Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-08-22 - AGENDA REPORTS - SCV SHERIFF'S STATION PROJ F3023 APPROVAL OF MITIG (2)0 Agenda Item: 9 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Q:° AGENDA REPORT CONSENT CALENDAR 7, CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: 1 j4 _ " DATE: August 22, 2017 SUBJECT: SANTA CLARITA VALLEY SHERIFF'S STATION, PROJECT F3023 - APPROVAL OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DEPARTMENT: Public Works PRESENTER: Damon Letz RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council adopt a resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration (State Clearinghouse number 2017061049) prepared for the Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriffs Station, which includes the California Environmental Quality Act environmental findings. BACKGROUND Maintaining high levels of public safety has been one of the many challenges faced during the rapid growth of the Santa Clarita Valley over the previous 30 years. As the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department (LASD) has expanded and adjusted its services to cope with the increased demands of the City of Santa Clarita's (City) and County of Los Angeles' (County) residents, the current station has not been sufficient to optimally serve the community's needs. Both the City and the County have studied the issue and documented the need for improvements. During the City's Santa Clarita 2020 goal -setting process, the need for a new, modern sheriffs station to serve the Santa Clarita Valley was identified as a primary goal in the Public Safety theme. The City and the County entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in May 2016 to replace the existing and undersized Santa Clarita Valley Sheriffs Station with a new state-of-the-art station to serve the entire Santa Clarita Valley and outlying unincorporated areas. The proposed Sheriffs Station is to be constructed on approximately 7.65 acres of City -owned land on the west side of Golden Valley Road, 0.3 miles south of Centre Pointe Parkway. The site is currently the temporary location of Los Angeles County Fire Department Station #104, which has been planned for removal prior to constructing the new Sheriffs Station. The new station complex will include: a 45,000 -square -foot main building, a 4,000 -square -foot vehicle maintenance building, a fueling island with an adjacent fuel storage tank, a heliport, and on-site Page 1 Packet Pg. 106 0 parking areas for staff and the public. As specified in the MOU, the City will construct and own the facility, while the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department will be fully in charge of operations. As the lead agency for the project, the City is responsible to ensure all pertinent regulations, ordinances, and codes are followed throughout the planning and construction process. The primary planning consideration included among these requirements is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA applies to all projects undertaken in the state, and it is in place to ensure environmental impacts from the project are identified, evaluated, and mitigated where appropriate. The MOU between the City and County stipulates that the City shall conduct an Initial Study and make appropriate findings as required for compliance with CEQA. The MOU further states the proposed project shall not be approved by the Los Angeles County's Board of Supervisors until there has been a finding that the project is in full compliance with CEQA. Environmental Document At the November 26, 2016, City Council meeting, Hunsaker & Associates was awarded the contract for the preparation of the environmental document and all required studies for CEQA compliance. An Initial Study was completed, which identified and evaluated the potential environmental impacts created by the proposed station and heliport. The Initial Study included aesthetics, air quality, archeological, biological, cultural, geological, noise, traffic, and other studies to assess the overall impacts of the project. According to the findings outlined in the Initial Study, none of the impacts from the proposed station will rise to the level of a "significant" nature. Based on the Initial Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed Sheriff's Station was prepared by the consultant's team. The MND for the project includes a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), starting on page 25, with mitigation measures that will reduce any identified impacts associated with the project to a level considered "less than significant." Public Review and Comment As required by law, a public notice was published and posted in the local newspaper and City libraries with copies of the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) being made available for public viewing at the Valencia Library and the City Clerk's office. Copies of the IS/MND document were also submitted to the State Clearinghouse for distribution and review by governmental agencies potentially affected by the project. As part of the public notification process, the City also filed a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration with the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk office. The official public review period for the IS/MND document started June 19, 2017, and ended on July 19, 2017. At the conclusion of the review period, there were no comments submitted from the public. Four comments were received from governmental agencies and have been considered Page 2 Packet Pg. 107 0 and appropriately addressed in the final MND. CEQA Compliance The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and included MMRP for this project have been prepared in compliance with all CEQA requirements. By adopting the attached resolution, the City Council will be approving and certifying the Mitigated Negative Declaration and included MMRP for the new Sheriff's Station. ALTERNATIVE ACTION Other action as determined by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT None by this action. ATTACHMENTS Resolution Vicinity Map Original Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) Page 3 Packet Pg. 108 9.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 2017061049) FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SANTA CLARITA VALLEY LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S STATION IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, it has been the mutual desire of the City of Santa Clarita (City) and the County of Los Angeles (County) to replace the existing Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff's Station with a new station to serve the Santa Clarita Valley; and WHEREAS, the City and the County have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to construct anew Sheriff's Station to be located at 26201 Golden Valley Road in the City of Santa Clarita; and WHEREAS, the MOU states that the City, as the lead agency, shall conduct an Initial Study and make appropriate findings as required for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the City Council awarded a contract at its November 22, 2016, meeting to Hunsaker & Associates for the preparation of the environmental documents and Initial Study as required for compliance with CEQA for the project; and WHEREAS, the project was reviewed and evaluated pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared by the consultant; and WHEREAS, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were publicly posted and advertised in accordance with CEQA with a public review period open from June 19, 2017, through July 19, 2017; and WHEREAS, there were no comments from the public, and comments from affected governmental agencies have been appropriately addressed. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, California, does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT 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 and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been circulated for review and comment by the public and affected governmental agencies, and all comments Packet Pg. 109 received, if any, have been considered. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were publicly posted; c. Based on the findings of the Initial Study there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment; d. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City of Santa Clarita; and e. 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 the Capital Improvement Projects division and is in the custody of the Director of Public Works. SECTION 2. FINDINGS FOR ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Based upon the testimony and other evidence, if any, and upon studies and investigations made by the City Council and on its behalf, the City Council further finds and determines the following: a. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station at 26201 Golden Valley Road is adequate, complete, and has been prepared in accordance with CEQA; and b. The City Council has independently reviewed and considered the environmental documents and hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). SECTION 3. 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 "' day of 2017. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK DA' 9.a Packet Pg. 110 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 to day of 2017, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK 9.a Packet Pg. 111 7M. rr��.rAFA�. ry j +li'7 L `{• .f r X' }�, _ *t.Y ;•i F Hsi }a�.`Jtl d -�---- .. " r.• _ . �f _�rT X t,r �� •+�"" .Sika � �'• M _ s� � ra�- Xr ; �:�, L •_� � � `'� �'s:.,rsc1 }�jy�s a'.d J e E�e t�t�`. f d`i 'g.�rslzrtLr;•„� iisuw_ .r.? . P.'..� ! 73xi' . y, �R � r ,� r � .�' • � , r� r-.o'J, r • _ rti a. ” , .►riS+ _ .-� -I — :.�... .i + ;`i �'.���`�': :�yrr �' - _ - "�"� +t, -� i+, '• - +�,�' <, �'• ° _ 5i: r�� � r rri-a -� #�- IN, .�� "�'.A�P•���� + 4 _ ti"'r' w •.._ �,., �. '� �,,�+u�r r� �, �f �. li �. �i� _ -- - J - - vr:., :xw xT.-1.' - �.. -,, ,- J:. �." -;,rl yy�r, ! .15''i ' 'a ire - -- , -� ; ai,.'�I ' I" ' • IFhas'%�. .. ��� � '''�� � * _ _ r � �^fii'.i�i •� l � F � '�+n _. -_tom' 1,�': rkll _ G!M� - �rrr ' � _ � � • \`--; 4 .M a l 4 r r ` tr;g ` r�4 i _r`l SrR1 Tf rd{ - ,:m.. �L,�. �-r" k3 ��s� a` ,c�.'.ra.i-u�+' r`�"•"�=-,��7# ��. �. -JJj ,�P'frr�y�7� `t. - '` - _ ,X _ =i•'r' I-01 a,r�- + fir: ry .. �p,•,�f _'. `M r ` ..k ` ' ',1� .. �P.'k_:'1!'�'4' ?I e r_ L V'"iL :A► .` `aT y.�� � :� `'�',HR+. 4,�'-�y':+X0. ..Sx?�� �.� 1 Y� !X %btrl . ' _ - F` Jf/1'� _ Y� st _ - - a'� _�.}. a. •r'C .,d� wM�. - �. L>8 (k. t - „.iu. .:. _r, �3' (x,. . . � � t.. rytl �sv�_, IuaA,:,..f' �_i •h'Sii' �a >� . T' � r. _. ?i�s_�. t: � ' �a'� _ M Y •" �. r rr �, � 1 i' - YL 1! 1 �[ 1 'td+ : - . � � fTZ �,} �' ✓1'� 1 d - � �• a :V 7.'. l _ I `y ��i• � �-_,y], Wy �: r. �� �Y - �`; ,1��. �� .-., t • �zL+. '�{" -$ice !, ?.sr: 'r t✓• '�s_ - a1A.� eA' y - t' "� r _ "21.rr--'. ._'ri7 1� i _- r.S - '•. �. 1 +i ,� _ f `. .7� - _T s`�'i t. �`�` A .. _ =1 C I f rte.. ]�� M1 .. � '�1. ��l i� 1 ''��� �i'. �• t r - d •},,10 � - sr. ' �. - y ` - 'i - ,�-. x•�'.�� * i y.. y.._ �' ,� ti r t ' � y � �� • r .. ` '•3Fr.' ai.'1, II '�a ''lr��G�ly`' Ifs . 1 . 101 iq el 4 Jill . a•sr`' 4 4 � �:ti..;, - � :r i�' 4,41 -'•ori c:,.. - r� I' 1 _ _ ■ L }• _ -_�e � ,�,,,�i e� 1 - i� _ `'tel: l �_. � /:-TXS'�rr �r _ I •Y ' :� [ .. I "4i S: i.r a• _..M1sat . - - - C r rr i' . T � - � - � - - ., arta �_`'. 1 � a `� ►� -�� �' ,'L- � f 'n•.k �� -a - � � �1� r � � I� •at4N � - -. r �+ •� ti '�` u� } ry V11f 6•i;. l X11;a c a.. �' v .. •a .r't. -' •'? r� .s+.^' - -.4^. � ,� .•, yr'•• t� Lz �q�'� , .l. J� � i :S'} _ : T .. � /`� � _ -. �'� � � ,.� �:: - �- � .� L ti' � i� � r•�� r• eta r • . ' _.'�s��1; _ `'r• # r4 ¢1 >''�' - - —._�� ."rte _ R �. _ 'r f� - -_r'► �:I-ti-.. .:%TY _ r rt�,,?,�� -�- Y.� 3 ?-. i• }y•r r Y t 'r�t� � 4. *��"l •- �" '� r •rl.l tl' .r. ilY.L �.T.r,.`t 'r' `°4'+� :� ,"� ;�.., ., � sr � k � �r r; ; '• �, � - �^~ : 'i J _ - �� - y>�� `n7 h� �}{•, � r-tia .� ��' -i+f �..r� � � r'r � •- -- - - : - '+��, , '�p..z'F r*,;7 �Si ti. ' A � - ,' - y } .� . t 1-u�.-�'• .. a r� +ti r r :}... ti '�. + •_ W '"` •r1 r of �, la-- rf �R 1•`rt' t - r` J�, ti. r - '-^ p Yr, �x �. �t { °0�•u }-�'h ri f. 1 -, ! 1 f r°y a tAr '_ r,k 1 ti: it OV i f ,S4 _.F rKr . a d %•i' +1 This map is a •.r'k- t'N :.: �J'a Y ' _ _'I f • ~ 04 SANTA OLSanta Clarita GIS Online !� _f,.:7 ':: rlr� S•� :_'�� �t iyyi •r,r_ f. reference only. D. ta layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise Fr reliable. The City of Santa Clarita does not warrant tN �..�.5 ',•.y r 1 - .'ter S' - 1 t r i�.'+c-ti _ty r -_ _`�.r1F accuracy ofthe data and assumes no liability forany errors or omissions. _ y'`r _4�.'- R.r •� }. o- EotmeEPA + , , j t , i. rL'4' K ~•` f �� ,r tT' r e `STT �... - I r_ { �'`ii,`�+ . . • Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriffs Station Prepared for: City of Santa Clarita Department of Public Works 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 245 Santa Clarita, California 91355-2196 Prepared by: Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. 300 E. Esplanade Drive, Suite 1660 Oxnard, CA 93036 June 2017 Initial Study -Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station Contents page iii A. Background............................................................................................................................................................................................1 B. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected............................................................................................................................9 C. Determination .............................................. D. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 9 E. Discussion of Environmental Impacts and/or Earlier Analysis....................................................................................17 I. Aesthetics.......................................................................................... II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources ...................................... III. Air Quality......................................................................................... IV. Biological Resources..................................................................... V. Cultural Resources ............................................. VI. Geology and Soils ............................................... VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................ VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............. IX. Hydrology and Water Quality ....................... X. Land Use and Planning .................................... XI. Mineral and Energy Resources ..................... XII. Noise........................................................................ XIII. Population and Housing .................................. XIV. Public Services .................................................... XV. Recreation............................................................. XVI. Transportation/ Traffic ................................... XVII Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................... ................................................................................................... 64 ................................................................................................... 65 ................................................................................................... 65 .......................................................................... XVIII. Utilities and Service Systems................................................................... XIX. Mandatory Findings of Significance...................................................... Figures .......................................................... 69 .......................................................... 69 .......................................................... 71 Figure1. Regional Location........................................................................................................................................................ 5 Figure2. Project Location...........................................................................................................................................................6 Figure3. Site Plan........................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Figure4. Landscape Plan............................................................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 5. Noise Monitoring and Sensitive Receptor Location Map.........................................................................55 Tables Table 1. SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance.................................................................................................................20 Table 2. Estimated Peak Daily Construction Emissions.............................................................................................21 Table 3. Estimated Daily Operational Emissions...........................................................................................................22 Table 4. Localized Peak Daily Construction Emissions...............................................................................................24 Table 5. Impacts to Corps, Regional Board, and CDFW jurisdiction Santa Clarita Valley Sherriff Station............................................................................................................................................................................32 Table 6. Project Construction -Related GHG Emissions..............................................................................................43 Table 7. Project Operational GHG Emissions..................................................................................................................44 Table 8. Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines (City Noise Element)..................................................53 Table 9. Existing Ambient Daytime Noise Levels - Project Site Vicinity.............................................................56 Table 10. Existing Noise Levels - Existing Sheriffs Station Operations................................................................57 Table 11. Noise Range of Typical Construction Equipment........................................................................................58 Table 12. Typical Outdoor Construction Noise Levels...................................................................................................58 Table 13. Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment...............................................................................60 Table 14. Project Roadway Noise Levels.............................................................................................................................61 Table 15. Sheriffs Station Operational Noise Levels......................................................................................................63 Initial Study -Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station page iv Table 16. ICU and LOS Summary - Existing Conditions................................................................................................65 Table 17. Trip Generation Summary.....................................................................................................................................66 Table 18. Existing Plus Project ADT Volumes...................................................................................................................66 Table 19. ICU and LOS Summary - Existing Plus Project Conditions......................................................................67 Table 20. Interim Year Cumulative Conditions ADT Volumes...................................................................................67 Table 21. ICU and LOS Summary - Interim Year Cumulative Conditions.............................................................68 Table22. Transit Trip Summary.............................................................................................................................................69 Appendices Appendix III. Air Quality Analysis Appendix IV. Biological Technical Report Appendix V. Archaeological Inventory Appendix VI. Geotechnical Investigation and Geologic -Seismic Report Appendix VII. Greenhouse Gas Analysis Appendix VIII. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Appendix IX. Hydrology Study Appendix XII. Noise Appendix XVI. Sheriff Station Traffic Study OF SANT• C� �4 Initial Study City ofSanta Clarita q A. Background Project title/master case Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriffs Station number: Lead agency name and City of Santa Clarita address: Department of Public Works 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 245 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Contact person and Dan Duncan, (661) 255-4348 phone number: DDuncanP Santa- Clarita.com Project location: Setting The City of Santa Clarita is proposing to construct a new Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff s Station at 26201 Golden Valley Road (the temporary location of Los Angeles County Fire Station #104) and its off-site improvements within the right of way of Golden Valley Road between Centre Pointe Parkway and Robert C. Lee Drive. The site was also previously occupied by a seasonal temporary homeless shelter from 2008 to 2010. The site is situated on approximately 7.6 of 11.8 acres that was part of the mass grading done for Golden Valley Road between September 2001 and March 2002. The Project site is identified by the Los Angeles County Assessor as 2836-012-905 and 2836-016-909. Lands directly adjacent to the south and west are vacant, and the land directly north contains a modular office and accessory structures. Land to the east of Golden Valley Road contains 11.5 acres of industrial facilities. Proposed Project The existing Santa Clarita Valley Sheriffs Station is to be relocated from its current location in the Civic Center at the corner of Magic Mountain Parkway and Valencia Boulevard to the subject site, and Temporary Fire Station #104 will be removed from the site before construction. The proposed Project will consist of a new approximately 45,000 -square -foot main building with a Type 1 detention facility, a 4,000 -square -foot vehicle maintenance building, a 4,000 -square -foot buildable zone within the parking lot that may be used for future office and or storage, a fueling station, a car wash area, a parking lot for approximately 350 vehicles, a heliport, a trash enclosure, outdoor lockers, a 180 -foot -tall communications tower, an emergency generator, road improvements, landscaping, low impact development (LID) features, perimeter and retaining walls, and off-site utility improvements. These utility improvements include the extension of a Santa Clarita Water Division pipeline from Robert C. Lee Parkway to the Project area through the existing Golden Valley Road right of way. The 180 -foot -tall communications tower will be used to mount various types of communications equipment that will be used to support the Sheriffs Department day-to-day operations, including emergency services within the Santa Clarita Valley and surrounding communities. Site operations outside the main building are anticipated to include: helicopter landing and take -off, vehicle maintenance and repair, enclosed mobile firing range, emergency generator, PA system, siren testing, and temporary storage. These operations can be expected 24 hours a day with Initial Study -Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station page 2 periodic helicopter flights averaging two per day depending upon operational needs of the Sheriff s Department. The Sheriff s Station is anticipated to be staffed at existing levels and allow for additional personnel in the future as deemed necessary. The 4,000 -square -foot buildable zone will accommodate up to two stories and 8,000 square feet of future office and or storage. The site will include three access points to Golden Valley Road. The south driveway is for Sheriff s personnel and only will allow a left turn in and right turn in and out. It will also provide a left turn out into a merge lane within Golden Valley Road for Code -3 and high-priority responses. A special traffic signal will alert motorists to emergency vehicles entering the roadway. The center driveway is for public access and will provide right turn in and out. Access for northbound visitor traffic will be provided through a U- turn at the north driveway. The north driveway is for Sheriff s personnel and deliveries. It will have a left turn in and right turn in and out. At this location, a U-turn will be permitted from the left turn lane. A U-turn will be added on southbound Golden Valley Road approximately one-half mile past the Sheriff s Station at the future Via Princessa intersection. Although the site has already been graded, additional grading for the site will be necessary to form building pads and to accommodate site drainage. Approximately 114,000 cubic yards of soil is anticipated to be moved to allow for the construction of on-site improvements. Earthwork is anticipated to export approximately 6,000 cubic yards. Anticipated off-site grading and drainage devices may include: • North property line area - The northwest corner may be graded to accommodate helicopter operations adjacent to the heliport and include drainage devices. The northeast area will be graded for the addition of a commercial driveway necessitated by changes to the driveway and the sidewalk. • Southwest property line area - Grading will include a 15 -foot buffer area outside the property line. The grading in this area will remove a small, localized landslide. The improvements will include drainage devices. • South property line area - The existing off-site 12 -inch drain stand pipe at the base of the southern slope will need to be raised so it functions more reliably and ensures adequate drainage. In addition, the area around the stand pipe needs to be stabilized and kept clear of vegetation so the inlet is not obstructed, it will receive regular maintenance. Drainage devices will be added to convey runoff from the west property line. Off-site improvements east of the project are anticipated to include: • Southbound Golden Valley Road - From Centre Point Parkway to 500 feet south of the Project site, within Project limits, and the Golden Valley Road right-of-way. Improvements include curb, gutter, sidewalk, raised median modifications, streetlights, driveways, and possibly an asphalt overlay. In addition, the Initial Study -Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station page 3 existing 36 -inch storm drain line will be extended to approxi- mately 50 feet south of the Project area to capture the existing roadway surface drainage. The southbound Golden Valley Road will be fully paved within the existing right of way and striped to accommodate the proposed turn movements at the three points of access to the station, from 800 feet south of Centre Point Parkway to approximately 300 feet south of the Sheriffs Station, a length of approximately 1,750 feet. The 300 -foot area south of the Sheriff s Station may include a future bus stop. Northbound Golden Valley Road - From Robert C. Lee Parkway to Centre Point Parkway. A 16 -inch water line will be extended along Golden Valley Road from its current terminus at Robert C. Lee Parkway, to a pressure -reducing station, and then connect to an existing 16 -inch water line in the Project area. The pressure - reducing station will be located across from the Sheriffs Station in the area east of Golden Valley Road or at the top of the roadway slope. Curb, gutter, streetlights, sidewalk improvements, trail signage, and an asphalt overlay may be constructed concurrently or at a later date. From the proposed new water main in Golden Valley Road, fire protection, domestic, and irrigation laterals will be provided to the site. One on-site, private hydrant is anticipated to be provided, as well as three public hydrants along the Project frontage. Facilities for cable, natural gas, and electrical service to the site already exist in the immediate area. Telephone, data, and other communications lines will require extension from Centre Pointe Parkway or Robert C. Lee Parkway and across Golden Valley Road in front of the Sheriff s Station. A 10 -inch sewer line and a 36 -inch storm drain line exist adjacent to the site in Golden Valley Road. The existing storm drain terminates approximately at the northerly property line, and is anticipated to be extended southward along the site frontage for purposes of capturing roadway and site -related drainage. The sewer line (8 inches) and the storm drain line (36 inches) have existing connection points for the site from these main lines in Golden Valley Road. The Project is anticipated to be operational in late 2020. The Project is anticipated to be commensurate with a LEED (Leadership Energy Environmental Design) Silver level certification or an equivalent level of green building technologies. Approvals necessary prior to Project construction are anticipated to include: City Council approval for this Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and applicable authorizations from the agencies with possible jurisdiction over the drain inlet area to the south. Once these approvals have been obtained, City of Santa Clarita Building and Safety and Public Works approvals will be required for on-site and off-site construction documents. Caltrans approval will be necessary for construction of the heliport, as well as for helicopter operations. Applicant's name and City of Santa Clarita address: Department of Public Works, Suite 245 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 General Plan designation: BP Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station Zoning: BP Surrounding land uses: North Chemring Energetic Devices South Vacant East Golden Valley Road and Business Industrial West Vacant Other public agencies whose City of Santa Clarita approval is required: City Council Department of Public Works State of California Department of Transportation Department of Fish and Wildlife Board of State and Community Corrections Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning Federal Aviation Administration Army Corps of Engineers page 4 Ti v tp m CL S Source: ESRI World Street Map 0 2 a 8 z Miles % E `T- 5on0 0� TP0- °r CC Owo v Pmn mOB .5 a K? N waw E $°r QP T N yC N1 e mN a �« £ i ue i .m mcg Z9 NV �a iZ ♦P c F d � O t A@ 9 a Zc.o 4C J 9p m C mb umTJP�s>�n N I{/Z� rney �� K o. l ' E 4 N; a � J1 ^P o OC N E _ Source: ESRI World Street Map 0 2 a 8 z Miles % E `T- 5on0 0� TP0- °r CC Owo v Pmn mOB .5 a K? N waw E $°r QP T N yC N1 e mN a �« £ i ue i NV �a C a V 9 O t O m m ar! 4C J 9p m C K o. l ' E N; a � a s n S ua Source: ESRI World Street Map 0 2 a 8 z Miles & add bio Q M ®� 0 1\ RMT n II � All a m m �l aac a i o ° MIN H H z a o0 00 0 Is z n F FFF L i Ll C Z 5 � a a U N � > � � Z, 0 K a Initial Study — Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station page 9 B. 