification systems that would be used after 9:00 p.m. shall include and utilize a processor to control the
maximum output that the speakers can reach. Noise levels during this period shall not exceed 76 dBA at 20
feet from the source.
• The contact telephone number and email addresses of the appropriate Parks Division representatives shall be
posted at each facility entrance for neighbors to lodge noise complaints or other concerns. Complaints shall
be addressed in a diligent and responsive manner.
0J
Initial Study
Page 89 of 94
Identification of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Activities
Party Responsible for Mitigation: City of Santa Clarita Department of Public Works
Monitoring Action/Timing: Prior to occupancy of center/park
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division
Mitigation Measure N0I-2: The following measures shall be required during construction of the proposed
project:
• To reduce pile -driving ground vibration impacts, holes shall be predrilled to the maximum feasible depth to
reduce the number of blows required to seat the pile.
• All construction equipment on construction sites shall be operated as far away from vibration -sensitive sites
as reasonably possible.
Party Responsible for Mitigation: City of Santa Clarita Department of Public Works
Monitoring Action/Timing: During ground disturbing activities
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
None required
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES
None required
XV. RECREATION
None required
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Mitigation Measure TRA -1: The following off-site improvements are required to mitigate the project's traffic
impacts:
• Sierra Highway at Soledad Canyon Road
• Provide westbound right turn lane (part of the project development)
Party Responsible for Mitigation: City of Santa Clarita Department of Public Works
Monitoring Action/Timing: Prior to building occupancy
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division
Mitigation Measure TRA -2: To ensure proper traffic control and flow at project driveways, the following
improvements are required:
• Sierra Highway at South Project Driveway
• Westbound stop sign
• Westbound right turn lane
• Sierra Highway at North Project Driveway
• Westbound stop sign
• Westbound right turn lane
• Solamint Road at Project Driveway
• Eastbound stop sign
• Eastbound all -way lane
89
Initial Study
Page 90 of 94
Identification of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Activities
• Piccola Driveway at Dolan Way
• Northbound stop sign
• Northbound all -way lane
Party Responsible for Mitigation: City of Santa Clarita Department of Public Works
Monitoring Action/Timing: Prior to issuance of building permit
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division
XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure TCR -1: All soil disturbing activities performed on the Project Site at five feet or deeper
shall be monitored by a professional Native American monitor.
Party Responsible for Mitigation: City of Santa Clarita Department of Public Works
Monitoring Action/Timing: During the grading phase of project construction
Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division
XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
None required
90
Initial Study
Page 91 of 94
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analyses
Appendix B: Biological Resources Report and Jurisdictional Delineation Report
Appendix C: Cultural Resources Report
Appendix D: Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix E: Phase I ESA, Phase II ESA
Appendix F: Noise Analysis
Appendix G: Traffic Impact Analysis
OTHER INTERNET RESOURCES
CEQA Resources
California Environmental Resources Evaluation System: http://www.ceres.ca.gov/
CEQA Case Law Index: httn://ceres.ca.gov/tonic/env law/ceaa/cases/
Regulation Sources
California Code of Regulations: http://www.calre2s.com/
California Legislative Info: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/
Code of Federal Regulations: http://www.enoaccess.eov/cfr/index.html or but) Aula.law.comell.edu/cfr/
United States Code: http://www4.law.comell.edu/uscode/
Air Quality
Clean Air Act: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaq caa.html
Biological Resources
Biological Resource Regulations, site maintained US Fish and Wildlife Service:
http://laws.fws.eov/lawsdieest/reslaws.html
List of Birds Protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act:
http://mieratorybirds.fws.gov/intrnitr/mbta/mbtandx.html
National Plant Database: http://nlants.usda.gov/
Nuisance and Exotic Plant Species: http://www.df2.ca. oe v/hepb/species/nuis exo/nuis exo.shtml
Plant Info: http://www.calflora.org
91
Initial Study
Page 92 of 94
Wetlands
California Wetlands Information System: http://ceres.ca.gov/wetlands/
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board: http://www.swreb.ca.gov/—rwgcb4/
National Wetlands Inventory Mapper: http://www.nwi.fws. oe v/mapper_tool.htm
National Wetland Plant List: http://www.nwi.fws.gov/bha/download/1996/national.pdf
State Water Resources Control Board: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/
The Wetlands Regulation Center: http://www.wetlands.com/regs/tli)geO4b.htm
Geology and Soils
California Geological Survey: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/index.htm
Hazardous Materials
EPA Envirofacts Data Warehouse: http://www.epa.gov/enviro/index iava.html
Floodplain
FEMA Map Service Center: http://www.msc.fema.gov/
Public Utilities
Information on SB 221 and 610: http://www.le2alelite.com/articles/A-sweston-221.htm
Miscellaneous Federal Regulations
Section 4f. http://www.section4fcom/
Sole Source Aquifers: http://www.access.gpo.9ov/nara/cfr/waisidx 02/40cfrl49 02.html
Wild and Scenic Rivers: httn://www.nns.gov/rivers/wildriverslist.html
Caltrans/FHWA
Caltrans Environmental Handbooks: httn://www. dot.ca.gov/ser/envhand.htm
Caltrans Local Assistance Website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hg/LocalPrograms/
FHWA Environmental Handbook: http://www.fhwa.dotgov/environment/guidebook/
USGS Map Database
UCSB Map Library: http://webelient.alexandria.ucsb.edu/
SCAG Data
http://www.seag.ca.gov/data.htm
SCAG Data Library: http://www.scag.ca.gov/census/
92
Initial Study
Page 93 of 94
REFERENCES
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection. 2004. Los Angeles County
Important Farmland 2002 [map].
California Department of Fish and Game. 2009. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status
Native Plant Populations andNatural Communities.
CalRecycle (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery). 2016. Solid Waste Information System.
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2011. California Scenic Highway Mapping System.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/seenic highways/.
CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2001. CAPS Botanical Survey Guidelines.
DTSC (California Department of Toxic Substances Control). 2007. EnviroStor.
http://www.envirostor.dtse.ca.gov/public/default.asp.
Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. 2015. Noise Assessment Study for the Rocketship School.
Harris, Cyril M. 1994. Noise Control in Buildings.
Hayne, M. J., R. H. Rumble, and D. J. Mee. 2006. Prediction of Crowd Noise. Proceedings of Acoustics, 2006.
Michael Baker International. 2017a. Biological Resources Report
. 2017b. Jurisdictional Delineation Report
. 2017c. Traffic Impact Analysis.
. 2017d. Cultural Resources Study.
Rincon Consultants, Inc. 2014. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
. 2017b. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
RTF&A (R. T. Frankian & Associates). 2017. Geotechnical Investigation -Proposed Canyon Country Community
Center and Park
Santa Clarita, City of. 2011. City ofSanta Clanta General Plan.
SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board. 2015. GeoTracker. http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.
Tetra Tech. 2016. Canyon Country Community Center Stormwater BMP Concept
93
Initial Study
Page 94 of 94
This page intentionally left blank
94