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 ❑ Air Quality Resources [✓] Biological Resources [✓] Cultural Resources ❑ Geology /Soils ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hazards & Hazardous ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality Materials ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance C. Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COU LD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [✓] 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 N EGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or r` -mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. / ( I C" (%I W `� Sift e 1vmIM Gtem Date Name, Title Pd n 00 - {-IUy\SQ Ker 1� 5'-` • Signature Name, Title Date Initial Study —Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station ❑ ❑ page 10 D. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Less Than Agency, to nonagricultural use? Potentially Significant Less Than ❑ ❑ ❑ Significant Impact With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, ❑ ❑ ❑ identified ridgelines, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings d) Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forestland to non -forest ❑ ❑ ❑ within a state scenic highway? use? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site ❑ ❑ ® ❑ location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to and its surroundings? nonagricultural use or conversion of forestland to non -forest use? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely ❑ ❑ ® ❑ control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would affect day or niqhttime views in the area? a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality It. 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 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 Williamson Act ❑ ❑ ❑ contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as ❑ ❑ ❑ defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timber and (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timber and zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forestland to non -forest ❑ ❑ ❑ use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their ❑ ❑ ❑ location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to 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 quality ❑ ❑ ® ❑ plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or projected air quality vitiation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any 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 polutant concentrations? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project page 11 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Impact With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat ❑ ® ❑ ❑ modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical ❑ ❑ special -status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, ❑ resource as defined in Section 15064.5? or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an Wildlife Service? ® ❑ ❑ b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other ❑ ® ❑ ❑ sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, Directly or indirectly destroy or impact a unique paleontological resource ❑ ❑ ❑ regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US or site or unique geologic feature? Fish and Wildlife Service? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as ❑ ® ❑ ❑ defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited VI. to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most migratory wildife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery ® ❑ recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological ❑ ❑ ❑ resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, ❑ ❑ ❑ natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? El or state habitat conservation plan? ® El iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? g) Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) as identified on the City of El ® ❑ Santa Clarita ESA Delineation Map? El ® F-1 El V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical ❑ ❑ ® ❑ resource as defined in Section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ❑ ® ❑ ❑ archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy or impact a unique paleontological resource ❑ ❑ ❑ or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal ❑ ® ❑ cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS— Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most ❑ ® ❑ recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? El El ® El iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? El El ® El iv) Landslides? El ® F-1 El b) Result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? El El ® El Initial Study —Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station page 12 g) Result in earth movement (cut ancl/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or ❑ ® Less Than ❑ more? Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the ❑ Potentially Significant Less Than ❑ ® ❑ Significant Impact With Significant No ❑ ® ❑ Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 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 - radiation)? or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or c) Emit hazardous emissions or hande hazardous or acutely hazardous collapse? ® ❑ materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or 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? Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials ❑ ❑ ® ❑ e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or ❑ ❑ ❑ result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available environment? for the disposal of wastewater? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a ❑ f) Result in a change in topography or ground surface relief features? ❑ ❑ ❑ 17 g) Result in earth movement (cut ancl/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ more? Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ h) Involve development and/or grading on a natural slope greater than ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 10% natural grade? Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through ❑ ❑ ® ❑ i) Result in the destruction, covering, or modification of any unique ❑ ❑ ❑ geologic or iDhvsical feature? explosion or the release of hazardous materials into the environment 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 the adopted Climate Action Plan or other applicable plan, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of qreenhouse gases? VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS —Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through ❑ ❑ ® ❑ reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving explosion or the release of hazardous materials into the environment (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, fuels, or radiation)? c) Emit hazardous emissions or hande hazardous or acutely hazardous ❑ ® ❑ materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials ❑ ❑ ® ❑ sites 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 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 project ❑ ❑ ❑ result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted ❑ ❑ ® ❑ emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death ❑ ❑ ® ❑ involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY— Would the project page 13 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Impact With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? El El ® El b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with El El ® El groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, El El ® El including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, El El ® El including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of El El ® El existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? El El ® El g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a El El El Z federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death El El El involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ k) Result in changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course and ❑ ❑ ® ❑ direction of surface water and/or groundwater? 1) Other modification of a wash, channel creek, or river? ❑ X. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project: a) Disrupt or physically divide an established community (including a low- ❑ ❑ ❑ income or minority community)? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an ❑ ❑ ❑ agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan, natural ❑ ❑ ❑ community conservation plan, and/or policies by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? XI. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would ❑ ❑ ❑ be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station page 14 XII. NOISE — Would the project result in: Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than ❑ ® Significant Impact With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource ❑ ❑ ❑ b) recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other ❑ ❑ ® El land use plan? vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? n n n m XII. NOISE — Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of ❑ ❑ ® El standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne ❑ ❑ ® El vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project ❑ ❑ ® El vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in ❑ ❑ ® El the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a ❑ ❑ ❑ plan has not been adopted, within 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 project ❑ ❑ ❑ expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING —Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for ❑ ❑ ❑ example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑ construction of replacement housing elsewhere (especially affordable housing)? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction ❑ ❑ ❑ of replacement housing elsewhere? XIV. PUBLICSERVICES—Wouldtheprojectresultin: 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ ii) Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ iii) 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? Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station page 15 XVI. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Impact With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of ❑ ❑ ❑ recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit ❑ XVI. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC —Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing ❑ ❑ ® ❑ measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, b) 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 c) 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? XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, 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: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k) or ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to 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 Regional ❑ ❑ ❑ Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of newwater or wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage ❑ ❑ ® ❑ facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station page 16 e) Less Than El Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Impact With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from El El ® El existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded commitments? entitlements needed? f) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which El El ® El serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ❑ ❑ ❑ accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to ❑ ❑ ❑ solid waste? XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the ❑ ® ❑ ❑ environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish orwildife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but ❑ ❑ ® ❑ cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable' means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station I. Aesthetics page 17 Discussion of Environmental Impacts and/or Earlier Analysis Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impacts I. Aesthetics a) No Impact: The City of Santa Clarita lies within Southern California's Santa Clarita Valley, which is bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains to the south and east, the Santa Susanna Mountains to the southwest, and the mountains of the Angeles National Forest to the north. The surrounding natural mountains and ridgelines, some of which extend into the city, provide a visual backdrop for the city. Other scenic resources within or visible from the city include the Santa Clara River corridor, forested/vegetated land, and a variety of canyons and natural drainages in portions of the city. The proposed Project site has previously been graded and developed. As such, the Project would not damage any scenic resources and would not interrupt any views of scenic resources. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on scenic vistas. 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 (I-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 State Route (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 impacts on scenic resources within a state scenic highway. c) Less Than Significant Impact: The Project site currently exists as a graded pad and previously constructed Temporary Fire Station #104 (which will be relocated). The proposed Project would alter the aesthetics of the site by converting the parcel into a Sheriff s Station. The project includes a 180 -foot communications tower that is required for day-to-day emergency operations. The height of the tower is derived by the range and topography of the service area. Therefore, although the Project would alter the aesthetics of the site, 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 does not propose any lighting for nighttime events or sporting activities. The only outdoor lighting included in the Project are pedestrian safety lighting, landscaping lights, streetlights, parking lot lights, heliport lighting (lighted perimeter of the take -off and landing area, lighted wind sock, flood lighting on helipad, and safety lighting for obstructions in the immediate vicinity. The proposed outdoor light sources will be shielded and facing down where feasible to minimize creation of glare and ambient light sources. In addition, the light generated by nearby uses would mask the light generated by the proposed development. A block wall is proposed around the perimeter of the Sheriff s Station facility. This would buffer the adjacent undeveloped lands from potential night lighting effects. The light that would be generated by the proposed Project and resulting increased human activity of the site would not detract from daytime or nighttime views. Therefore, the Project would not cause significant liehtine or Blare impacts. Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources page 18 Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impacts II. Agriculture and a) No Impact: The site is not within an area of Prime Farmland, Unique Forestry Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance as identified by the Resources California Department of Conservation's California Important Farmland Finder (accessed April 19, 2017). The site is designated Urban and Built Up Area. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.' b) No Impact: Santa Clarita does not have agricultural preserve areas. 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. c) No Impact: The Project site is currently zoned Business Park and is not located within an area zoned as Open Space -National Forest (OS -NF). Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with the existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned as Timberland Production. No impact would occur. d) No Impact: The Project site is currently zoned Business Park and is not located within an area zoned as Open Space -National Forest (OS -NF). In addition, the Project site does not contain any forestland. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forestland to non -forest use. No impact would occur. e) No Impact: There are currently no agricultural operations being conducted on the Project site, and the site is not zoned for agricultural uses. In addition, there is no forestland located on the proposed Project site or in the vicinity of the proposed Project site, as the area is highly urbanized. No farmland or forestland would be converted to other uses under the proposed Project, and no impact would occur. III. Air Quality a) Less Than Significant Impact: A significant air quality impact may occur if a Project is not consistent with the applicable Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), or would in some way represent a substantial hindrance to employing the policies, or obtaining the goals, of that plan. The SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary (area and point), mobile, and indirect sources to meet federal and state ambient air quality standards. It has responded to this requirement by preparing a series of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs). The most recent of these was adopted by the Governing Board of the SCAQMD on March 3, 2017. This AQMP, referred to as the 2016 AQMP, was prepared to comply with the federal and state Clean Air Acts and amendments, to accommodate growth, to reduce the high levels of pollutants in the Basin, to meet federal and state air quality standards, and to minimize the fiscal impact that pollution control measures have on the local economy. The 2016 AQMP identifies the control measures that will be implemented over a 15 - year horizon to reduce major sources of pollutants. Implementation of control measures established in the previous AQMPs has substantially decreased the population's exposure to unhealthful levels of pollutants, even while substantial population growth has occurred within the Basin. The 1 California Department of Conservation "Important Farmland Series Maps" (httn: //maps. conservation.ca.go v/ciff/ciff. html Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station III. Air Quality page 19 future air quality levels projected in the 2016 AQMP are based on several assumptions. For example, the SCAQMD assumes that general new development within the Basin will occur in accordance with population growth and transportation projections identified by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) in its Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The 2016 AQMP also assumes that general development projects will include strategies (mitigation measures) to reduce emissions generated during construction and operation in accordance with SCAQMD and local jurisdiction regulations which are designed to address air quality impacts and pollution control measures. For general development projects, the SCAQMD recommends that consistency with the current AQMP be determined by comparing the population generated by the Project to the population projections used in the development of the AQMP. Projects that are consistent with SCAG's applicable growth projections would not interfere with air quality attainment because this growth is included in the projections utilized in the formulation of the 2016 AQMP. As such, 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. It is assumed that the proposed project would comply with all SCAQMD rules and regulations that are in effect at the time of development and that are applicable to the Project; the Project applicant is not requesting any exemptions from the currently adopted or proposed rules. The Project includes the development of a Los Angeles County Sheriff s Station with an approximately 44,900 -square -foot main building, a 4,000 - square -foot maintenance building, a future 4,000 -square -foot buildable area for up to a potential 2 -story 8,000 -square -foot building, and approximately 350 parking spaces on a surface parking lot. The Project does not involve the construction of residential uses and, therefore, it will not interfere with housing or population growth projections for the City. In addition, and further discussed herein, the Project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Thus, the Project would not impair implementation of the AQMP, and this impact would be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact: A project may have a significant impact if project -related emissions would exceed federal, state, or regional standards or thresholds, or if project -related emissions would substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. The Project Site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is the air pollution control agency for the Basin. To address potential impacts from construction and operational activities, the SCAQMD currently recommends that impacts from projects with mass daily emissions that exceed any of the thresholds outlined in Table 1, SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance, be considered significant. The City defers to these thresholds for the evaluation of construction and operational air quality impacts. Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station III. Air Quality Table 1. SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance page 20 Pollutant(pounds Construction Thresholds per da(pounds Operational Thresholds per da Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 75 55 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 100 55 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550 Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 150 150 Particulate Matter (PM,o) 150 150 Fine Particulate Matter (PM25) 55 55 Source: SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (SCAQMD, 1993), SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, website: hfp://agmd.gov/docs/default-source/cega/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance- thresholds.pdf?sfursn=2, accessed April 2017. Regional Construction Emissions Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would be undertaken in two main steps: 1) grading, site preparation, and soil export, and 2) building construction. The Project includes the development of a Los Angeles County Sheriffs Station with a 44,900 -square -foot main building, a 4,000 -square -foot maintenance building, a future 4,000 -square -foot buildable area for up to a potential 2 -story 8,000 -square -foot building, and 350 parking spaces on a surface parking lot. Grading, site preparation, and soil export for on-site construction would occur and would require the export of 3,222 cubic yards of on-site soil. Building construction would occur for approximately 13 months and would include the construction of the proposed structures, architectural coatings, parking paving, and landscaping/hardscaping the Project Site. In addition, off-site right-of-way improvements would occur for approximately 7 months. This phase would include a new curb/gutter/sidewalk south of Center Pointe Parkway, Golden Valley Road third lane paving at new curb/gutter/ sidewalk location, parkway landscaping, and site driveway entrances. Grading and off-site improvements on the two neighboring properties would require the export of 2,673 cubic yards of soil. On-site and off-site export activities would result in a total 5,895 Cy of soil.2 These construction activities would temporarily create emissions of dusts, fumes, equipment exhaust, and other air contaminants. Construction activities involving grading and site preparation would primarily generate PM2.s and PM10 emissions. Mobile sources (such as diesel -fueled equipment on-site and traveling to and from the Project Site) would primarily generate NOx emissions. The application of architectural coatings would primarily result in the release of ROG emissions. The amount of emissions generated on a daily basis would vary, depending on the amount and types of construction activities occurring at the same time. The analysis of daily construction emissions has been prepared utilizing the California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod 2016.3.1) recommended by the SCAQMD. Due to the construction time frame and the normal day-to-day variability in construction activities, it is difficult, if not impossible, to precisely quantify the daily emissions associated with each phase of the proposed construction activities. Nonetheless, Table 2, Estimated Peak Daily Construction Emissions, identifies daily emissions that are estimated to occur on peak construction days for each construction phase. The off-site improvements phase will occur during the building construction phase for the on-site development and is included accordingly in the table below. Initial Study -Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station III. Air Quality page 21 These calculations assume that appropriate dust control measures would be implemented as part of the Project during each phase of development, as required by SCAQMD Rule 403 - Fugitive Dust. Specific Rule 403 control requirements include, but are not limited to, applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes (up to two times per day), applying soil binders to uncovered areas, re-establishing ground cover as quickly as possible, utilizing stabilized construction site exits with shaker plates to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the Project Site, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas. As shown in Table 2, construction -related daily emissions associated with the Project would not exceed any regional SCAQMD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants during the construction phases. Therefore, regional construction impacts are less than significant. Table 2. Estimated Peak Daily Construction Emissions Regional Operational Emissions The Project includes the development of a Los Angeles County Sheriff s Station with a 44,900 -square -foot main building, a 4,000 -square -foot maintenance building, a future 4,000 -square -foot buildable area for up to a potential 2 -story, 8,000 -square -foot building, and 350 parking spaces on a surface parking lot. Operational emissions generated by area sources, motor vehicles and enerev demand would result from normal dav-to-dav activities 2 For purposes of this analysis, soil export activities would occur for approximately 3 months throughout the construction process. Emissions in Pounds er Da Emissions Source ROG N0, CO1 S0, PM10 PM2.5 On -Site Grading/Site Preparation/Soil Export Fugitive Dust - - -- -- 2.77 1.50 Off -Road Diesel Equipment 2.58 28.35 16.29 0.03 1.40 1.29 On -Road Diesel Hauling 0.06 1.90 0.43 0.01 0.11 0.04 Worker Tris 0.08 0.06 0.66 0.01 0.17 0.05 Total Emissions 2.72 30.31 17.38 0.05 4.45 2.88 SCAQMD Thresholds 75.00 100.00 550.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Significant Imact? No No No No No No Building Construction Phase/And Off -Site Improvements Building Construction Off -Road Diesel Equip. 2.36 21.08 17.16 0.03 1.29 1.21 Building Construction Vendor Trips 0.14 3.82 1.12 0.01 0.24 0.08 Building Construction Worker Trips 0.43 0.32 3.45 0.01 0.88 0.24 Architectural Coatings 12.89 - -- -- - - Architectural Coating Off -Road Diesel Equip. 0.24 1.68 1.83 0.01 0.11 0.11 Architectural Coatings Worker Trips 0.08 0.06 0.64 0.01 0.18 0.05 Paving Off -Road Diesel Equipment 0.59 5.63 5.41 0.01 0.30 0.28 Paving 0.55 - -- -- - - Paving WorkerTrips 0.05 0.04 0.40 0.01 0.11 0.03 Off -Site Improvements Fugitive Dust - - -- -- 0.01 0.01 Off -Site Improvements Off -Road Diesel Equip. 1.00 11.14 7.77 0.01 0.51 0.47 Off -Site Improvements On -Road Diesel Hauling 0.02 0.64 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.01 Off -Site Improvements Worker Tris 0.07 0.05 0.52 0.01 0.15 0.04 Total Emissions 18.42 44.46 38.45 1 0.12 1 3.82 2.53 SCAQMD Thresholds 75.00 100.00 550.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Significant Imact? No 1 No No 1 No 1 No No Note: Calculations assume compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 - Fugitive Dust. Calculation sheets are provided in Appendix III to this Initial Study. Regional Operational Emissions The Project includes the development of a Los Angeles County Sheriff s Station with a 44,900 -square -foot main building, a 4,000 -square -foot maintenance building, a future 4,000 -square -foot buildable area for up to a potential 2 -story, 8,000 -square -foot building, and 350 parking spaces on a surface parking lot. Operational emissions generated by area sources, motor vehicles and enerev demand would result from normal dav-to-dav activities 2 For purposes of this analysis, soil export activities would occur for approximately 3 months throughout the construction process. Initial Study -Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station III. Air Quality page 22 of the Project. The analysis of daily operational emissions associated with the Project has been prepared utilizing CaIEEMod 2016.3.1 recommended by the SCAQMD. The results of these calculations are presented in Table 3, Estimated Daily Operational Emissions. As shown, the operational emissions generated by the Project would not exceed the regional thresholds of significance set by the SCAQMD. Therefore, impacts associated with regional operational emissions from the Project would be less than significant. Table 3. Estimated Daily Operational Emissions Emissions Source Emissions in Pounds per Day I ROG I NO. I CO SO. I PM10 I PM2.6 Summertime (Smog Season) Emissions Area Sources Energy Demand Mobile (Motor Vehicles) 1.26 0.02 2.57 <0.01 0.16 11.96 0.04 0.13 34.52 0.00 <0.01 0.11 <0.01 0.01 8.71 <0.01 0.01 2.41 Total Project Emissions 3.85 12.12 34.70 0.11 8.72 2.42 SCAQMD Thresholds Potentially Significant Impact? 55.00 No 55.00 No 550.00 No 150.00 No 150.00 No 55.00 No Wintertime (Non -Smog Season) Emissions Area Sources Energy Demand Mobile (Motor Vehicles) 1.26 0.02 2.50 <0.01 0.16 12.29 0.04 0.13 32.88 0.00 <0.01 0.11 <0.01 0.01 8.71 <0.01 0.01 2.41 Total Project Emissions 3.77 12.45 33.06 0.11 8.72 2.42 SCAQMD Thresholds 55.00 55.00 550.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Potentially Significant Impact? No No No No No No Note: Column totals may not add due to rounding from the model results. Calculation sheets provided in Appendix III to this Initial Study. c) Less Than Significant Impact: A significant impact may occur if a project would add a considerable cumulative contribution to federal or state non - attainment pollutant. Because the South Coast Air Basin is currently in nonattainment for ozone, PMio, and PM2.s, related projects may exceed an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality exceedance. With respect to determining the significance of the Project contribution, the SCAQMD neither recommends quantified analyses of construction and/or operational emissions from multiple development projects nor provides methodologies or thresholds of significance to be used to assess the cumulative emissions generated by multiple cumulative projects. Instead, the SCAQMD recommends that a projects potential contribution to cumulative impacts be assessed utilizing the same significance criteria as those for project specific impacts. Furthermore, the SCAQMD states that if an individual development project generates less -than - significant construction or operational emissions impacts, then the development project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment. As discussed above, the mass daily construction and operational emissions generated by the Project would not exceed any of thresholds of significance recommended by the SCAQMD. Also, as discussed below, localized emissions generated by the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD's Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). Therefore, the Project would not contribute a Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station III. Air Quality page 23 cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for the pollutants which the Basin is in nonattainment. Thus, cumulative air quality impacts associated with the Project would be less than significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact: A significant impact may occur if a project were to generate pollutant concentrations to a degree that would significantly affect sensitive receptors. Land uses that are considered more sensitive to changes in air quality than others are referred to as sensitive receptors. Land uses such as primary and secondary schools, hospitals, and convalescent homes are considered to be sensitive to poor air quality because the very young, the old, and the infirm are more susceptible to respiratory infections and other air quality -related health problems than the general public. Residential uses are considered sensitive because people in residential areas are often at home for extended periods of time, so they could be exposed to pollutants for extended periods. Recreational areas are considered moderately sensitive to poor air quality because vigorous exercise associated with recreation places a high demand on the human respiratory function. The nearest air quality sensitive receptors to the Project Site are the Santa Clarita Activities Center to the northeast (approximately 350 meters, or 0.20 mile) and Golden Valley High School to the southeast (approximately 800 meters, or 0.5 mile). Localized Emissions Emissions from construction activities have the potential to generate localized emissions that may expose sensitive receptors to harmful pollutant concentrations. The SCAQMD has developed localized significance threshold (LST) look -up tables for project sites that are 1, 2, and 5 acres in size to simplify the evaluation of localized emissions at small sites. LSTs are provided for each Source Receptor Area (SRA) and various distances from the source of emissions. In the case of this analysis, the Project Site is located within SRA 13 covering the Santa Clarita Valley. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project Site are the Santa Clarita Activities Center to the northeast (approximately 350 meters, or 0.20 mile) and Golden Valley High School to the southeast (approximately 800 meters, or 0.5 mile). As mentioned previously, the Project Site is 7.6 acres in size. However, based on the anticipated equipment used during the on-site grading, site preparation and soil export phase, approximately three acres will be disturbed on a given day. For a conservative analysis, the LSTs for a 2 -acre site in SRA 13 with receptors located between 200 and 500 meters have been used to address the potential localized NOx, CO, PMio, and PM2.s emissions to the area surrounding the Project Site. This approach is conservative because a 2 -acre LST allows for fewer emissions than a 3 -acre LST. In addition, with respect to building construction emissions, this analysis conservatively considered peak daily emissions associated with building construction, architectural coatings, paving, and off-site right-of-way improvements would overlap on the same worst-case day. Although the developed portion of the site is 7.6 acres, the application of the 5 -acre LST for this phase would be conservative because the analysis applies a 5 -acre threshold for 7.6 acres of activity. In addition, the analysis is conservative because it assumes off-site improvements would combine with on-site emissions and the total emissions have been evaluated against a single on- Initial Study -Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station III. Air Quality page 24 site LST. As shown in Table 4, Localized Peak Daily Construction Emissions, peak daily emissions generated within the Project Site and the area for off- site improvements during construction activities would not exceed the applicable construction LSTs in SRA 13. Therefore, localized air quality impacts from Project construction activities on sensitive receptors would be less than significant. Table 4. Localized Peak Daily Construction Emissions Total Emissions Pounds per Da Construction Phase WCO PM10 PM2.5 On -Site Gradin /Site Preparation/Soil Export Emissionsb 28.35 16.29 4.16 2.78 SCAQMD Localized Thresholds 204.00 3,108.00 59.00 20.00 Potentially Significant Impact? No No No No Building Construction Emissions° Building Construction 21.08 17.16 1.29 1.21 Architectural Coatings 1.68 1.83 0.11 0.11 Paving 5.63 5.41 0.30 0.28 Off -Site Right-Of-VVay Right-Of-WayImprovements 11.14 7.77 0.52 0.47 Total Building Construction Emissions 39.53 32.17 2.22 2.07 SCAQMD Localized Thresholds 275.00 4,608.00 79.00 26.00 Potential) Significant Imact? No No No No Note: Calculations assume compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 - Fugitive Dust. a The localized thresholds listed for NOx in this table takes into consideration the gradual conversion of NOx to NO2, and are provided in the mass rate look -up tables in the "Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology" document prepared by the SCAQMD. As discussed previously, the analysis of localized air quality impacts associated with NOx emissions is focused on NO2 levels as they are associated with adverse health effects. b The Project Site is 7.6 acres. However, based on the anticipated equipment used during the on-site grading, site preparation and soil export phase the LSTs for a 2 -acre site with a receptor distance between 200 and 500 meters (1,640 feet) in SCAQMD's SRA 13 have been applied. For the Building phase, this analysis conservatively applies the five -acre LST with a receptor distance between 200 and 500 meters (1,640 feet) in SCAQMD's SRA 13. Calculation sheets are provided in Appendix III to this Initial Study. With regard to localized emissions from motor vehicle travel, traffic congested roadways and intersections have the potential to generate localized high levels of carbon monoxide (CO). The SCAQMD suggests conducting a CO hotspots analysis for any intersection where a project would worsen the Level of Service (LOS) from A -C to any level below C, and for any intersection rated D or worse where the project would increase the V/C ratio by 2 % or more. Based on a review of the Projects traffic analysis,3 the Project would not worsen the LOS from A -C to any level below C for any intersection. In addition, all study area intersections generally operate at LOS D or better under existing plus Project conditions, with the exception of one intersection. The Golden Valley Road/Sierra Highway intersection operates at LOS E during existing conditions and existing plus Project conditions. However, the Project would not increase the traffic by 2% at this intersection. Therefore, the Project would not have the potential to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the California one-hour or eight-hour CO standards of 20 or 9.0 ppm, respectively; or generate an incremental increase equal to or greater than 1.0 ppm for the California one-hour CO standard, or 0.45 ppm 3 Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff Station Traffic Study, Stantec Consulting Services Inc., March 29, 2017. Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station III. Air Quality page 25 for the 8 -hour CO standard at any local intersection. Therefore, impacts with respect to localized CO concentrations would be less than significant. Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) The Project includes the operation of a Los Angeles County Sheriffs Station and would include a vehicle car wash area and vehicle fueling with a fuel storage tank. However, compliance with SCAQMD Rule 461 and SWQCB Water Quality Order No. 2013-0001-DWQ would ensure proper use and maintenance of such facilities. The Project's remaining uses would function similar to office uses and would not include land uses that would routinely involve the use, storage, or processing of carcinogenic or non -carcinogenic toxic air contaminants and no toxic airborne emissions would typically result from Project implementation. In addition, construction activities associated with the Project would be typical of other development projects in the City, and would be subject to the regulations and laws relating to toxic air pollutants at the regional, state, and federal level that would protect sensitive receptors from substantial concentrations of these emissions. Therefore, impacts associated with the release of toxic air contaminants would be less than significant. e) Less than Significant Impact: A project -related significant adverse effect could occur if construction or operation of the proposed Project would result in generation of odors that would be perceptible in adjacent sensitive areas. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses and industrial operations that are associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies and fiberglass molding. The Project involves the development of a sheriff station with a 44,900 -square -foot main building, a 4,000 -square -foot maintenance building, a future 4,000 -square -foot buildable area for up to a potential 2 -story, 8,000 - square -foot building, and 350 parking spaces on a surface parking lot, which is not typically associated with odor complaints. Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include equipment exhaust. Odors from these sources would be localized and generally confined to the immediate area surrounding the Project. The Project would use typical construction techniques, and the odors would be typical of most construction sites and temporary in nature. As the Project involves no operational elements related to industrial projects, no long-term operational objectionable odors are anticipated. Therefore, potential impacts associated with objectionable odors would be less than significant. Cumulative Impacts As discussed in Checklist Item (c) above, a significant impact may occur if a project would add a considerable cumulative contribution to federal or state non -attainment pollutant. Because the South Coast Air Basin is currently in nonattainment for ozone, PMio and PM2.s, related projects may exceed an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality exceedance. With respect to determining the significance of the proposed project contribution, the SCAQMD neither recommends quantified analyses of construction and/or operational emissions from multiple development projects nor provides methodologies or thresholds of significance to be used to assess the cumulative emissions generated by multiple cumulative projects. Instead, the SCAQMD recommends that a project's potential Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station IV. Biological Resources page 26 contribution to cumulative impacts be assessed utilizing the same significance criteria as those for project specific impacts. Furthermore, the SCAQMD states that if an individual development project generates less -than - significant construction or operational emissions impacts, then the development project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment. As discussed above, the mass daily construction and operational emissions generated by the Project would not exceed any of thresholds of significance recommended by the SCAQMD. Also, localized emissions generated by the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD's Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). Therefore, the Project would not contribute a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for the pollutants which the Basin is in nonattainment. Thus, cumulative air quality impacts associated with the Project would be less than significant. IV. Biological a) Less than Significant Impact With Mitigation: Vegetation communities Resources observed within the study area include chamise chaparral, a chamise chaparral/coastal sage scrub ecotone, coastal sage scrub, elderberry scrub, mule fat scrub, non-native grassland, and disturbed/developed areas. The Project site provides generally moderate to low value for locally common plant and wildlife species. Wildlife species observed consist of common species expected where an urban landscape interfaces with wildlands, primarily birds. Burrowing Owl Glenn Lukos Associates biologists Jeff Ahrens and Zack West conducted focused surveys for the burrowing owl in all suitable habitat areas within the Project site. Surveys were conducted in accordance with survey guidelines described in the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Coastal California Gnatcatcher GLA biologists Jeff Ahrens (permit TE 052159-5) and David Moskovitz (permit TE -084606-3) conducted focused surveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher in all suitable habitat areas within the Project site. Surveys were conducted in accordance with the 1997 USFWS survey guidelines, which during the breeding season (March 15 through June 30) require a minimum of six surveys (per survey polygon) with at least one week separating each survey visit. The survey guidelines limit individual biologists to surveying a maximum of 80 acres per day. The Project site contains approximately 6.17 acres of suitable habitat for the gnatcatcher. Therefore, the survey area was one single survey polygon. Jurisdictional Delineation A jurisdictional delineation was conducted for the Project site on January 13, 2017. Prior to beginning the field delineation, a 200 -scale color aerial photograph and the previously cited USGS topographic maps were examined to determine the locations of potential areas of Corps/CDFW jurisdiction. Suspected jurisdictional areas were field checked for the presence of definable channels and/or wetland vegetation, soils, and hydrology. Potential wetland habitats at the subject site were evaluated using the methodology set forth in the U.S. Armv Corns of Eneineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Initial Study -Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station IV. Biological Resources page 27 Manual4 (Wetland Manual) and the 2008 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Supplement (Arid West Supplement).s Summary of Vegetation Communities/Land Cover Types for the Project Site Vegetation Community/Land Cover Type Study Area acres Permanent Impact acres Temporary Impact acres Chamise Chaparral 0.26 - 0.14 Chamise Chaparral/Coastal Sage Scrub 1.42 0.05 0.73 Coastal Sage Scrub 5.54 0.85 1.54 Elderberry Scrub 0.03 - 0.03 Mule Fat Scrub 0.08 0.01 0.09 Non -Native Grassland 2.91 1.00 1.56 Ornamental 0.52 - - Developed/Disturbed 21.33 6.45 1.40 Total 32.10 8.35 5.48 Chamise Chaparral Approximately 0.26 acre of the Project site located within the central - western portion is vegetated with chamise chaparral. This vegetation community consists of remnant areas of marginally disturbed native vegetation dominated entirely with monotypic stands of chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum). Chamise Chaparral/Coastal Sage Scrub Approximately 1.42 acres of the Project site located within the central - western portion is vegetated with an ecotone of chamise chaparral and coastal sage scrub communities. This ecotone consists of remnant areas of marginally disturbed native vegetation comprised by areas dominated entirely with monotypic stands of chamise interspersed with coastal sage scrub dominated by California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), California sage brush (Artemisia californica), black sage (Salvia mellifera), purple sage (Salvia leucophylla), and Our Lord's candle (Hesperoyucca whi p plei). Coastal Sage Scrub Approximately 5.54 acres of the Project site distributed throughout is vegetated with coastal sage scrub primarily consisting of areas formerly disturbed during the construction of the existing alignment of Golden Valley Road, which have been revegetated with native coastal sage scrub species, dominated by California buckwheat and California sage brush. Elderberry Scrub Approximately 0.03 acre of the Project site located within the central - western portion is vegetated with elderberry scrub. This vegetation community consists of remnant areas of marginallV disturbed native 4 Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 5 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Supplement (Version 2.0). Ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR -06- 16. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station IV. Biological Resources page 28 vegetation dominated entirely with a monotypic stand of blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea). Mule Fat Scrub Approximately 0.08 acre of the Project site located within the central - western portion is vegetated with mule fat scrub. This vegetation community consists of an area formerly disturbed during the construction of the existing alignment of Golden Valley Road, which has revegetated entirely with a monotypic stand of mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia). Non-native Grassland Approximately 2.91 acres of the Project site located within the central - western portion is vegetated with non-native grassland. This vegetation community consists of an area subject to past disturbance, which is dominated by grasses and forbs such as common ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), slender wild -oat (Avena fatua), white sweet -clover (Melilotus alb us), short -pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), Mediterranean grass (Schismus barbatus), and annual bur -clover (Medicago polymorpha). Ornamental Approximately 0.52 acre of the Project site located within the southern portion is vegetated with ornamental species. This vegetation community consists of an area consisting of ornamental plantings of non-native cultivars, which includes desert carpet acacia (Acacia redolens), creeping myoporum (Myoporum parvifolium), creeping fig (Ficus pumila), English rose (Rosa cultivar), sycamore (Platanus cultivar), golden rain tree (Koelreuteria cultivar), and ornamental oaks (Quercus cultivar). Developed/Disturbed Approximately 21.33 acres located throughout the Project site consist of developed disturbed land. These areas consist of a temporary County of Los Angeles Fire Department facility, the graded pad adjacent to the fire department, the existing Golden Valley Road alignment, and several unnamed access roads [Exhibit 4]. The proposed Project would permanently impact approximately 0.91 acre of native vegetation communities, including: 0.05 acre of chamise chaparral/coastal sage scrub ecotone, 0.85 acre of coastal sage scrub, and 0.01 acre of mule fat scrub (refer to Table 4-1 in Section 4.2 of the Biological Technical Report, Appendix IV to this Initial Study). In addition, the Project would impact permanently 1.00 acre of non-native grassland and 6.45 acres of disturbed/developed areas. The project would temporarily impact 0.14 acre of chamise chaparral, 0.73 acre of chamise chaparral/coastal sage scrub ecotone, 1.54 acres of coastal sage scrub, 0.03 acre of elderberry scrub, and 0.09 acre of mule fat scrub (refer to Table 4-1 in Section 4.2 of the Biological Technical Report, Appendix IV to this Initial Study). With additional temporary impacts proposed for 1.56 acres of non-native grassland and 1.40 acres of developed/disturbed. The chamise chaparral/coastal sage scrub ecotone and coastal sage scrub communities proposed for impact, potentially support special status plants Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station IV. Biological Resources page 29 and animals, but given the limited amount of potential habitat proposed for removal, impacts are not potentially significant under CEQA. Although no burrowing owls have been detected within or adjacent to the Project site to date during general and focused surveys, the non-native grassland on site holds the potential to support burrowing owl. The final last remaining survey visit is scheduled to be completed during the week June 19, 2017, which will determine if burrowing owls occupy the non-native grassland. If burrowing owls are determined to occupy the non-native grassland, the removal of 2.91 acres of occupied non-native grassland is potentially significant under CEQA prior to mitigation. If burrowing owls are not determined to occupy the non-native grassland, the removal of 2.91 acres of non-native grassland would not represent a significant impact. Special -Status Vegetation Communities (Habitats) The CNDDB identifies the following twelve special -status vegetation communities for the Newhall, Green Valley, Mint Canyon, Oat Valley, San Fernando, Simi Valley East, Val Verde, Warm Springs Mountain, and Whitaker Peak, California quadrangle maps: California walnut woodland, cismontane alkali marsh, mainland cherry forest, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, Southern California threespine stickleback stream, southern coast live oak riparian forest, southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, southern mixed riparian forest, southern riparian scrub, southern sycamore alder riparian forest, and southern willow scrub. The Project site does not contain any special -status vegetation types identified by the CNDDB; however, the mule fat scrub located in the central western portion of the Project site is regulated as a riparian community under Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code. Special -Status Plants No special -status plants were detected at the Project site. A late -season season survey visit will be conducted in late June 2017 with the results provided as an Addendum to this report. Impacts to Special -Status Plants No special -status plants have been detected on site during general and focused surveys to date; however, there is a potential for special -status plants to be detected during the late -season survey visit that is scheduled to be completed in late June 2017. Although not expected, if special -status plants are detected during the late -season survey visit, impacts to these species could occur from the development of the Project. Dependent on the regulatory status of these species, and the size of the population located on site, impacts to these species could be potentially significant under CEQA prior to mitigation to reduce impacts to below a level of significance. Special -Status Animals No special -status animals were detected at the Project site during general biological surveys or focused species surveys. Burrowing Owl The Project site contains habitat suitable to support burrowing owls, a SSC. Focused burrowing owl surveys were conducted on March 15 and April 19, 2017. No burrowine owls have been observed within or adiacent to the Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station IV. Biological Resources page 30 Project site to date; however, there is a potential for burrowing owls to be detected during the last remaining required survey visit, which is scheduled during the week June 19, 2017. In addition, pre -construction burrowing owl surveys will be required for the Project. Coastal California Gnatcatcher The Project site contains habitat suitable to support federally listed as Threatened coastal California gnatcatchers, which are also a SSC. Focused coastal California gnatcatcher surveys were conducted during March and April 2017. No coastal California gnatcatchers were observed within or adjacent to the Project site; therefore, coastal California gnatcatchers are considered absent from the Project site. Therefore, no impacts to coastal California gnatcatchers would result from the Project. Special -Status Wildlife Species Observed within the Project Site No special -status animal species have been detected at the Project site to date. One additional burrowing owl breeding season survey visit was conducted in June 2017. Special -Status Wildlife Species Not Observed but with a Potential to Occur at the Project Site Although no special -status animals have been observed during general or focused surveys to date, the Project site contains habitat suitable for several non -listed special -status animals to reside or breed, which include amphibians: western spadefoot reptiles: California glossy snake, coastal whiptail, coast horned lizard, and coast patch -nosed snake; birds: grasshopper sparrow, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and gray vireo; and mammals: San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit and southern grasshopper mouse. In addition, the Project site contains habitat with the potential to support foraging by the state listed as Threatened Swainson's hawk, as well as non - listed special -status species. Special -status animals that are not expected to reside or breed within the Project site, yet hold the potential for foraging include birds: golden eagle, American peregrine falcon, white-tailed kite, and yellow warbler; and mammals: pallid bat western mastiff bat, California leaf - nose bat, San Diego desert woodrat, American badger. Critical Habitat There is no federally designated Critical Habitat mapped within or adjacent to the Project site. The nearest Critical Habitat is located approximately one mile southeast of the Project site. Raptor Use The Project site provides suitable foraging and breeding habitat for a number of commonly occurring raptor species, such as red-tailed hawk and Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii). Nesting Birds The Project site contains trees, shrubs, and ground cover that provide suitable habitat for nestine mieratory birds. Impacts to nestine birds are Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station IV. Biological Resources prohibited under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and similar provisions under California Fish and Game Code.6 Indirect Impacts to Biological Resources page 31 In the context of biological resources, indirect effects are those effects associated with developing areas adjacent to native open space. Potential indirect effects associated with development include water quality impacts associated with drainage into adjacent open space/downstream aquatic resources; lighting effects; noise effects; invasive plant species from landscaping; and effects from human access into adjacent open space, such as recreational activities (including off-road vehicles and hiking), pets, and dumping. Temporary, indirect effects may also occur as a result of construction -related activities. The Project has the potential for both temporary and permanent indirect effects. These impacts consist of temporary impacts such as increased noise and dust during construction, and permanent impacts such as increased lighting adjust to undeveloped lands and an increase in vehicular traffic at the Project site. Mitigation Measure Lands vegetated with chamise chaparral/coastal sage scrub ecotone and coastal sage scrub and temporarily impacted during construction of the project will be restored to original or better condition at a ratio of 1:1. b) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation/Potentially Significant Impact: The Project site contains riparian habitat or natural vegetation community such as sage scrub, chaparral, or woodland. See a. above. Mitigation Measure Nesting Birds. Vegetation clearing should be conducted outside of the nesting season (nesting season is February 1 through August 31). If avoidance of the nesting season is not feasible, then a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey within three days prior any disturbance of the site, including disking, demolition activities, and grading. If active nests are identified, the biologist shall establish suitable buffers (a minimum of 50 feet for passerines, 250 feet for raptors [including burrowing owls], and 500 feet for listed species [although not expected]) around the nests, and the buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests. c) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation: The Project site contains wetlands and/or a discernable drainage course. An estimated 0.003 acre (5 linear feet) of potential Corps and Regional Board jurisdiction would be removed permanently by the proposed Project with another 0.02 acre (77 linear feet) proposed for temporary impact, both in the form of ephemeral, non -wetland waters (Exhibit 3A of the Biological Technical Report). 6 The MBTA makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in 50 C.F.R. Part 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50 C.F.R.21). In addition, sections 3505, 3503.5, and 3800 of the California Department of Fish and Game Code prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs. Initial Study -Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station IV. Biological Resources page 32 An estimated 0.008 acre (5 linear feet) of potential CDFW jurisdiction (riparian vegetated) would be permanently impacted by the proposed project, with an additional 0.09 acre (77 linear feet) proposed for temporary impact. The locations of the waters of the United States are depicted on the enclosed map [Exhibit 6A - Corps Jurisdictional Delineation Map of the Biological Technical Report]. A summary of Corps jurisdiction within the Site is provided below in Table S. The Project will permanently impact 0.003 acre of non -wetland WoUS and 0.008 acre of CDFW riparian jurisdictional area. The locations of CDFW jurisdictional areas are depicted on the enclosed map [Exhibit 6B - CDFW Jurisdictional Delineation Map of the Biological Technical Report]. A summary of CDFW, Corps, and Regional Board jurisdiction are provided below in Table S. Table S. Impacts to Corps, Regional Board, and CDFW Jurisdiction Santa Clarita Valley Sherriff Station Corps/Regional Board Non -wetland Impact Drainage Resource Wetland Waters Total Length Type Feature Type acres acres acres linearfeet Permanent Feature 1 Ephemeral 0.00 0.003 0.003 5 Feature 2 Ephemeral 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Temporary Feature 1 Ephemeral 0.00 0.02 0.02 77 Feature 2 Ephemeral 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 CDFW Onvegetated Impact Drainage Resource Riparian Streambed Total Length Type Feature Type acres acres acres (linear feet) Permanent Feature 1 Ephemeral 0.008 0.00 0.008 5 Feature 2 Ephemeral 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Temporary Feature 1 Ephemeral 0.09 0.00 0.09 77 Feature 2 Ephemeral 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Mitigation Measure The Project will permanently impact 0.003 acre of non -wetland WoUS and 0.008 acre of CDFW jurisdictional areas, with an additional 0.09 acre of temporary impact. The following mitigation is recommended: - To mitigate the loss of Corps, Regional Board, and CDFW jurisdiction, the Project will purchase credits from an approved mitigation bank/in-lieu fee program at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio, for a minimum of 0.008 acres of mitigation credits. - If an approved mitigation bank/in-lieu fee program cannot be identified to mitigate the loss of Corps, Regional Board, and CDFW jurisdiction, the Project will enhance, re-establish, or establish Corps, Regional Board, and CDFW jurisdictional areas on off-site conserved lands at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio, for a minimum of 0.008 acres of enhancement, re-establishment, or establishment, which will include at a minimum 0.008 acre of riparian habitat. Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station IV. Biological Resources page 33 - Compensatory mitigation should be coordinated with CWA 401 and 404 permitting and CDFW 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement acquisition to ensure efficiencies with the mitigation effort. Drainage The Project shall incorporate measures, including measures required through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) requirements, to ensure that the quantity and quality of runoff discharged to off-site undeveloped lands is not altered in an adverse way when compared with existing conditions. In particular, measures shall be put in place to avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into adjacent undeveloped lands. Storm water systems shall be designed to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials or other elements that might degrade or harm biological resources or ecosystem processes within these areas. This can be accomplished using avarietyof methods including natural detention basins, grass swales or mechanical trapping devices. Regular maintenance shall occur to ensure effective operations of runoff control systems. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be developed to address runoff and potential water quality degradation during construction. Toxics Chemicals (such as gasoline) that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species, habitat or water quality shall be contained in such away to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge to adjacent undeveloped lands. The Project will implement SWPPP that will address runoff during construction and operations. d) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The site is currently a vacant parcel in a developed area. This portion of the city does not support the dispersal of wildlife, and the proposed Project would not restrict wildlife movement. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on the movement of fish or wildlife, wildlife corridors, or the use of wildlife nursery sites. Mitigation Measure Night lighting shall be directed away from adjacent undeveloped lands to protect species within these areas from direct night lighting. A block wall is proposed around the perimeter of the Sheriff s Station facility. This would buffer the adjacent undeveloped lands from potential night lighting effects. e) No Impact: The City of Santa Clarita's Oak Tree Ordinance (Section 17.51.040) is the only local policy or ordinance that protects biological resources. The Project site does not contain any oak trees, and the Project would not otherwise damage any oak trees. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the City's Oak Tree Ordinance, and the Project would have no related impacts. Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station V. Cultural Resources page 34 Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impacts f) No Impact: The Project site is not within a habitat conservation plan (HCP), natural community conservation plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the Project would 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 identified on Exhibit CO -5 (Significant Ecological Areas) of the Citys General Plan Conservation Element. 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. V. Cultural a) Less than Significant: There are no known buildings, structures, natural Resources features, works of art, or similar objects on the site that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register, or a local register or which have a significant historic value to the city which are to be demolished, relocated, removed, or significantly altered by the Project. 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: There are no known prehistoric or historic archeological sites on the Project site. However, the Project involves grading into previously undisturbed soils. Thus, construction of the Project has the potential encounter previously undiscovered archeological resources. In the unlikely event that archaeological resources are encountered during grading or construction of the Project, the following mitigation measure requires Project grading and construction efforts to halt until an archeologist examines the site, identifies the archaeological significance of the find, and recommends a course of action. Incorporation of Mitigation Measure CR -1 would ensure the proposed Project would not significantly impact archaeological resources. Mitigation Measure If archaeological resources are encountered during Project construction, all construction activities in the vicinity of the find shall halt until an archeologist certified by the Society of Professional Archaeologists examines the site, identifies the archaeological significance of the find, and recommends a course of action. Construction in the vicinity of the find shall not resume until the site archaeologist states in writing that the proposed construction activities will not damage significant archaeological resources. c) No Impact: The existing earth materials on-site consist ofyolo loam, Saugus loam and Ojai loam. No paleontological resources or unique geologic features are known to exist on-site. Furthermore, the Project does not involve excavation for subterranean levels. The grading proposed is for site preparation and utility installation. This minor grading would occur in surface earth materials and would not extend into deep, older earth materials where paleontological resources may be found. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed Project would encounter any paleontological resources, and the Project would have no impacts. Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station VI. Geology and Soils page 35 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 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 §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 California Public Resources Code §5097.98. Compliance with these regulations would ensure the proposed Project would not significantly impact human remains. VI. Geology and Soils (Please see Geotechnical Investigation and Geologic -Seismic Report, Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff Station West Side of Golden Valley Road south of Centre Pointe Parkway (RTF&A, June 8, 2017). a)i. Less than Significant: The Project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or within any other known fault zones, as identified on 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 from 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. a)ii. Less Than Significant Impact: Santa Clarita is within a seismically active region of Southern California. Consequently, the proposed Project will 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 structures are required to be built according to the California Building Standards Code (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: The Project site is within a liquefaction hazard area shown on Exhibit S-3 of the City's General Plan Safety Element. Exhibit S-3 was developed considering the Liquefaction and Earthquake - Induced Landslide hazard areas as shown on the State of California Seismic Hazard Zone maps for the city. However, the geotechnical report indicated that there will be no impacts related to seismic -induced ground failure or liquefaction. a)iv.Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation: Portions of the site lie within designated areas of previous landslide movement or areas of potential landslides based on seismic hazard map. A landslide was located previously on-site and on the adjacent property. The on-site slide was removed as part of the previous grading operations. There is still an existing minor slide immediately adjacent to the project site and will be mitigated as part of the grading. b) Less Than Significant Impact: During construction of the proposed Project, the soils on-site may become exposed and thus subject to erosion. However, the Proiect is reauired to comDly with existine reeulations that reduce Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station VI. Geology and Soils page 36 erosion potential. The proposed Project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, which, as described in subsection III, Air Quality, of this report, would reduce the potential for wind erosion. Similarly, water erosion during construction would be substantially reduced by complying with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). As further detailed in subsection VIII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this report, the NPDES 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 Sheriff s Station would not cause wind or water erosion or the loss of topsoil. c) Less Than Significant Impact: The Project site is a generally flat parcel that is not located on a cliff, mountainside, bluff, or other geographic feature with stability concerns. The site and vicinity are not susceptible to landslide, subsidence, or collapse. Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause impacts related to unstable geologic units or soils. At completion of grading there will be no stability concerns. d) Less Than Significant Impact: The Project site is underlain by Ojai Loam, 30 to 50 Percent Slopes; Saugus Loam, 30 to 50 Percent Slopes, Eroded; Yolo Loam, 2 to 9 Percent Slopes. 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) No Impact: The Project site is generally flat and the only proposed grading is for site preparation and utility installation. Grading of offsite and off-site slopes is proposed, as well as grading of a landslide. Nonetheless, the proposed Project would not result in noticeable changes in topography or ground surface relief features. g) No Impact: Total earthwork including remedial grading is less than 114,000 cubic yards. No impacts are associated with the cut and fill associated with the project. h) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: As discussed, the Project site is largely flat and there are no natural slopes greater than 10% grade existing on-site. However, the Project includes manufactured slopes greater than 10%, and grading is proposed on these previously graded slopes over 10%. Additionally, grading for the landslide off-site, which is also greater than 10% slope, is also proposed. With the incorporation of recommendations in the project geotechnical report, the proposed Project would not cause any impacts from development or grading slopes greater than 10% natural grade. i) No Impact: As discussed, the topography of the Project site is primarily flat, except for a downslope near the northern and eastern portions of the site. The site does not contain any ridgelines or other regionally notable topographic features. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions page 37 Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impacts destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical feature, and the Project would have no related impact. VII. Greenhouse Gas a -b) Less than Significant Impact: Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are Emissions called greenhouse gases (GHGs), since they have effects that are analogous to the way in which a greenhouse retains heat. Greenhouse gases are emitted by both natural processes and human activities. The accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere regulates the earth's temperature. The State of California has undertaken initiatives designed to address the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, and to establish targets and emission reduction strategies for greenhouse gas emissions in California. Activities associated with the Project, including construction and operational activities, would have the potential to generate greenhouse gas emissions. The principal GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), hydrofluoro- carbons (HFC s), and water vapor (H20). CO2 is the reference gas for climate change because it is the predominant greenhouse gas emitted. To account for the varying warming potential of different GHGs, GHG emissions are often quantified and reported as CO2 equivalents (CO2e). California has enacted several pieces of legislation that relate to GHG emissions and climate change, much of which sets aggressive goals for GHG reductions within the state. Per Senate Bill 97, the California Natural Resources Agency adopted amendments to the CEQA Guidelines, which address the specific obligations of public agencies when analyzing GHG emissions under CEQA to determine a Project's effects on the environment. However, neither a threshold of significance nor any specific mitigation measures are included or provided in these CEQA Guideline amendments. Assembly Bill 32 (Statewide GHG Reductions) The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, widely known as AB 32, requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop and enforce regulations for the reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. CARB is directed to set a statewide GHG emission limit, based on 1990 levels, to be achieved by 2020. The bill set a timeline for adopting a scoping plan for achieving GHG reductions in a technologically and economically feasible manner. The heart of the bill is the requirement that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. The CARB AB 32 Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) contains the main strategies to achieve the 2020 emissions cap. The Scoping Plan was developed by CARB with input from the Climate Action Team (CAT) and proposes a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall carbon emissions in California, improve the environment, reduce oil dependency, diversify energy sources, and enhance public health while creating new jobs and improving the state economy. The GHG reduction strategies contained in the Scoping Plan include direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non -monetary incentives, voluntary actions, and market-based mechanisms such as a cap -and -trade system. Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions page 38 CARB has adopted the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plana This update identifies the next steps for California's leadership on climate change. The first update to the initial AB 32 Scoping Plan describes progress made to meet the near-term objectives of AB 32 and defines California's climate change priorities and activities for the next several years. It also frames activities and issues facing the state as it develops an integrated framework for achieving both air quality and climate goals in California beyond 2020. In the original Scoping Plan, CARB approved a total statewide GHG 1990 emissions level and 2020 emissions limit of 427 million metric tons of CO2e. As part of the update, CARB revised the 2020 statewide limit to 431 million metric tons of CO2e, an approximately 1% increase from the original estimate. The 2020 business -as -usual (BAU) forecast in the update is 509 million metric tons of CO2e. The state would need to reduce those emissions by 15.3% to meet the 431 million metric tons of C Ole 2020 limit. CARB also aims to reduce GHG emissions significantly by 2030. As California moves closer to reaching the 2020 GHG emission reduction goal state legislation has focused on furthering GHG emission reduction targets. Executive Order B-30-15 was issued April 2015 and establishes a mid-term GHG reduction target for California of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. In 2016, the Legislature passed SB 37 with the companion bill AB 197 which further mandates the 2030 target and provides additional direction to CARB on strategies to reduce GHG emissions. In response to Executive Order B-30- 15 and SB 37 CARB is moving forward with a second update to the Scoping Plan to reflect the 2030 target e SB 32 was enacted in 2016 and expands on AB 32 to require California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. The bill targets reductions from the leading greenhouse gas emitters in the state. Transportation is the largest sector of greenhouse gas emissions in the state and will be a primary subject for reductions. Through advances in technology and improved public transportation the state plans to significantly improve greenhouse gas emissions from transportation sources to meet the 2030 reduction goal. California Senate Bills 1078, 107, and 2; Renewables Portfolio Standard Established in 2002 under California Senate Bill 1078 and accelerated in 2006 under California Senate Bill 107, California's RPS requires retail suppliers of electric services to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources by at least 1% of their retail sales annually, until they reach 20% by 2010. On April 2, 2011, Governor Jerry Brown signed California Senate Bill 2 to increase California's RPS to 33% by 2020. This new standard also requires regulated sellers of electricity to procure 25% of their energy supply from certified renewable resources by 2016. Low Carbon Fuel Standard California Executive Order 5-01-07 Qanuary 18, 2007) requires a 10% or greater reduction in the average carbon intensitv for transportation fuels in 7 CARB, First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework, May 2014. 8 The Proposed Second Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan was published January 20, 2017. Initial Study -Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions page 39 California regulated by CARD. CARD identified the LCFS as a Discrete Early Action item under AB 32, and the final resolution (09-31) was issued on April 23, 2009. Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375) California's Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, also referred to as Senate Bill (SB) 375, became effective January 1, 2009. The goal of SB 375 is to help achieve AB 32's GHG emissions reduction goals by aligning the planning processes for regional transportation, housing, and land use. SB 375 requires CARD to develop regional reduction targets for GHGs, and prompts the creation of regional plans to reduce emissions from vehicle use throughout the state. California's 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) have been tasked with creating Sustainable Community Strategies (SCS) in an effort to reduce the region's vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in order to help meet AB 32 targets through integrated transportation, land use, housing and environmental planning. Pursuant to SB 375, CARD set per -capita GHG emissions reduction targets from passenger vehicles for each of the state's 18 MPOs. On September 23, 2010, CARD issued a regional 8% per capita reduction target for the planning year 2020, and a conditional target of 13% for 2035. California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code Although not originally intended to reduce greenhouse gases, California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 Part 6: California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. Since then, Title 24 has been amended with recognition that energy-efficient buildings that require less electricity and reduce fuel consumption, which in turn decreases GHG emissions. The 2016 Title 24 standards (effective as of January 1, 2017) were revised and adopted in part to respond to the requirements of AB 32. Accordingly, new development projects constructed within California after January 1, 2017 are subject to the mandatory planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resources efficiency, and environmental quality measures of the California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11). As noted on page 37 in the First Update to the Scoping Plan (May 2014), building efficiency standards updated in 2013 and are 25% more efficient for residential construction and 30% more efficient for non-residential construction9 Local Policies and Regulations City of Santa Clarita General Plan The City's Conservation and Open Space Element of the 2011 General Plan has identified the following goals, objectives and policies aimed at greenhouse gas reduction for projects in the City. 9 Computed from California Energy Demand, 2012-2022 Final Forecast, June 2012, Form 2.2 on Committed Energy Impacts. Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions page 40 Goal CO 8: Development designed to improve energy efficiency, reduce energy and natural resource consumption, and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Objective CO 8.1: Comply with the requirements of state law, including AB 32, SB 375 and implementing regulations, to reach targeted reductions of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Policy CO 8.1.1: Create and adopt a Climate Action Plan within 18 months of the OVOV adoption date of the City's General Plan Update that meets state requirements and includes the following components: a. Plans and programs to reduce GHG emissions to state - mandated targets, including enforceable reduction measures; i. The CAP may establish goals beyond 2020, which are consistent with the applicable laws and regulations referenced in this paragraph and based on current science; ii. The CAP shall include specific and general tools and strategies to reduce the City s current and projected 2020 inventory and to meet the CAPS target for GHG reductions by 2020; iii. The CAP shall consider, among other GHG reduction strategies, the feasibility of development fees; incentive and rebate programs; and, voluntary and mandatory reduction strategies in areas of energy efficiency, renewable energy, water conservation and efficiency, solid waste, land use and transportation. b. Mechanisms to ensure regular review of progress towards the emission reduction targets established by the Climate Action Plan; C. Procedures for reporting on progress to officials and the public; d. Procedures for revising the plan as needed to meet GHG emissions reduction targets; and e. Allocation of funding and staffing for Plan implementation Climate Action Plan The State of California requires all cities that create a new general plan or update their general plan document to consider its impacts on GHG emissions. To do so, cities can prepare a Climate Action Plan (CAP). The CAP must achieve the emission reduction goals outlined by the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions must be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. Measures identified in Santa Clarita's Climate Action plan will not only meet but exceed the state's AB 32 GHG emission reduction mandate. In June 2011, the City Council adopted a new General Plan (formerly referred to as One Valley One Vision), which is intended to guide growth and development within all portions of the Santa Clarita Valley. Policy C 0 8.1.1 of the City's General Plan states the City shall create and adopt a Climate Action Plan within 18 months of the OVOV adoption date of the Citv's General Plan Update that meets state requirements. Consistent with Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions page 41 this policy, in January 2011, the City began the process of developing a CAP, with the Final CAP published in August 2012. The CAP, part of the General Plan, serves as a component of the general plan document for the City to address GHG emissions. Using the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan as a starting point, the CAP identifies mitigation measures that can be quantified and translated into significant reductions in the GHG emissions by the year 2020. The development of a CAP begins with a premise that establishing a complete GHG emissions inventory within the city's boundary is the critical foundation for the remainder of the Project. The 2005 baseline year GHG emissions inventory has captured emissions from various sources. The total emissions of GHG in 2005 were estimated to be 1,717,648 MTCOze. The emissions are presented separately for community -wide sources and municipal sources. Of this total, the emissions from on -road vehicles were the main source of GHG emissions for the City in 2005 (60%) followed by residential energy use (18%) and commercial/industrial energy use (13%). The municipal source emissions make up approximately 2% of the total emissions. This emissions profile is typical for a City with the characteristics of Santa Clarita. 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. Applying estimated reductions from CAP measures shows that the resulting 2020 net emissions are expected to be approximately 4% below the 2005 baseline level. The reduction represents a level that is 17% below the 2020 BAU emissions level and is consistent with the overall Statewide Goals of AB 32. The Climate Action Plan not only identifies a reduction target or commitments, but it also sets forth the complement of goals, policies, measures, and ordinances that will achieve the target. These policies and other strategies include measures in transportation, land use, energy conservation, water conservation, and vegetation. The CAP also defines a local threshold of significance for GHG emissions for project level submittals that trigger review by the California Environmental Quality Act. 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 will by association demonstrate consistency with the CAP. Santa Clarita Green Building Standards Code Section 25.0 1.010 in the Santa Clarita Municipal Code adopts by reference that certain code known and designated as the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11, further described as the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code, also referred to as the 2016 CalGreen Code, published by the California Building Standards Commission. Such code shall be and become the City of Santa Clarita Green Building Standards Code, regulating the planning, design, operation, construction, use and occupancy of every new building or structure to ensure buildings Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions page 42 have a more positive environmental impact and encourage sustainable construction practices as specifically provided for therein. GHG Significance Threshold The County, the SCAQMD nor the CEQA Guidelines Amendments provide adopted quantitative thresholds of significance for addressing a residential project's GHG emissions. Nonetheless, Section 15064.4 of the CEQA Guidelines Amendments serves to assist lead agencies in determining the significance of the impacts of GHGs. As required in Section 15064.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, this analysis includes an impact determination based on the following: 1) an estimate of the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the Project; 2) a qualitative analysis or performance based standards; 3) a quantification of the extent to which the Project increases greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting; and 4) the extent to which the Project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2008, the SCAQMD adopted an interim 10,000 metric tons CO2e (MTCO2e) per year screening level threshold for stationary source/industrial projects for which the SCAQMD is the lead agency. The SCAQMD continues to consider adoption of significance thresholds for non -industrial development projects. The most recent proposal issued in September 2010 uses the following tiered approach to evaluate potential GHG impacts from various uses: Tier 1: Determine if CEQA categorical exemptions are applicable. If not, move to Tier 2. Tier 2: Consider whether or not the proposed Project is consistent with a locally adopted GHG reduction plan that has gone through public hearings and CEQA review, that has an approved inventory, includes monitoring, etc. If not, move to Tier 3. Tier 3: Consider whether the Project generates GHG emissions in excess of screening thresholds for individual land uses. The 10,000 MTC 02e/year threshold for industrial uses would be recommended for use by all lead agencies. Under option 1, separate screening thresholds are proposed for residential projects (3,500 MTCO2e/year), commercial projects (1,400 MTCO2e/year), and mixed-use projects (3,000 MTCO2e/year). Under option 2 a single numerical screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/year would be used for all non -industrial projects. If the Project generates emissions in excess of the applicable screening threshold, move to Tier 4. Tier 4: Consider whether the Project generates GHG missions in excess of applicable performance standards for the Project service population (population plus employment). The efficiency targets were established based on the goal of AD 32 to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The 2020 efficiency targets are 4.8 MTCO2e per service population for Project level analyses and 6.6 MTCO2e per service population for plan level analyses. If the Project generates emissions in excess of the applicable efficiency targets, move to Tier 5. Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions page 43 Tier 5: Consider the implementation of CEQA mitigation (including the purchase of GHG offsets) to reduce the Project efficiency target to Tier 4 levels. City of Santa Clarita Climate Action Plan Threshold As stated previously, the City's adopted CAP defines a local threshold of significance for GHG emissions for project level submittals that trigger review by the California Environmental Quality Act. Because goals, objectives and policies approved under the General Plan are forecast to meet the GHG emission reduction targets mandated by AB 32, projects that are able to demonstrate consistency with the General Plan and zoning ordinance will by association demonstrate consistency with the CAP. This threshold of significance is consistent with the SCAQMD's Tier 2 draft threshold noted above and will be the threshold of significance for the Project. As such, if the Project can demonstrate consistency with the General Plan and zoning ordinance, then the Project will by association be consistent with the City's CAP and result in a less than significant project - level impact. Construction GHG Emissions Construction emissions represent an episodic, temporary source of GHG emissions. Emissions are generally associated with the operation of construction equipment and the disposal of construction waste. To be consistent with the guidance from the SCAQMD for calculating criteria pollutants from construction activities, only GHG emissions from on-site construction activities and off-site hauling and construction worker commuting are considered as Project -generated. As explained by California Air Pollution Controls Officers Association (CAPCOA) in its 2008 white paper, the information needed to characterize GHG emissions from manufacture, transport, and end -of -life of construction materials would be speculative at the CEQA analysis level. CEQA does not require an evaluation of speculative impacts (CEQA Guidelines §15145). Therefore, the construction analysis does not consider such GHG emissions, but does consider non -speculative on-site construction activities and off-site hauling and construction worker trips. All GHG emissions are presented on an annual basis. Emissions of GHGs were calculated using CalEEMod 2016.3.1 for construction of the Project. As shown in Table 6, Project Construction -Related GHG Emissions, the Project would generate a total of 812.86 metric tons of construction related GHG emissions. Consistent with SCAQMD recommendations and to ensure construction emissions are assessed in a quantitative sense, construction GHG emissions have been amortized over a 30 -year period and have been added to the annual operational GHG emissions of the Project identified in Table 6. Table 6. Project Construction -Related GHG Emissions Calculation data and results are provided in Appendix VII to this Initial CO2e Emissions Year Metric Tons per Year 2019 328.33 2020 363.34 2020 Off -Site Right -of -Way Improvements) 121.19 Total Project Construction GHG Emissions 812.86 Calculation data and results are provided in Appendix VII to this Initial Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Operational GHG Emissions page 44 The Project includes the development of a Los Angeles County Sheriff s Station with a 44,900 -square -foot main building, a 4,000 -square -foot maintenance building, and a future 4,000 -square -foot buildable area for up to a potential two-story 8,000 square -foot building, and 350 parking spaces on a surface parking lot. The operations of the Project would generate GHG emissions from the usage of on -road motor vehicles, electricity, natural gas, water, and generation of solid waste and wastewater. Emissions of operational GHGs are shown in Table 7, Project Operational GHG Emissions. As shown, the GHG emissions generated by the Project would be approximately 2,035.51 CO2e MTY. As noted previously, the SCAQMD released a draft guidance document regarding interim CEQA GHG significance thresholds. The SCAQMD proposed a tiered approach, whereby the level of detail and refinement needed to determine significance increases with a project's total GHG emissions. The SCAQMD also proposed a screening level of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year for all land use projects (non -industrial projects), under which project impacts would be considered "less than significant." As shown in Table 7, the Project would be under the 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold for non- industrial projects. Table 7. Project Operational GHG Emissions Emissions Source Estimated CO2e Emissions Metric Tons perYear Area Sources 0.01 Energy Demand (Electricity and Natural Gas) 525.27 Mobile (Motor Vehicles) 1,334.70 Solid Waste Generation 26.61 Water Demand 125.69 Construction Emissions* 27.10 Project Total 2,039.38 *rhe total construction GHG emissions were amortized over 30 years and added to the operation ofthe Project. Calculation sheets are provided in Appendix VII to this Initial Study. As the Project would have less -than -significant land use impacts and the Project would be consistent with the Citys General Plan (see Land Use and Planning analysis section in this Draft Initial Study), the Project would also be considered consistent with the CAP. It should also be noted because the Project would be required to meet the Santa Clarita Green Building Standards Code and the CALGreen Code, the Project is also qualitatively consistent with statewide goals and policies in place for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, including AB 32 and the corresponding Scoping Plan and GHG impacts would be less than significant. Cumulative Impacts Given the Project's consistency with the CAP and compliance with the CALGreen Code and Santa Clarita Green Building Standards Code, the Project would be consistent with local and statewide goals and policies aimed at reducing the generation of GHGs, including CARB's AB 32 Scoping Plan. Therefore, the Project's generation of GHG emissions would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to GHG emissions and impacts would be less than significant. Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials page 45 Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impacts VIII. Hazards and a) Less Than Significant Impact: The Project does not involve the use or Hazardous storage of hazardous substances other than ammunition associated with law Materials enforcement activities, pepper spray, and the small amounts of pesticides, fertilizers, and cleaning agents required for normal maintenance of the structure and landscaping. The Project must adhere to applicable zoning and fire regulations regarding the use and storage of any hazardous substances. Further, there is no evidence that the site has been used for the storage of hazardous materials that would require disposal. The site will store and utilize gasoline to fuel the vehicles and to run the proposed on-site generator. b) Less Than Significant Impact: The site is known or expected to contain a drum of engine oil. No gas lines or other hazardous material conduits or storage facilities are located on the Project site. Above -ground gasoline storage tanks will be located on-site at the fueling station. The Project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5. No evidence exists of industrial abuse, legal/illegal dumping, mining, or oil and gas exploration/production. Furthermore, the Project does not propose any industrial uses other than those associated with Sheriffs Station operations. Hazardous materials will be stored in secondary containment and therefore, the proposed Project would not create a hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, and the Project would have no related impacts 10 c) Less Than Significant Impact: The Project site is not located within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Furthermore, as discussed in Issue a) above, the proposed uses are not anticipated to store, use, or generate substantial amounts of hazardous materials, other than gasoline and diesel fuel, and are not anticipated to utilize any acutely hazardous materials. Therefore, the Project would have no related impacts. d) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed Project involves above -ground storage tanks (ASTs), gas lines, which is a scenario that could result in accidental release of hazardous materials. A summary of properties that could not be mapped by FOR but were identified as being potentially within the Site vicinity (orphan properties) is also included in the FOR report. Of the two listed unmappable properties, neither is identifiable as being in the immediate Site vicinity. The other pertinent findings of the government database review are summarized as follows: The Site was identified on the Los Angeles County Hazardous Materials System (HMS) and the Hazardous Waste Information System (HAZNET). Captain John Ahten of the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LAFD) Station 104 (current occupant of the Site), when asked if he had any knowledge of hazardous materials or petroleum products on -Site said that the Department maintains a drum of engine oil for vehicle maintenance. He is unaware of any other substances on -Site that would warrant the above -listed distinctions. 10 JHA Environmental, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Proposed Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff Station, February 28, 2017. Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The Site is not located within 1.0 mile of a federal Superfund site. page 46 The Project includes limited off-site grading on the Whittaker Bermite property, formerly used for the manufacture and testing of munitions. DTSC has inspected the areas to be graded and has informed the City that the Bermite property records show no manufacturing activities within the areas to be graded, and these areas are free of contamination. Whittaker Bermite ceased in 1987 but is currently listed on the DTSC's data management system (EnviroStor), Hazardous Waste and Substance Site List (HIST CORESE), the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incident Reports (CA LUST), and the Local Lists of Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Sites (CA HIST). Seven EnviroStor sites are located within 1.0 mile of the Site. The closest is Whittaker Bermite, discussed above. Two properties are listed as RCRA Small Quantity Generators (SQG) of hazardous waste within 0.25 mile ofthe Site. The closest of which is Blue Cross Laboratories located 0.13 mile north-northeast of the Site. The other, Hi - Shear Technology, is located 0.25 mile north of the Site. Both are downgradient from the Site. Designation as a RCRA SQG does not imply that a release to the environment has occurred. Merle Norman Cosmetics, located 0.25+ mile north of the Site (previous owner of the City of Santa Clarita's Activities Center, is a California Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System (SWEEPS) Underground Storage Tank (UST) site. It is the only such listing within 0.25 mile of the Site. Two facilities within 0.5 mile of the Site are listed as CA LUST properties. Santa Clarita LLC, 0.41 mile south-southwest is the closest. The other CA LUST property is Whittaker Bermite discussed above. Based on the database review, the Site is listed in Los Angeles County HMS and HAZNET databases as LA County Fire Station 104. The Site is not located within 1.0 mile of a federal Superfund Property. There is a low probability that the Site has been impacted from other listed properties because of either/or their down -gradient locations, their status (case closed), or their distances from the Site. 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. The heliport will be used for law enforcement and emergency activities. 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. f) No Impact: The Project site is not within 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 construction and operation of the proposed Project would not place any permanent or temporary physical barriers on any existing public streets, except for temporary barriers used for traffic control during construction. Furthermore, the Project site is used by an emergency response agency (Fire Station); however, it will be relocated Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station IX. Hydrology and Water Quality page 47 prior to construction activities. The proposed Sheriffs Station will be an emergency response facility with no impact to emergency response planning. h) Less Than Significant Impact: As shown on City of Santa Clarita's online GIS System, Fire Zone layer, the Project site is within a fire hazard area. In addition to suppression activities, the Fire Department has adopted programs directed at wildland fire prevention, including adoption of the State Fire Code standards for new development in hazardous fire areas. Fire prevention requirements include provision of access roads, adequate road width, and clearance of brush around structures located in hillside areas. IX. Hydrology and a) Less Than Significant Impact: Section 303 of the federal Clean Water Act Water Quality requires states to develop water quality standards to protect the beneficial uses of receiving waters. In accordance with California's Porter/Cologne 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 their region meets the requirements of Section 303 of the Clean Water Act. Santa Clarita is within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles RWQCB. The Los Angeles RWQCB adopted water quality objectives in its Stormwater Quality Management Plan (SQMP). This SQMP is designed to ensure storm water achieves compliance with receiving water limitations. Thus, storm water generated by a development that complies with the SQMP does not exceed the limitations of receiving waters and thus does not exceed water quality standards. Compliance with the SQMP is ensured by Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, which is known as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Under this section, municipalities are required to obtain permits for the water pollution generated by storm water in their jurisdiction. These permits are known as Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) permits. Storm water and non -storm water 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 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 the 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 applicant 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 (SWQDv) which must be retained on-site, 4) discussion of the feasibility of storm water runoff harvest and use, 5) storm water quality control measures, and 6) proposed operation and maintenance plan. As an urban development, the proposed Project would add typical urban, nonpoint-source pollutants to storm water runoff. As discussed, these Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station IX. Hydrology and Water Quality page 48 pollutants are permitted 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 excavation or development of the Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would not physically interfere with any groundwater supplies. The Santa Clara River and its tributaries are the primary groundwater recharge areas for the Santa Clarita Valley (General Plan Conservation Element 2012). The site's runoff currently flows into an engineered storm drain system which ultimately drains to the Santa Clara River where it recharges the groundwater. The proposed Project would alter the drainage of the site by adding impermeable surfaces; however, the proposed Project would maintain the site's outflow into the supporting storm drain system. Therefore, the proposed Project would not substantially deplete ground- water 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. Proposed on-site area drains will collect storm water as surface flow and drain to biofiltration areas. The hydrologic summary table is shown in Section 4 of the Hydrology Study for the 85th percentile storm (please see Appendix IX to this Initial Study). The calculated flow rate/Qpm of the on-site area for the subject storm is 1.09 cubic feet per second (cfs), and the associated runoff volume is 18,647 cfs. As the in-situ on-site soils will not allow for infiltration the Project must use "Alternative Compliance Measures" as outlined in the LA County LID manual to handle this storm water quality design volume (SWQDv). The Alternative Compliance measure chosen for this Project is "on-site biofiltration of 1.5 times the volume of the SWQDv that is not reliably retained on-site". Based on the Hydrocalc output based on the site parameters noted in Appendix IX, the required treatment volume will be 18,646 CF x 1.5 = 27,969 (cubic feet). The peak treatment flow rate for the site is 1.63 cfs (1.5 x Q pm) (see Appendix IX). The proposed drainage plan does not include the channelization of any drainage courses and would not focus surface water flows into areas of exposed soil. In addition, the on-site drainage system, in accordance with the NPDES requirements discussed in Issue a) above, is also required to include best management practices (BMPs) to reduce erosion and siltation to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, with the application of standard engineering practices, NPDES requirements, and City standards, the Project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, and the Project would have no related significant impacts. Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station IX. Hydrology and Water Quality page 49 d) Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed in Section IX.c above, the proposed Project would include a drainage system that will 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-site or off-site, and the Project would have no related impacts. e) Less Than Significant Impact: The Project is required to comply with the City's engineering standards for volume of water discharged in the storm drain system and will comply with the City's SUSMP ordinance to ensure that storm water flows are properly treated before entering the storm drain system. Therefore, the proposed Project would not affect the capacity of the storm water drainage system and would not create any source of polluted runoff. f) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed Project would not alter the water sources on the site and in the surrounding area. The proposed development would not be a point -source generator of water pollutants. Compliance with the City's SUSMP ordinance will ensure that the proposed Project would not generate storm water pollutants that would substantially degrade water quality. The Project, however, also 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 BMPs to reduce the potential for construction -induced water pollutant impacts. These BMPs include methods to prevent contaminated construction site storm water 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 -storm water runoff from equipment and vehicle washing and any other activity shall be contained at the project site; and 4. Erosion from slopes and channels shall be controlled by implementing an effective combination of BMPs (as approved in Regional Board Resolution No. 99-03), such as the limiting of grading scheduled during the wet season; inspecting graded areas during rain events; planting and maintenance of vegetation on slopes; and covering erosion susceptible slopes. 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 Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity, General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ.1 Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling or excavation, but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility. Since the proposed Project involves greater than 1 Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station X. Land Use and Planning page 50 acre of land disturbance, the Project is required to submit to the SWRCB a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the State's General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit. This NOI must include a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that outlines the BMPs that will be incorporated during construction. These BMPs minimize construction -induced water pollutants by controlling erosion and sediment, establishing waste handling/ disposal requirements, and providing non -storm water 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. g) No Impact: The Project site is not within the 100 -year or 500 -year flood zones. Therefore, the proposed Project would not place future housing in flood hazard areas and would have no related impacts. h) No Impact: The Project site is not within the 100 -year or 500 -year flood zones as shown on the City's Safety Element, Exhibit S-4 (Surface Water). Therefore, the proposed Project would not place future structures in a flood hazard area and would have no related impacts. i) No Impact: The Project site is not within a flood hazard area, and there are no levees or dams facilities in the vicinity of the Project site. Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, and the Project would have no related impacts. j) No Impact: No bodies of water in the vicinity of the Project site are capable of producing seiche or tsunami. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact from seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. k) Less Than Significant Impact: The Project would alter the site's drainage patterns. However, as discussed above in Issues c) and d), compliance with City engineering requirements and the City's SUSMP ordinance would ensure proper design of the proposed drainage system. In addition, the Project involves exporting 5,895 cubic yards (almost 114,000 cubic yards cut and fill combined) of soil." However, 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) No Impact: The Project would not cause any other impacts due to the modification of a wash, channel, creek, or river. See also Issues c) and d), above. The project will make improvements to the southern off-site drain inlet and surrounding area described as jurisdictional by GLA. X. Land Use and a) No Impact: The Project would not physically divide an existing community, Planning as the site is surrounded by similar development and open space on all sides, 11 For purposes of this analysis, soil export activities would occur for approximately 3 months throughout the construction process. Initial Study -Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station XI. Mineral and Energy Resources page 51 Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impacts and the Project would not result in barriers or obstruction for pedestrians. Therefore, the Project would have no 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 and zoning of Business Park, which are consistent with the proposed uses for the property. Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause impacts due to conflicts with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations. c) No Impact: As discussed in subsection IV, Biological Resources, Issue f) of this report, 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. XI. Mineral and a -b) No Impact: The Project site is not within a mineral area identified on Exhibit Energy Resources CO -2 (Mineral Resources) of the City's General Plan Conservation Element and is not otherwise known to contain mineral 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) No Impact: The Project would utilize building materials and human resources for construction of the Project. Many of the resources utilized for construction are nonrenewable, including manpower, sand, gravel, earth, iron, steel, and hardscape materials. Other construction resources, such as lumber, are slowly renewable. In addition, 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 will be utilized on-site will be generated through combustion of fossil fuels, which are nonrenewable resources. Market -rate conditions encourage the efficient use of materials and manpower during construction. Similarly, the energy and water resources that would be utilized by 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 utilize energy or water resources in the same manner as typical modern 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 a, c, d) Less Than Significant Impact: A significant impact may occur if the project would generate excess noise that would cause the ambient noise environment at the Project site to exceed noise level standards set forth in the City's General Plan Noise Element (Noise Element) and/or the City's Noise Ordinance (Noise Ordinance). City of Santa Clarita General Plan Noise Element The Noise Element of the General Plan is a comprehensive program for including noise management in the planning process, providing a tool for planners to use in achieving and maintaining land uses that are compatible Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station XII. Noise page 52 with existing and future environmental noise levels. The Noise Element identifies current noise conditions within the planning area, and projects future noise impacts resulting from continued growth allowed by the Land Use Element. The element identifies noise -sensitive land uses and noise sources, and defines areas of noise impact for the purpose of developing programs to ensure that residents in the Santa Clarita Valley will be protected from excessive noise intrusion. As development proposals are reviewed in the future, the City and County will evaluate each proposal with respect to the Noise Element to ensure that noise impacts are reduced through planning and project design. Through implementation of the policies and programs of the Noise Element, current and future adverse noise impacts will be reduced or avoided protect the general health, safety, and welfare of the community. The most basic planning strategy to minimize adverse impacts on new land uses due to noise is to avoid designating sensitive land uses in areas that are subject to high levels of noise. Uses such as schools, hospitals, child care, senior care, congregate care, churches, and all types of residential use should be located outside of any area anticipated to exceed acceptable noise levels as defined by the Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines, or should be protected from noise through sound attenuation measures such as site and architectural design and sound walls. The State of California has adopted guidelines for acceptable noise levels in various land use categories (California Office of Planning and Research, General Plan Guidelines 2003, Appendix C). The City of Santa Clarita and the County of Los Angeles have adopted these guidelines in a modified form as a basis for planning decisions based on noise considerations. Modifications were made to eliminate overlap between categories in the table, in order to make the guidelines easier for applicants and decision makers to interpret and apply to planning decisions. These guidelines are shown in Table 1, Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines (City Noise Element). Additional considerations in the determination of noise compatible land uses include the following: A. Noise Exposure Information Desired. Where sufficient data exists, evaluate land use suitability with respect to a worst-case value of CNEL. Usually, a future projection of noise levels represents the worst case. Existing and future noise contours for freeway, roadway, airport and railroads are provided in the Noise Element. B. Noise Source Characteristics. The land use -noise compatibility recommendations should be viewed in relation to the specific source of the noise. For example, aircraft and railroad noise is normally made up of higher single noise events than auto traffic but occurs less frequently. Therefore, different sources yielding the same composite noise exposure do not necessarily create the same noise environment. The State Aeronautics Act uses 65 dB CNEL as the criterion which airports must eventually meet to protect existing residential communities from unacceptable exposure to aircraft noise. To facilitate the purposes of the Act, one of which is to encourage land uses compatible with the 65 dB CNEL criterion wherever possible, and to facilitate the ability of airports to comply with the Act, residential uses located in areas with an aircraft noise level greater than 65 CNEL should be discouraged and considered located within normally unacceptable areas. Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station XII. Noise page 53 C. Suitable Interior Environments. One objective of locating residential units relative to a known noise source is to maintain a suitable interior noise environment at no greater than 45 dB CNEL. This requirement, coupled with the measured or calculated noise reduction performance of the type of structure under consideration, should govern the minimum acceptable distance to a noise source. D. Acceptable Outdoor Environments. Another consideration, which in some communities is an overriding factor, is the desire for an acceptable outdoor noise environment. The acceptable outdoor noise level is 65 CNEL for rear yard areas, neighborhood parks, and pool recreation areas at multi -family developments. Table 8. Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines (City Noise Element) Land Use Normally Acceptable- Conditionally Acce tableb Normally Unacce table° Clearly Unacce tabled Residential - Low Density Single -Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes 50-60 60-70 70-75 above 75 Residential - Multi -Family Homes 50-60 60-70 70-75 above 75 Transient Lodging - Motels, Hotels 50-60 60-70 70-80 above 80 Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes 50-60 60-70 70-80 above 80 Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters -- 50-65 -- above 65 Sorts Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports -- 50-75 -- above 75 Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 50-65 -- 65-75 above 75 Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries 50-75 -- 70-80 above 80 Office Buildings, Business and Professional Commercial 50-70 70-75 above 75 -- Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture 50-75 75-80 above 80 a Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements. b Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. c Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis ofthe noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Sound walls, window upgrades, and site design modifications may be needed to achieve City standards. d Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Source: City of Santa Clarita General Plan Noise Element, Exhibit N-8: Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines, June 2010. Section 11.44.040 (Noise Limits) of the City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code (SCMC) 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 Day 65 Residential zone Night 55 Commercial and manufacturing Day 80 Commercial and manufacturing Night 70 Initial Study–Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station XII. Noise page 54 At the boundary line between a residential property and a commercial and manufacturing property, the noise level of the quieter zone shall be used. B. Corrections to Noise Limits. The numerical limits given in subsection (A) of this section shall be adjusted by the following corrections, where the following noise conditions exist: Noise Condition (1) 1 Repetitive impulsive noise -5 i ne rwowmg corrections apply to aay orny: (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 Section 11.44.070 of the SCMC (Special Noise Sources—Machinery, Fans and Other Mechanical Devices) Any noise level from the use or operation of any machinery, equipment, pump, fan, air conditioning apparatus, refrigerating equipment, motor vehicle, or other mechanical or electrical device, or in repairing or rebuilding any motor vehicle, which exceeds the noise limits as set forth in Section 11.44.040 at any property line, or, if a condominium or rental units, within any condominium unit or rental unit within the complex, shall be a violation of this chapter. Section 11.44.080 of the SCMC (Special Noise Sources—Construction and Building) No person shall engage in any construction workwhich 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. Emergency work as defined in Section 11.44.020 (D) is permitted at all times. The Department of Community Development may issue a permit for work to be done "after hours'; provided, that containment of construction noises is provided. Existing Conditions Noise Sensitive Receptors The City's Noise Element of the General Plan states noise sensitive land uses are those in which persons occupying the use are particularly sensitive to the effects of noise, including housing, schools, medical facilities, libraries, social care facilities, and similar facilities. For purposes of this analysis, the nearest noise sensitive receptors to the Project Site have been graphically identified in Figure 5, Noise Monitoring and Sensitive Receptor Location Map. U) U) v to Ca CL C O 4= co L cu 4 C 7 O U N N to C Q O J 41 co co L fo U co C co N v _0 CL C:m m � �C: o o 'E U O O J O O N Q �ON Z U N ry N .N c N CO J H Z W p Z W =Lucn JL u, w Initial Study -Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station XII. Noise XII. Noise (continued) page 56 As shown on Figure 5, the nearest sensitive receptors to the Project Site include the following: 1. Religious use 950 feet to the northwest; 2. Religious use 2,400 feet to the northwest; 3. Educational and residential uses 2,800 feet to the southeast; 4. Educational use 3,100 feet to the northwest; and 5. Residential uses 3,600 feet to the east. Existing Noise Levels - Proposed Project Site Vicinity To identify the existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project Site, noise measurements were taken with a 3M SoundPro SP DL -1 sound level meter, which conforms to industry standards set forth in ANSI 51.4-1983 (R2006) - Specification for Sound Level Meters/Type 1, and is consistent with the sound level meter definition established in the SCMC. This instrument was calibrated and operated according to the manufacturer's written specifications. At the measurement sites, the microphone was placed at a height of approximately 5 feet above grade. The measured noise levels are shown in Table 9, Existing Ambient Daytime Noise Levels - Project Site Vicinity. The noise measurement locations are illustrated in Figure 5, provided previously. As described in Table 9, existing noise levels are predominantly due to traffic on Golden Valley Road. Table 9. Existing Ambient Daytime Noise Levels - Project Site Vicinity a Noise measurements were taken on March 3, 2017. See Appendix XII to this Initial Study for noise measurement data. Existing Noise Levels - Existing Sheriff Station Operations To identify the existing noise levels associated with the Sheriff Department operations, noise measurements were taken with a 3M SoundPro SP DL -1 sound level meter, which conforms to industry standards set forth in ANSI 51.4-1983 (R2006) - Specification for Sound Level Meters/Type 1, and is consistent with the sound level meter definition established in the SCMC. This instrument was calibrated and operated according to the manufacturer's written specifications. At the measurement sites, the Noise (dBA)a Leq L.. L.in No. Location Primary Noise Sources 1 Golden Valley High School, north area of the Traffic from Golden Valley Road. 51.3 72.8 46.6 football field. Nearest sensitive receptors: Light student activity Golden Valley High School and residential uses. 2 Along Golden Valley Road between LA Traffic from Golden Valley Road 69.5 78.3 50.2 Fitness and Sam's Club. No sensitive receptors nearby. 3 South end of Ferry Court. Nearest sensitive Traffic from Golden Valley Road, 51.5 71.4 45.8 receptors: two religious uses and one towtruck loading and unloading educational use. from adjacent property to the west 4 Within the Project Site near future helicopter Traffic from Golden Valley Road 59.2 69.3 46.2 pad location. 5 Along Golden Valley Road west of Golden Traffic from Golden Valley Road 55.4 65.4 46.6 Valley High School. Nearest sensitive receptors: Golden Valley High School and residential uses. a Noise measurements were taken on March 3, 2017. See Appendix XII to this Initial Study for noise measurement data. Existing Noise Levels - Existing Sheriff Station Operations To identify the existing noise levels associated with the Sheriff Department operations, noise measurements were taken with a 3M SoundPro SP DL -1 sound level meter, which conforms to industry standards set forth in ANSI 51.4-1983 (R2006) - Specification for Sound Level Meters/Type 1, and is consistent with the sound level meter definition established in the SCMC. This instrument was calibrated and operated according to the manufacturer's written specifications. At the measurement sites, the Initial Study -Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station XII. Noise page 57 microphone was placed at a height of approximately five feet above grade. The measured noise levels are shown in Table 10 below. As described in Table 10, existing noise sources from the Sheriff Station operations include: vehicle maintenance activities, public address system, mobile gun range, code 3 sirens during emergency response, and helicopter operations. Table 10. Existing Noise Levels - Existing Sheriffs Station Operations ,Noise measurements were taken on March 8, 2017. b 15 -minute period includes activities from the identified sources, periods with limited or no activity from above sources, and other ambient sources such as people talking and surface parking lot activity. Observation one was positioned at approximately 450 feet from the helipad, representative of potential overflight conditions at the nearest off-site use to the future proposed Sheriff Station helipad location. d Observation two was positioned at approximately 950 feet from the helipad, representative of potential overflight conditions at the nearest noise sensitive receptor to the future proposed Shenff Station helipad location. See Appendix XII to this Initial Study for noise measurement data. Construction Noise Impacts Construction of the Project would require the use of heavy equipment for grading/site preparation, the installation of utilities, paving, and building construction. During each construction phase there would be a different mix of equipment operating and noise levels would vary based on the amount of equipment in operation and the location of each activity. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has compiled data regarding the noise generating characteristics of specific types of construction equipment and typical construction activities. The data pertaining to the types of construction equipment and activities that would occur at the Project Site are presented in Table 11 and Table 12, respectively, at a distance of 50 feet from the noise source (i.e., reference distance). Noise dBA a No. Location primary Noise Sources Leq Lmu Lmin 1 In surface parking lot area Vehicle maintenance activities with pneumatic drill in 65.6 70.2 58.3 of existing Santa Clarita operation at approx. 50 feet Public address loudspeaker. Speaker location 65.8 75.3 58.6 Sheriff Station approx. 50 feet from measurement Mobile gun range unit start-up (HVAC and 64.7 70.5 56.8 generator) approx. 50 feet from measurement Mobile gun range shots fired approx. 50 feet from 65.2 70.6 63.4 measurement Vehicle maintenance activities with car lift in 67.7 72.4 63.5 operation at approx. 50 feet 15 -minute data for Location lb 64.4 83.8 56.3 2 North side of Magic Traffic on Magic Mountain Parkway, car alarm and 77.0 99.7 52.7 Mountain Parkway, surface parking lot activity associated with car Approximately 100 feet dealerships. Code 3 siren during emergency from existing Sheriff response observed during 9th minute of recording, Station driveway with a pass -by distance of approximately 50 feet from measurement. 3 Pitchess Detention Center Helicopter (Airbus AS35013) overflight observation 85.6 59.7 96.3 Helipad one.' Helicopter (Airbus AS35013) overflight observation 77.9 55.8 88.0 two .° ,Noise measurements were taken on March 8, 2017. b 15 -minute period includes activities from the identified sources, periods with limited or no activity from above sources, and other ambient sources such as people talking and surface parking lot activity. Observation one was positioned at approximately 450 feet from the helipad, representative of potential overflight conditions at the nearest off-site use to the future proposed Sheriff Station helipad location. d Observation two was positioned at approximately 950 feet from the helipad, representative of potential overflight conditions at the nearest noise sensitive receptor to the future proposed Shenff Station helipad location. See Appendix XII to this Initial Study for noise measurement data. Construction Noise Impacts Construction of the Project would require the use of heavy equipment for grading/site preparation, the installation of utilities, paving, and building construction. During each construction phase there would be a different mix of equipment operating and noise levels would vary based on the amount of equipment in operation and the location of each activity. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has compiled data regarding the noise generating characteristics of specific types of construction equipment and typical construction activities. The data pertaining to the types of construction equipment and activities that would occur at the Project Site are presented in Table 11 and Table 12, respectively, at a distance of 50 feet from the noise source (i.e., reference distance). Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station XII. Noise Table 11. Noise Range of Typical Construction Equipment page 58 Construction Equipment Noise Level in dBA Leq at 50 Feet' Front Loader 73-86 Trucks 82-95 Cranes moveable 75-88 Cranes derrick 86-89 Vibrator 68-82 Saws 72-82 Pneumatic Impact Equipment 83-88 Jackhammers 81-98 Pumps 68-72 Generators 71-83 Compressors 75-87 Concrete Mixers 75-88 Concrete Pumps 81-85 Back Hoe 73-95 Tractor 77-98 Scra er/Grader 80-93 Paver 85-88 I Machinery equipped with noise control devices or other noise -reducing design features does not generate the same level of noise emissions as that shown in this table. Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances, PB 206717, 1971. Table 12. Typical Outdoor Construction Noise Levels Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances, PB 206717, 1971. The noise levels shown in Table 12 represent composite noise levels associated with typical construction activities, which take into account both the number of pieces and spacing of heavy construction equipment that are typically used during each phase of construction. As shown, construction noise during the heavier initial periods of construction is presented as 86 dBA Leq when measured at a reference distance of 50 feet from the center of construction activity. These noise levels would diminish rapidly with distance from the construction site at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance. For example, a noise level of 84 dBA Leq measured at 50 feet from the noise source to the receptor would reduce to 78 dBA Leq at 100 feet from the source to the receptor, and reduce by another 6 dBA Leq to 72 dBA Leq at 200 feet from the source to the receptor. Thus, construction activities associated with the Project would be expected to generate noise levels consistent with these estimates at the surrounding noise -sensitive uses. As shown in Figure 5 (page 55 above), the nearest noise sensitive receptor is located approximately 950 feet to the northwest (Noise Sensitive Receptor No. 1). At this distance, construction noise levels would reach approximately 60 dBA, which is considered a normally acceptable noise level as defined in the City's Noise Element. It should also be noted, however, that any increase in noise levels at off-site receptors during construction of the Project would be temporary in nature, and would not generate continuously high noise levels, Noise Levels at Noise Levels at Noise Levels at Noise Levels at 50 Feet with 60 Feet with 100 Feet with 200 Feet with Construction Phase Mufflers (dBA Leq) Mufflers (dBA Leq) Mufflers (dBA Leq) Mufflers (dBA Leq) Ground Clearing 82 80 76 70 Excavation, Grading 86 84 80 74 Foundations 77 75 71 65 Structural 83 81 77 71 Finishing 86 84 80 74 Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances, PB 206717, 1971. The noise levels shown in Table 12 represent composite noise levels associated with typical construction activities, which take into account both the number of pieces and spacing of heavy construction equipment that are typically used during each phase of construction. As shown, construction noise during the heavier initial periods of construction is presented as 86 dBA Leq when measured at a reference distance of 50 feet from the center of construction activity. These noise levels would diminish rapidly with distance from the construction site at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance. For example, a noise level of 84 dBA Leq measured at 50 feet from the noise source to the receptor would reduce to 78 dBA Leq at 100 feet from the source to the receptor, and reduce by another 6 dBA Leq to 72 dBA Leq at 200 feet from the source to the receptor. Thus, construction activities associated with the Project would be expected to generate noise levels consistent with these estimates at the surrounding noise -sensitive uses. As shown in Figure 5 (page 55 above), the nearest noise sensitive receptor is located approximately 950 feet to the northwest (Noise Sensitive Receptor No. 1). At this distance, construction noise levels would reach approximately 60 dBA, which is considered a normally acceptable noise level as defined in the City's Noise Element. It should also be noted, however, that any increase in noise levels at off-site receptors during construction of the Project would be temporary in nature, and would not generate continuously high noise levels, Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station XII. Noise page 59 although occasional single -event disturbances from construction are possible. In addition, the construction noise during the heavier initial periods of construction (i.e., grading work) would typically be reduced in the later construction phases (i.e., interior building construction at the proposed buildings) as the physical structure of the proposed structures would break the line -of -sight noise transmission from the construction areas to the nearby sensitive receptors. The City does not have specific limitation on construction noise levels. Instead, construction noise is regulated by limiting construction activity to the less noise sensitive daytime hours. Specifically, as stated previously, Section 11.44.080 of the SCMC states no person shall engage in any construction work which requires a building permit from the City on sites within 300 feet of a residentially zoned property except between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 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. Although the Project Site is not located within 300 feet of a residentially zoned property, it is anticipated the Project would meet this standard. Thus, while construction activity could increase noise levels in the vicinity of the Project Site, the proposed construction activity would occur within the criteria set forth in the City's Noise Ordinance. Therefore, as Project construction activity would be consistent with the standards established in the City Noise Ordinance, construction noise impacts would be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant. Vibration is sound radiated through the ground. Vibration can result from a source (e.g., subway operations, vehicles, machinery equipment) causing the adjacent ground to move, thereby creating vibration waves that propagate through the soil to the foundations of nearby buildings. This effect is referred to as groundborne vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) or the root mean square (RMS) velocity is usually used to describe vibration levels. PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration level, while RMS is defined as the square root of the average of the squared amplitude of the level. PPV is typically used for evaluating potential building damage, while RMS velocity in decibels (VdB) is typically more suitable for evaluating human response. The background vibration velocity level in residential areas is usually around 50 VdB. The vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels for most people. Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources within buildings such as operation of mechanical equipment movement of people, or the slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible groundborne vibration are construction equipment, steel -wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the groundborne vibration from traffic is rarely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical background vibration velocity level, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings. Construction activities that would occur within the Project Site would have the potential to generate low levels of groundborne vibration. Table 13, Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment, identifies various PPV and RMS Initial Study–Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station XII. Noise page 60 velocity (in VdB) levels for the types of construction equipment that would operate during the construction of the Project. Table 13. Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment A roximate PPV inlsec A proximate RMS dB 25 Feet 50 Feet 75 Feet 100 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet 75 Feet 100 Feet Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.031 0.017 0.011 87 78 73 69 Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.031 0.017 0.011 87 78 73 69 Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.027 0.015 0.010 86 77 72 68 Jackhammer 0.035 0.012 0.007 0.004 79 70 65 61 Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.0006 0.0004 58 49 44 40 Note: in/sec = inches per second. Source: FTA, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Final Report, 2006. With respect to human annoyance, the nearest vibration -sensitive use is a religious use located approximately 950 feet to the northwest (Sensitive Receptor No. 1). Based on the data in Table 13, the nearest sensitive receptor could experience construction related vibration levels of approximately 40 VbB. These levels would not exceed the FTA's vibration impact threshold of 75 VdB for institutional buildings. And, as such, there would also be no potential for the Project to exceed the FTA's vibration impact threshold of 72 VdB for residences and buildings where people normally sleep?2 In addition, and similar to construction noise sources, the Project would be consistent with Section 11.44.080 of the SCMC (Special Noise Sources—Construction and Building), which regulates construction activity in the City. Therefore, vibration impacts with respect to human annoyance would be less than significant. With respect to building damage, heavy project construction activities would not occur within close proximity to any known off-site historical building or building that is extremely susceptible to vibration damage. Vibration thresholds relative to historic and potentially historic buildings are more restrictive than the threshold for non -engineered timber and masonry buildings. Specifically, Project construction activities could result in significant impacts if a PPV ground -borne vibration level was to exceed 0.12 inches per second at any historical building or building that is extremely susceptible to vibration damage. As there are no known off-site historical buildings or buildings that are extremely susceptible to vibration damage within 25 feet of heavy project construction activities (resulting in a peak PPV of 0.089 in/sec), there is no potential for the Project to generate ground -borne vibration levels that exceed the threshold of 0.12 inches per second at a historical building, or any building that is extremely susceptible to vibration damage. Thus, impacts with respect to building damage would be less than significant. d) Operational Noise Impacts Traffic Noise Generation The increase in traffic resulting from implementation of the Project would have the potential to increase ambient noise levels at off-site locations in the Project vicinity. The roadway segments selected for analysis are considered to be those that are expected to be most directly impacted by 12 Thresholds per FTA, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006, analysis assumes conditions where there are a frequent number of vibration events per construction day. Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station XII. Noise page 61 project -related traffic, which, for the purpose of this analysis, include the roadways that are nearest to the Project Site and had the most project - generated trips. These roadways, when compared to roadways located further away from the Project site, would experience the greatest percentage increase in traffic generated by the Project. Calculation of the roadway noise levels was accomplished using the Federal Highway Administration Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA- RD-77-108) and traffic volumes from the project traffic analysis. The model calculates the average noise level at specific locations based on traffic volumes, average speeds, roadway geometry, and site environmental conditions. The average vehicle noise rates (energy rates) utilized in the FHWA Model have been modified to reflect average vehicle noise rates identified for California by Caltrans. The Caltrans data show that California automobile noise is 0.8 to 1.0 dBA higher than national levels and that medium and heavy truck noise is 0.3 to 3.0 dBA lower than national levels. Based on the traffic analysis prepared for the Project in combination with an analysis of the surrounding land uses, roadway noise levels were forecasted to determine if the Project's vehicular traffic would result in a significant impact at off-site locations. The Project -related increases in noise levels at the primary roadway segments located in proximity to the Project Site are identified in Table 14 below. The table identifies the change in noise levels along the study -area roadway segments between the identified traffic scenarios. As shown in Table 14, the Project would increase local noise levels by a maximum of 0.1 dBA CNEL during all scenarios. In addition, cumulative traffic noise levels would increase by a maximum of 1.7 dBA. For purposes of this analysis, the Project would normally have a significant impact on noise levels from project operations if the project causes the ambient noise level measured at the property line of affected uses to increase by 3 dBA if the total ambient noise levels without the Project exceed the City's General Plan exterior noise standards, or any 5 dBA or greater noise increase when total ambient noise levels without the Project are within the City's General Plan exterior noise standards (see "conditionally acceptable" column in Table 8 (page 53 above) in this report). Because the project's traffic noise level increase would be less than the 3 dBA and 5 dBA CNEL thresholds identified, the generation of traffic noise levels associated with the Project would be less than significant. Table 14. Project Roadway Noise Levels Traffic data: SCV Sheriff Station Traffic Study, Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., March 29, 2017. Noise levels calculated from the nearest receptor location to the roadway centerline. Calculations are provided in Appendix XII to this Initial Study. lir dBA CNEL Existing Project Interim Interim Project Plus Net Year No Year With Net Cumulative Roadway Existing Project Increase Project Project Increase Increase Roadway Segment [1] [2] [2]-[1] [3] [4] [4]-[3] [4]-[1] Golden North of Project Site 72.5 72.6 0.1 73.8 73.8 0.0 1.3 Valley South of Project Site 72.5 72.6 0.1 73.9 73.9 0.0 1.4 Road North of Sierra Hwy 72.6 72.7 0.1 74.2 74.3 0.1 1.7 Traffic data: SCV Sheriff Station Traffic Study, Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., March 29, 2017. Noise levels calculated from the nearest receptor location to the roadway centerline. Calculations are provided in Appendix XII to this Initial Study. Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station XII. Noise page 62 With respect to exposure to traffic levels, the interior operational nature of the proposed Project would best be categorized under the "Office Buildings, Business and Professional Commercial" designation in the City's Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines in the City's Noise Element. As shown in Table 14, exterior traffic noise levels from Golden Valley Road could reach up to 74.3 dBA CNEL under the interim year with project scenario (i.e., cumulative scenario). This noise level would be considered a conditionally acceptable noise level for the proposed use. According to the City's Noise Element, conditionally acceptable means new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. As required in CALGreen Code Section 5.507.4.1 (Exterior noise transmission), wall and roof -ceiling assemblies exposed to the noise source shall meet a composite Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of at least 50 or a composite Outdoor -Indoor Sound Transmission Class (OITC) rating of no less than 40, with exterior windows of a minimum STC of 40 or OITC of 30. Compliance with these construction requirements would ensure interior operational noise levels would be less than significant. Stationary Noise Sources As part of the Project, new mechanical equipment, HVAC units, and exhaust fans could be installed on the roof or near the proposed new structures. Although the operation of this equipment would generate noise, the design of these on-site HVAC units and exhaust fans would be required to comply with the regulations of the SCMC. Specifically, Section 11.44.070 of the SCMC states any noise level from the use or operation of any machinery, equipment, pump, fan, air conditioning apparatus, refrigerating equipment, motor vehicle, or other mechanical or electrical device, or in repairing or rebuilding any motor vehicle, which exceeds the noise limits as set forth in Section 11.44.040 at any property line, or, if a condominium or rental units, within any condominium unit or rental unit within the complex, shall be a violation of this chapter. In addition to these requirements, the Project will screen mechanical equipment as feasible and necessary to meet City noise standards. The method of screening would be architecturally compatible with project features and would blend with the building designs. As such, compliance with Section 11.44.070 of the SCMC would ensure noise from stationary sources would be less than significant. Sheriff Station Operational Noise Sources The proposed Sheriff Station would generally operate with the same primary noise sources as the existing Sheriff Station facility. These primary noise sources would include vehicle maintenance activities, public address system, mobile gun range, surface parking activities, code 3 sirens during emergency response, and helicopter operations. Helicopter operations and code 3 sirens would occur only during emergency response and public service operations. As stated in the City's Noise Element, noise generated by emergency vehicles is not under the control of the City or the County. Both the City and County noise ordinances exempt emergency operations from noise regulation. The State has preempted local jurisdictions from controlling noise generated by emergency equipment. The use of sirens on police vehicles, ambulances, and fire trucks cannot be controlled by the City or County. Similarly, emergency flights of helicopters and airplanes cannot be controlled by the City or Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station XIII. Population and Housing page 63 County. Therefore, noise from these sources is not subject to local noise policies and standards and these impacts would be considered less than significant. Nevertheless, to disclose operational noise from all proposed noise sources, Table 15 includes noise level estimates for all of the primary noise sources associated with Sheriff Station operations at the nearest off- site receptor and the nearest sensitive receptor. Table 15. Sheriff's Station Operational Noise Levels Noise calculations and assumptions provided in Appendix XII to this Initial Study. The nearest off-site uses are commercial uses located approximately 230 feet to the east across Golden Valley Road. Non-exempt noise sources would generate noise levels of approximately 55.9 dBA at this location, which would be considered a normally acceptable noise level according to the City's Noise Element. In addition, these noise levels would be consistent with daytime and nighttime noise levels identified for commercial and manufacturing zones in SCMC Section 11.44.040 (Noise Limits). The nearest sensitive receptor is a religious use located 950 feet to the northwest, operating in commercial zone (i.e., Business Park). Non-exempt noise sources would generate noise levels of approximately 45.6 dBA at this location, which would be considered a normally acceptable noise level according to the City's Noise Element. In addition, these noise levels would be consistent with daytime and nighttime noise levels identified for commercial and manufacturing zones in SCMC Section 11.44.040 (Noise Limits). As such, noise impacts associated with the operations of the proposed Sheriff Station would be less than significant. e -f) No Impact. The Project would not be located within an airport land use plan, within two miles of a public airport, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The closest aviation facility is Whiteman Airport located approximately 11 miles to the south. Thus, the Project would not expose people to excessive aircraft noise levels. Therefore, no impact would occur. XIII. Population and a) No Impact: Growth -inducing impacts are caused by those characteristics of a Housing Project that foster or encourage population and/or economic growth. These characteristics include adding residential units or businesses, expanding infrastructure, and generating employment opportunities. The Project would involve construction of Sheriffs Station. However, the Project conforms to the City's land use designation of Business Park and would be within the buildout limits as provided in the City's General Plan. Furthermore, the proposed Project would not otherwise induce growth by expanding the capacity of the roadway network or utility infrastructure. Therefore, although the proposed Estimated Noise Level dBA Le Nearest Off -Site Use Nearest Sensitive Use Non -Exempt Noise Sources 230 feet 950 feet Vehicle Maintenance Activities 52.4 42.1 Public Address Loudspeaker 50.5 40.2 Mobile Gun Range 49.9 39.6 Surface Parking Lot 49.1 38.8 Combined Non -Exempt Sources 55.9 45.6 Exempt Noise Sources Estimated Noise Level dBA Le Nearest Off -Site Use Nearest Sensitive Use (provided for informational purposes) Code 3 Siren Emergency Response 63.7 51.4 Helicopter Ovediht- Law Enforcement Use 85.6 77.9 Noise calculations and assumptions provided in Appendix XII to this Initial Study. The nearest off-site uses are commercial uses located approximately 230 feet to the east across Golden Valley Road. Non-exempt noise sources would generate noise levels of approximately 55.9 dBA at this location, which would be considered a normally acceptable noise level according to the City's Noise Element. In addition, these noise levels would be consistent with daytime and nighttime noise levels identified for commercial and manufacturing zones in SCMC Section 11.44.040 (Noise Limits). The nearest sensitive receptor is a religious use located 950 feet to the northwest, operating in commercial zone (i.e., Business Park). Non-exempt noise sources would generate noise levels of approximately 45.6 dBA at this location, which would be considered a normally acceptable noise level according to the City's Noise Element. In addition, these noise levels would be consistent with daytime and nighttime noise levels identified for commercial and manufacturing zones in SCMC Section 11.44.040 (Noise Limits). As such, noise impacts associated with the operations of the proposed Sheriff Station would be less than significant. e -f) No Impact. The Project would not be located within an airport land use plan, within two miles of a public airport, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The closest aviation facility is Whiteman Airport located approximately 11 miles to the south. Thus, the Project would not expose people to excessive aircraft noise levels. Therefore, no impact would occur. XIII. Population and a) No Impact: Growth -inducing impacts are caused by those characteristics of a Housing Project that foster or encourage population and/or economic growth. These characteristics include adding residential units or businesses, expanding infrastructure, and generating employment opportunities. The Project would involve construction of Sheriffs Station. However, the Project conforms to the City's land use designation of Business Park and would be within the buildout limits as provided in the City's General Plan. Furthermore, the proposed Project would not otherwise induce growth by expanding the capacity of the roadway network or utility infrastructure. Therefore, although the proposed Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station XIV. Public Services page 64 Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impacts Project would not add population to the site, therefore the Project would not cause significant growth -inducing impacts. The Project also provides roadway and utility improvements. These proposed improvements are oversized to serve the planned development and are sized in a way that would encourage off-site development. None of the proposed new utility or roadways facilities would extend into or through any land outside of the project area. Therefore, these improvements are not considered growth inducing. Since the Project is growth accommodating rather than growth inducing, is consistent with the growth forecasts for the region, 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 does not include any housing units that would be removed. Therefore, the proposed Project would not displace any housing and would have no associated impacts. c) No Impact: The Project site does not include any housing units displace a number of people. Therefore, the proposed Project would not displace any people and would have no associated impacts. XIV. Public Services a.i) No Impact: The proposed Project would not result in the need for additional new or altered fire protection services and would not alter acceptable service ratios or response times. The proposed Project would develop a currently 7.6 - acre site with a Sheriff s Station, and, in turn, would increase the structures served by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The Project does not propose any structures or uses that cannot be adequately served by the Fire Department's existing resources. Therefore, the proposed Project would not significantly impact fire protection services. Prior to starting construction of the Sheriffs Station, temporary Fire Station 104 apparatus and personnel will be relocated to a temporary facility within the current response jurisdiction for the station. a.ii) No Impact: The proposed Project is a replacement of the existing Sheriff Station and will therefore not result in the need for additional new or altered police protection services. In fact, the Sheriff Station is expected to enhance police services to the Santa Clarita Valley. The proposed Project would develop a currently 7.6 -acre site with a Sheriff s Station, and, in turn, would not increase the demand for police services, which are provided by the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department. a.iii) No Impact: The Project would not directly increase the population of school - aged children served by the Saugus Union High School District (SUSD) and the William S. Hart school District (WHSD). Therefore, the proposed Project would not impact school services. a.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. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no adverse impact on park services. a.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. Initial Study -Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station XV. Recreation page 65 Section and PM Peak Hour Subsections Evaluation of Impacts I LOS Therefore, the proposed Project would have no adverse impact on library I LOS services. XV. Recreation a) No Impact: The proposed development involves the construction of a Sheriffs B Station and would not be utilized primarily by the population of the city and D surrounding communities. The proposed Project is not expected to increase 2. Golden Valley Rd & Robert C. Lee Pkwy the use of public parks. Therefore, the Project would not lead to physical 0.70 deterioration of any existing recreational facilities, and would have no related 0.62 impacts. 5/5/2016 b) No Impact: The proposed Project includes the construction of a Sheriffs City Station and does not include residential units that would require park E development fees or implementation of new recreational facilities. Therefore, C the Project would not have an adverse physical effect on the environment from the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. XVI. Transportation/ a) Less Than Significant Impact: A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared for the Traffic Project by Stantec, Inc prepared on April 20, 2017. This study is included in this Initial Study as Appendix XVI. Golden Valley Road from Centre Point Parkway to Sierra Highway is currently a 4 -lane roadway, with raised landscaped medians within the study area, and a posted speed limit of 50 mph. The City of Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element identifies Golden Valley Road from Newhall Ranch Road to SR -14 as a 6 -lane major highway, that when fully improved, can accommodate approximately 54,000 vehicles per day at level of service (LO S) E. The segment of Golden Valley Road in the study area currently includes a Class I bike path on the east side of the roadway. The results of the LOS analysis for the study area intersections under existing conditions are shown in Table 16. Table 16. ICU and LOS Summary - Existing Conditions Intersection Jurisdiction AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Count Date ICU I LOS ICU I LOS 1. Golden Valley Rd & Centre Point Pkwy City 0.70 B 0.89 D 5/5/2016 2. Golden Valley Rd & Robert C. Lee Pkwy City 0.70 B 0.62 B 5/5/2016 3. Golden Valley Rd & Sierra Hwy City 0.98 E 0.75 C 5/10/2016 Future Conditions The City of Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element identifies new arterial roadways that are planned to increase both connectivity and capacity in the City. Of those, one is the Via Princessa gap closure between its current westerly terminus near Oak Ridge Drive and its current easterly terminus near Isabella Parkway. The extension of Via Princessa would intersect Golden Valley Road, just south of the proposed Project, and would be classified as a 6 - lane major arterial at buildout. For purposes of this analysis, the interim year impact analysis assumes that the Via Princessa extension would be constructed in an interim configuration as a 4 -lane roadway. Golden Valley Road is classified as a 6 -lane major arterial in the City's Circulation Element. For this impact analysis, Golden Valley Road is assumed to remain as a 4 -lane roadway for interim year cumulative conditions. Peak hour trip generation estimates for the proposed Project are based on the specific findings from the case study of the comparably sized Athens Sheriffs Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station XVI. Transportation/ Traffic page 66 Station facility. Average daily traffic (ADT) estimates are derived using trip rates presented in the traffic study for the Athens Sheriffs Station. For purposes of this analysis, it is estimated that the proposed Project would be approximately 34% larger (56.9 trips per square foot versus 42.6 trips per square foot) than the Athens Sheriff s Station. Therefore, a 34% increase was applied to the Athens case study traffic counts (peak hour estimates) to account for the size difference between the Athens Sheriff s Station and the proposed Project. Table 17 summarizes the trip generation estimates for the proposed Project. Table 17. Trip Generation Summary Description Amount/ Unit AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT In Out Total In Out Total Sheriffs Station 56.9 TSF 59 50 109 27 35 62 1 1,268 Peak hour estimates are based on case study data from the South Los Angeles County Sheriff Station. ADT estimates are derived using the Athens Sheriff Station ADT Trip Generation Rate (22.29 ADT/TSF). A 34% increase was applied to the Athen's case study traffic counts (peak hour estimates) to account for the size difference between the Athens Sheriffs station and the proposed Project Three driveways would provide access to the site; staff and deliveries would utilize the northernmost driveway, the public would utilize the center driveway; and emergency vehicles and staff would utilize the southernmost driveway. Preliminarily, the northerly staff only driveway would be restricted to right/in-right/out-left/in movements (i.e., no left/out allowed), the public driveway would be restricted to right/in-right/out movements (i.e., no left/in- left/out allowed), and the emergency/staff driveway would be a full access intersection. Note that although a full access intersection, the southerly emergency/staff driveway left -turn out to Golden Valley Road would be restricted for emergency vehicle use only (i.e., staff would not be permitted to make a left -turn out of the driveway). This section provides an analysis of Project traffic impacts by comparing pre - Project existing traffic conditions and Project buildout traffic conditions. This CEQA impact analysis documents Project -related trips and their addition to the existing, observed traffic count data (i.e., existing conditions) to identify potential traffic impacts. This analysis is referred to as the existing plus Project scenario. The existing plus Project scenario necessarily assumes buildout of the full Project, in this case buildout of the 57,000 -square -foot full service Sheriff s Station. This scenario is hypothetical in that it does not take into consideration additional traffic growth attributable to other related development projects and, therefore, potentially understates impacts by assuming more capacity than actually would be available. Existing plus Project ADT volumes on roadway segments adjacent to the Project site are shown in Table 18. Table 18. Existing Plus Project ADT Volumes Existing+ Roadway Segment Description Project Only 2017 ADT Proj Golden Valley Road north of Project Site 630 41,000 41,600 Golden Valley Road south of Project Site 630 41,000 41,600 Golden Valley Road north of Sierra Hwy 630 42,000 42,600 Initial Study -Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station XVI. Transportation/ Traffic Existing plus Project intersection lane configurations and peak hour intersection turning volumes are shown in Table 19. Table 19. ICU and LOS Summary - Existing Plus Project Conditions page 67 Intersection Existing (2016) AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr ICU LOS ICU LOS Existing plus Project AM Peak Hr I PM Peak Hr ICU LOS ICU LOS Difference AM PM 1. Golden Valley & Centre Pointe 0.70 B 0.89 D 0.71 C 0.89 D 0.01 0.00 2. Golden Valley & Robert C. Lee 0.70 B 0.62 B 0.72 C 0.63 B 0.02 0.01 3. Golden Valley & Sierra Hwy* 0.98 E 0.75 C 0.98 E 0.75 C 0.00 0.00 4. Golden Valley & Staff Dwy NA NA NA NA 0.54 A 0.65 B NA NA 5. Golden Valley & Public Dwy NA NA NA NA 0.54 A 0.65 B NA NA 6. Golden Valley & Emergency/Staff Dwy NA NA NA NA 0.55 A 0.66 B NA NA NA - Not applicable *CMP arterial (XVI for CMP discussion) As shown in the table, all study area intersections generally have an ICU value that corresponds with LOS 'D' or better, with the exception of one location. The Golden Valley Road/Sierra Highway intersection would have an ICU value that corresponds with LOS E, which is the same LOS under existing conditions and the Project does not have a measurable impact at this location. Therefore, the Project does not cause a significant impact at this location. Based on the impact criteria set forth by the City of Santa Clarita the proposed Project would not cause a significant impact at any study area intersections under this scenario. Interim year cumulative conditions traffic volumes presented in this analysis are derived by the SCVCTM. Project trips from the proposed Project are then added onto the interim year cumulative baseline traffic volumes to identify Project impacts in the cumulative setting. Interim year cumulative volumes for roadway segments adjacent to the Project Site are shown in Table 20. Table 20. Interim Year Cumulative Conditions ADT Volumes As can be seen in Table 21, the following intersections have an ICU value that corresponds with LOS E or worse: Golden Valley Road & Centre Pointe Parkway Golden Valley Road & Sierra Highway Golden Valley Road & Via Princessa Interim Year Interim Year Cumulative Roadway Segment Description Cumulative No Project With Project Golden Valley Road north of Project Site 55,000 55,600 Golden Valley Road south of Project Site 56,000 56,600 Golden Valley Road north of Sierra Hwy 61,000 61,600 As can be seen in Table 21, the following intersections have an ICU value that corresponds with LOS E or worse: Golden Valley Road & Centre Pointe Parkway Golden Valley Road & Sierra Highway Golden Valley Road & Via Princessa Initial Study -Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station XVI. Transportation/ Traffic page 68 Table 21. ICU and LOS Summary -Interim Year Cumulative Conditions Intersection Cumulative No Project Cumulative With Project AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr AM Peak Hr I PM Peak Hr Difference ICU I LOS ICU LOS ICU I LOS ICU LOS AM PM 1. Golden Valley & Centre Pointe 1.00 E 1.08 F 1.00 E 1.08 F 0.00 0.00 2. Golden Valley & Robert C. Lee 0.79 C 0.87 D 0.80 C 0.87 D 0.01 0.00 3. Golden Valley & Sierra Hwy* 0.98 E 1.01 F 0.98 E 1.01 F 0.00 0.00 4. Golden Valley & Staff Dyyy NA NA NA NA 0.80 C 0.79 C NA NA 5. Golden Valley & Public Dwy NA NA NA NA 0.80 C 0.74 C NA NA 6. Golden Valley & Emer enc /Staff D NA NA NA NA 0.81 D 0.74 C NA NA 7. Golden Valle & Via Princessa 0.96 E 0.99 E 0.96 E 1 0.99 1 E 1 0.00 1 0.00 NA- Not applicable, * CMP arterial (see Appendix XVI for CMP discussion) However, the proposed Project would not result in a significant impact any of the three locations since the addition of Project traffic does not trigger the City's threshold of significance (V/C, volume/capacity) increase of 0.01 when LOS E or F). Therefore, the proposed Project does not cause a significant impact at any of the study area intersections. b) Less Than Significant Impact: The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) adopted its most recent Congestion Management Program (CMP) in 2010. The Los Angeles County CMP determines the geographic area for study with the following criteria: all CMP arterial monitoring intersections, including monitored freeway on- or off -ramp intersections, where the proposed Project will add 50 or more trips during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours. Therefore, a CMP analysis of the Golden Valley Road at Sierra Highway intersection is not required. 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 and Engineering Divisions. Its circulation design has been found to not contain any hazardous conditions. In addition, the Projects 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: Three driveways would provide access to the site: the northerly staff and deliveries only driveway would be restricted to right/in- right/out-left/in movements (i.e., no left/out allowed), the center public driveway would be restricted to right/in-right/out movements (i.e., no left/in- left/out allowed), and the southerly emergency/staff driveway would be a full access intersection with an emergency vehicle signal. Although a full access intersection, the southerly emergency/staff driveway left -turn out to Golden Valley Road would be restricted for emergency vehicle use only (i.e., staff would not be permitted to make a left -turn out of the driveway). For vehicles travelling northbound on Golden Valley Road, a U-turn can be made at the northerly staff driveway intersection to access the center public driveway. 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. Therefore, the Project would have no impact related to emergency access. Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station XVII. Tribal Cultural Resources page 69 Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impacts f) No Impact: The second component of the Congestion Management Plan (CMP) impact analysis is a review of transit impacts; public transit in the Santa Clarita Valley includes both bus and commuter rail service. While there are no existing bus stops in the immediate vicinity of the Project site, the closest bus stop is located approximately one-half mile to the north on Golden Valley Road and also on Centre Pointe Parkway with service to Santa Clarita Transit (SCT) route 5 (Stevenson Ranch/Vasquez Canyon) and route 6 (Stevenson Ranch/ Shadow Pines). Bus stops on Golden Valley Road approximately 1 mile south of the Project Site provide service to and from local schools. The Santa Clarita Metrolink Transit Station is also located approximately 2 miles away, northwest of the Project site, on Soledad Canyon Road. Based on the methodology outlined in the CMP, transit trips were estimated and is shown in Table 22. Table 22. Transit Trip Summary Person trips =vehicle trips x 1.4 Source: Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County, 2002, 2004, and 2010 Therefore, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. No mitigation measures are required. XVII. Tribal Cultural a)i No Impact. The proposed project is not listed or eligible for listing in the Resources California register of historical resources (see Appendix V, Archaeological Inventory). a)ii No Impact. The proposed project is not determined by the city of Santa Clarita and is not supported by factual to be considered a significant resource to a California Native American Tribe. XVIII. Utilities and a) No Impact: The Project proposes developing a Sheriffs Station. The proposed Service Systems Project is consistent with the existing zoning and General Plan land use designations for the site. The proposed uses would generate domestic sewage and industrial wastewater from the vehicle maintenance and fueling areas. Industrial wastewater will pass through a permitted clarifier before discharging to the wastewater treatment facilities along with domestic sewage; thus, the discharges do not exceed wastewater treatment facilities' capacity. Because the Project would not generate atypical wastewater and is consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning, the Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements. The Project would have no associated impacts. b) No Impact: The proposed development would increase the demand for water and wastewater service. However, as discussed in Subsection XVIII, Utilities and Service Systems, Issues d) and e) of this report, the increase to 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 water and wastewater improvements required for the Project are a 16 -inch water line that will be extended along Golden Valley Road from its current terminus at Robert C. Lee Parkway, to a pressure -reducing station, and then connect to an existing 16 -inch water line in the Project area. The pressure -reducing station will be located across from Description Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips 1,255 107 60 Person Trips 1,757 150 84 Factor to transit trips 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% Total Transit trips 60 5 3 Person trips =vehicle trips x 1.4 Source: Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County, 2002, 2004, and 2010 Therefore, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. No mitigation measures are required. XVII. Tribal Cultural a)i No Impact. The proposed project is not listed or eligible for listing in the Resources California register of historical resources (see Appendix V, Archaeological Inventory). a)ii No Impact. The proposed project is not determined by the city of Santa Clarita and is not supported by factual to be considered a significant resource to a California Native American Tribe. XVIII. Utilities and a) No Impact: The Project proposes developing a Sheriffs Station. The proposed Service Systems Project is consistent with the existing zoning and General Plan land use designations for the site. The proposed uses would generate domestic sewage and industrial wastewater from the vehicle maintenance and fueling areas. Industrial wastewater will pass through a permitted clarifier before discharging to the wastewater treatment facilities along with domestic sewage; thus, the discharges do not exceed wastewater treatment facilities' capacity. Because the Project would not generate atypical wastewater and is consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning, the Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements. The Project would have no associated impacts. b) No Impact: The proposed development would increase the demand for water and wastewater service. However, as discussed in Subsection XVIII, Utilities and Service Systems, Issues d) and e) of this report, the increase to 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 water and wastewater improvements required for the Project are a 16 -inch water line that will be extended along Golden Valley Road from its current terminus at Robert C. Lee Parkway, to a pressure -reducing station, and then connect to an existing 16 -inch water line in the Project area. The pressure -reducing station will be located across from Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station XVIII. Utilities and Service Systems page 70 the Sheriff s Station in the area east of Golden Valley Road or at the top of the roadway slope. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no associated impacts to existing water services. c) Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed in Subsection IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, Issues c) and d) of this report, the proposed Project would implement an engineered low impact development (LID) drainage system that would connect to the City's storm drain. As required by the City of Santa Clarita and the countywide MS4 permit, the final design of the development'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 storm water 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 of the Castaic Lake Water Agency provides water services to the Project site. The SC WD'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 development. 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 proposed Project is consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning designations. The Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District (of the County of Los Angeles Sanitation Districts) provides wastewater services to the Project site. The Santa Clarita Sanitation 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. f) No Impact: The proposed Project is consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning. The Project would be served by Chiquita Canyon Landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs. g) No Impact: The California Integrated Waste Management Act requires that jurisdictions maintain a 50% or better diversion rate for solid waste. The City implements this requirement through the City's franchised Solid Waste Management Services. Per the agreements between the City and the franchised trash disposal companies, each franchisee is responsible for meeting the minimum recycling diversion rate of 50% on a quarterly basis. Franchisees are further encouraged to meet the City's overall diversion rate goal of 75%. The proposed Project is required to comply with the applicable solid waste franchise's recycling system, and thus, will meet the City's and California's solid waste diversion regulations. Therefore, the Project would not cause any significant impacts from conflicting with statutes or regulations related to solid waste. Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station XIX. Mandatory Findings of Significance page 71 Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impacts XIX. Mandatory a) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation: Based on the analysis in Findings of Subsection IV, Biological Resources, of this document, [with the incorporation Significance of mitigation measures] the proposed Project would not have substantial impacts to 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. Similarly, 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 thus 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, noise, 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, the proposed Project does not have a Mandatory Finding of Significance due to cumulative impacts. c) Less than Significant Impact: As discussed in subsections VIII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and XVI, Transportation/Traffic, of this document, the proposed Project would not expose persons to flooding or 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. Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station Appendix III Appendix III. Air Quality Analysis Prepared by Pomeroy Environmental Services AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact may occur if a project would: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors); d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; and/or e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Summary of Findings Pomeroy Environmental Services (PES) completed a detailed assessment of the Project's potential impacts associated with air quality emissions. Key findings of the analysis are summarized as follows, and the detailed analyses are provided on the following pages: • The Project would be consistent with Air Quality Management Plan; • The Project would not exceed any regional SCAQMD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants during construction; • The Project would not exceed any regional SCAQMD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants during operations; • The Project would not exceed SCAQMD localized significance thresholds (LSTs) during project construction or operation, and the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; • The Project would not contribute a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for the pollutants which the Basin is in nonattainment. Thus, cumulative air quality impacts associated with the Project would be less than significant; and • The Project would not create objectionable odors. a) A significant air quality impact may occur if a project is not consistent with the applicable Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), or would in some way represent a substantial hindrance to employing the policies, or obtaining the goals, of that plan. The SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary (area and point), mobile, and indirect sources to meet federal and State ambient air quality standards. It has responded to this requirement by preparing a series of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs). The most recent of these was adopted by the Governing Board of the SCAQMD on March 3, 2017. This AQMP, referred to as the 2016 AQMP, was prepared to comply with the federal and State Clean Air Acts and amendments, to accommodate growth, to reduce the high levels of pollutants in the Basin, to meet federal and State air quality standards, and to minimize the fiscal impact that pollution control measures have on the local economy. The 2016 AQMP identifies the control measures that will be implemented over a 15 -year horizon to reduce major sources of pollutants. Implementation of control measures established in the previous AQMPs has substantially decreased the population's exposure to unhealthful levels of pollutants, even while substantial population growth has occurred within the Basin. The future air quality levels projected in the 2016 AQMP are based on several assumptions. For example, the SCAQMD assumes that general new development within the Basin will occur in accordance with population growth and transportation projections identified by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) in its Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The 2016 AQMP also assumes that general development projects will include strategies (mitigation measures) to reduce emissions generated during construction and operation in accordance with SCAQMD and local jurisdiction regulations which are designed to address air quality impacts and pollution control measures. For general development projects, the SCAQMD recommends that consistency with the current AQMP be determined by comparing the population generated by the project to the population projections used in the development of the AQMP. Projects that are consistent with SCAG's applicable growth projections would not interfere with air quality attainment because this growth is included in the projections utilized in the formulation of the 2016 AQMP. As such, projects, uses, and activities that are consistent with the applicable assumptions used in the development of the AQMP would notjeopardize attainment of the air quality levels identified in the AQMP, even if they exceed the SCAQMD's recommended daily emissions thresholds. It is assumed that the proposed project would comply with all SCAQMD rules and regulations that are in effect at the time of development and that are applicable to the project; the project applicant is not requesting any exemptions from the currently adopted or proposed rules. The Project includes the development of a Los Angeles County Sheriff station with an approximate 44,900 square -foot main building, a 4,000 square -foot maintenance building, an additional 8,000 square -foot building, and 358 total parking spaces on a surface parking lot. The Project does not involve the construction of residential uses and, therefore, it will not interfere with housing or population growth projections for the City. In addition, and further discussed herein, the Project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Thus, the Project would not impair implementation of the AQMP, and this impact would be less than significant. b) A project may have a significant impact if project -related emissions would exceed federal, state, or regional standards or thresholds, or if project -related emissions would substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. The Project Site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is the air pollution control agency for the Basin. To address potential impacts from construction and operational activities, the SCAQMD currently recommends that impacts from projects with mass daily emissions that exceed any of the thresholds outlined in Table 1, SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance, be considered significant. The City defers to these thresholds for the evaluation of construction and operational air quality impacts. Table 1 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance Pollutant Construction Thresholds (lbs/day) Operational Thresholds (lbs/day) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 75 55 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 100 55 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550 Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 150 150 Particulate Matter (PMio) 150 150 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 55 55 Note: lbs = pounds. Source: SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (SCAQMD,1993), SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, website: http://agmd.gov/docs/default-source%ega/handbook/scagmd-air-quality-significance- thresholds.pdpsfvrsn=2; accessed April 2017. Regional Construction Emissions Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would be undertaken in two main steps: (1) grading, site preparation and soil export, and (2) building construction. The Project includes the development of a Los Angeles County Sheriff station with a 44,900 square -foot main building, a 4,000 square -foot maintenance building, an additional 8,000 square -foot building, and 358 parking spaces on a surface parking lot. Grading, site preparation, and soil export for on-site construction would occur and would require the export of 3,222 cubic yards of on-site soil. Building construction would occur for approximately 13 months and would include the construction of the proposed structures, architectural coatings, parking paving, and la ndscaping/hardsca ping the Project Site. In addition, off-site right-of-way improvements would occur for approximately 7 months. This phase would include a new curb/gutter/sidewalk south of Center Pointe Parkway, Golden Valley Road 3rd lane paving at new curb/gutter/sidewalk location, parkway landscaping, and site driveway entrances. Off-site improvements would require the export of 2,673 cubic yards of soil. On- and off-site export activities would result in a total 5,895 cy of soil.' These construction activities would temporarily create emissions of dusts, fumes, equipment exhaust, and other air contaminants. Construction activities involving grading and site preparation would primarily generate PM2.5 and PM,o emissions. Mobile sources (such as diesel -fueled equipment onsite and traveling to and from the Project Site) would primarily generate NOx emissions. The application of architectural coatings would primarily result in the release of ROG emissions. The amount of emissions generated on a daily basis would vary, depending on the amount and types of construction activities occurring at the same time. The analysis of daily construction emissions has been prepared utilizing the California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod 2016.3.1) recommended by the SCAQMD. Due to the construction time frame and the normal day-to-day variability in construction activities, it is difficult, if not impossible, ' For purposes of this analysis, soil export activities would occur for approximately 3 months throughout the construction process. to precisely quantify the daily emissions associated with each phase of the proposed construction activities. Nonetheless, Table 2, Estimated Peak Daily Construction Emissions, identifies daily emissions that are estimated to occur on peak construction days for each construction phase. The off-site improvements phase will occur during the building construction phase for the on-site development and is included accordingly in the table below. These calculations assume that appropriate dust control measures would be implemented as part of the project during each phase of development, as required by SCAQMD Rule 403 - Fugitive Dust. Specific Rule 403 control requirements include, but are not limited to, applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes (up to two times per day), applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible, utilizing stabilized construction site exits with shaker plates to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the Project Site, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas. As shown in Table 2, construction -related daily emissions associated with the project would not exceed any regional SCAQMD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants during the construction phases. Therefore, regional construction impacts are less than significant. Table 2 Estimated Peak Daily Construction Emissions Emissions Source Emissions in Pounds per Day ROG NO. CO SO„ PM10 PM2.5 On -Site Grading/Site Preparation/Soil Export Fugitive Dust -- -- -- -- 2.77 1.50 Off -Road Diesel Equipment 2.58 28.35 16.29 0.03 1.40 1.29 On -Road Diesel Hauling 0.06 1.90 0.43 0.01 0.11 0.04 Worker Trips 0.08 0.06 0.66 0.01 0.17 0.05 Total Emissions 2.72 30.31 17.38 0.05 4.45 2.88 SCAQMD Thresholds 75.00 100.00 550.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Significant Impact? No No No No No No Building Construction Phase/And Off -Site Improvements Building Construction Off -Road Diesel Equipment 2.36 21.08 17.16 0.03 1.29 1.21 Building Construction Vendor Trips 0.14 3.82 1.12 0.01 0.24 0.08 Building Construction Worker Trips 0.43 0.32 3.45 0.01 0.88 0.24 Architectural Coatings 12.89 -- -- -- -- -- ArchitecturalCoatingOff-Road Diesel Equipment 0.24 1.68 1.83 0.01 0.11 0.11 Architectural Coatings Worker Trips 0.08 0.06 0.64 0.01 0.18 0.05 Paving Off -Road Diesel Equipment 0.59 5.63 5.41 0.01 0.30 0.28 Paving 0.55 -- -- -- -- -- Paving Worker Trips 0.05 0.04 0.40 0.01 0.11 0.03 Table 2 Estimated Peak Daily Construction Emissions Off -Site Improvements Fugitive 0.01 0.01 Dust Summertime (Smog Season) Emissions Area Sources 1.26 Off -Site Improvements Off -Road 1.00 11.14 7.77 0.01 0.51 0.47 Diesel Equipment 0.13 <0.01 0.01 0.01 Mobile (Motor Vehicles) 2.57 Off -Site Improvements On -Road 34.52 0.11 8.71 2.41 Total Project Emissions 3.85 12.12 0.02 0.64 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.01 Diesel Hauling 550.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Potentially Significant Impact? No No Off -Site Improvements Worker No No No Wintertime (Non -Smog Season) Emissions 0.07 0.05 0.52 0.01 0.15 0.04 Trips <0.01 Energy Demand 0.02 0.16 0.13 Total Emissions 18.42 44.46 38.45 0.12 3.82 2.53 SCAQMD Thresholds 75.00 100.00 550.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Significant Impact? No No No No No No Note: Calculations assume compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 -Fugitive Dust. Calculation sheets are provided in Appendix 111 to this IS/MND Regional Operational Emissions The Project includes the development of a Los Angeles County Sheriff station with a 44,900 square -foot main building, a 4,000 square -foot maintenance building, an additional 8,000 square -foot building, and 358 parking spaces on a surface parking lot. Operational emissions generated by area sources, motor vehicles and energy demand would result from normal day-to-day activities of the Project. The analysis of daily operational emissions associated with the project has been prepared utilizing CaIEEMod 2016.3.1 recommended by the SCAQMD. The results of these calculations are presented in Table 3, Estimated Daily Operational Emissions. As shown, the operational emissions generated by the Project would not exceed the regional thresholds of significance set by the SCAQMD. Therefore, impacts associated with regional operational emissions from the Project would be less than significant. Table 3 Estimated Daily Operational Emissions Emissions Source Emissions in Pounds per Day ROG NO. I CO I SO„ PMio I PM2.5 Summertime (Smog Season) Emissions Area Sources 1.26 <0.01 0.04 0.00 <0.01 <0.01 Energy Demand 0.02 0.16 0.13 <0.01 0.01 0.01 Mobile (Motor Vehicles) 2.57 11.96 34.52 0.11 8.71 2.41 Total Project Emissions 3.85 12.12 34.70 0.11 8.72 2.42 SCAQMD Thresholds 55.00 55.00 550.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Potentially Significant Impact? No No No No No No Wintertime (Non -Smog Season) Emissions Area Sources 1.26 <0.01 0.04 0.00 <0.01 <0.01 Energy Demand 0.02 0.16 0.13 <0.01 0.01 0.01 Mobile (Motor Vehicles) 2.50 12.29 32.88 0.11 8.71 2.41 Total Project Emissions 3.77 12.45 33.06 0.11 8.72 2.42 Table 3 Estimated Daily Operational Emissions Emissions Source Emissions in Pounds per Day ROG NO. CO SO„ PM10 PM2.5 SCAQMD Thresholds 55.00 55.00 550.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Potentially Significant Impact? No No No No No No Note: Column totals may not add due to rounding from the model results. Calculation sheets provided in Appendix 111 to this IS/MND. c) A significant impact may occur if a project would add a considerable cumulative contribution to federal or State non -attainment pollutant. Because the South Coast Air Basin is currently in nonattainment for ozone, PMlo and PM2.5, related projects may exceed an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality exceedance. With respect to determining the significance of the Project contribution, the SCAQMD neither recommends quantified analyses of construction and/or operational emissions from multiple development projects nor provides methodologies or thresholds of significance to be used to assess the cumulative emissions generated by multiple cumulative projects. Instead, the SCAQMD recommends that a project's potential contribution to cumulative impacts be assessed utilizing the same significance criteria as those for project specific impacts. Furthermore, the SCAQMD states that if an individual development project generates less -than -significant construction or operational emissions impacts, then the development project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment. As discussed above, the mass daily construction and operational emissions generated by the Project would not exceed any of thresholds of significance recommended by the SCAQMD. Also, as discussed below, localized emissions generated by the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD's Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). Therefore, the Project would not contribute a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for the pollutants which the Basin is in nonattainment. Thus, cumulative air quality impacts associated with the Project would be less than significant. d) A significant impact may occur if a project were to generate pollutant concentrations to a degree that would significantly affect sensitive receptors. Land uses that are considered more sensitive to changes in air quality than others are referred to as sensitive receptors. Land uses such as primary and secondary schools, hospitals, and convalescent homes are considered to be sensitive to poor air quality because the very young, the old, and the infirm are more susceptible to respiratory infections and other air quality - related health problems than the general public. Residential uses are considered sensitive because people in residential areas are often at home for extended periods of time, so they could be exposed to pollutants for extended periods. Recreational areas are considered moderately sensitive to poor air quality because vigorous exercise associated with recreation places a high demand on the human respiratory function. The nearest air quality sensitive receptors to the Project Site are the Santa Clarita Activities Center to the northeast (approximately 350 meters, or 0.20 mile) and Golden Valley High School to the southeast (approximately 800 meters, or 0.5 mile). Localized Emissions Emissions from construction activities have the potential to generate localized emissions that may expose sensitive receptors to harmful pollutant concentrations. The SCAQMD has developed localized significance threshold (LST) look -up tables for project sites that are one, two, and five acres in size to simplify the evaluation of localized emissions at small sites. LSTs are provided for each Source Receptor Area (SRA) and various distances from the source of emissions. In the case of this analysis, the Project Site is located within SRA 13 covering the Santa Carita Valley. The nearest air quality sensitive receptors to the Project Site are the Santa Clarita Activities Center to the northeast (approximately 350 meters, or 0.20 mile) and Golden Valley High School to the southeast (approximately 800 meters, or 0.5 mile). As mentioned previously, the Project Site is 7.6 acres in size. However, based on the anticipated equipment used during the on-site grading, site preparation and soil export phase, approximately three acres will be disturbed on a given day. For a conservative analysis, the LST's for a two -acre site in SRA 13 with receptors located between 200 and 500 meters have been used to address the potential localized NOx, CO, PMio, and PM2.5 emissions to the area surrounding the Project Site. This approach is conservative because a two -acre LST allows for fewer emissions than a three -acre LST. In addition, with respect to building construction emissions, this analysis conservatively considered peak daily emissions associated with building construction, architectural coatings, paving, and off-site right-of- way improvements would overlap on the same worst-case day. Although the site is 7.6 acres, the application of the five -acre LST for this phase would be conservative because the analysis applies a five - acre threshold for 7.6 acres of activity. In addition, the analysis is conservative because it assumes off- site improvements would combine with on-site emissions and the total emissions have been evaluated against a single on-site LST. As shown in Table 4, Localized Peak Daily Construction Emissions, peak daily emissions generated within the Project Site and the area for off-site improvements during construction activities would not exceed the applicable construction LSTs in SRA 13. Therefore, localized air quality impacts from Project construction activities on sensitive receptors would be less than significant. Table 4 Localized Peak Daily Construction Emissions Construction PhaseTotal Emissions (Pounds per Day) Noxa CO PMio PM2.5 On -Site Grading/Site Preparation/Soil Export Emissionsb 28.35 16.29 4.16 2.78 SCAQMD Localized Thresholds 204.00 3,108.00 59.00 20.00 Potentially Significant Impact? No No No No Building Construction Emissions` Building Construction 21.08 17.16 1.29 1.21 Architectural Coatings 1.68 1.83 0.11 0.11 Paving 5.63 5.41 0.30 0.28 Table 4 Localized Peak Daily Construction Emissions Construction Phase Total Emissions (Pounds per Day) Noxa CO PM10 PM2.5 Off -Site Right -Of -Way Improvements 11.14 7.77 0.52 0.47 Total Building Construction Emissions 39.53 32.17 2.22 2.07 SCAQMD Localized Thresholds 275.00 4,608.00 79.00 26.00 Potentially Significant Impact? No No No No Note: Calculations assume compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 — Fugitive Dust. The localized thresholds listed for NOx in this table takes into consideration the gradual conversion of NOx to NO, and are provided in the mass rate look -up tables in the "Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology" document prepared by the SCAQMD. As discussed previously, the analysis of localized air quality impacts associated with NOx emissions is focused on NO2 levels as they are associated with adverse health effects. b The Project Site is 7.6 acres. However, based on the anticipated equipment used during the on-site grading, site preparation and soil export phase the LST's for a two -acre site with a receptor distance between 200 and 500 meters (1,640 feet) in SCAQMD's SRA 13 have been applied. `For the Building phase, this analysis conservatively applies the five -acre LST with a receptor distance between 200 and 500 meters (1,640 feet) in SCAQMD's SRA 13. Calculation sheets are provided in Appendix 111 to this IS/MND. With regard to localized emissions from motorvehicle travel, traffic congested roadways and intersections have the potential to generate localized high levels of carbon monoxide (CO). The SCAQMD suggests conducting a CO hotspots analysis for any intersection where a project would worsen the Level of Service (LOS) from A -C to any level below C, and for any intersection rated D or worse where the project would increase the V/C ratio by two percent or more. Based on a review of the Project's traffic analysis,' the Project would not worsen the LOS from A -C to any level below C for any intersection. In addition, all study area intersections generally operate at LOS D or better under existing plus Project conditions, with the exception of one intersection. The Golden Valley Road/Sierra Highway intersection operates at LOS E during existing conditions and existing plus Project conditions. However, the Project would not increase the traffic by two percent at this intersection. Therefore, the Project would not have the potential to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the California one-hour or eight-hour CO standards of 20 or 9.0 ppm, respectively; or generate an incremental increase equal to or greater than 1.0 ppm for the California one- hour CO standard, or 0.45 ppm for the eight-hour CO standard at any local intersection. Therefore, impacts with respect to localized CO concentrations would be less than significant. Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) The Project includes the operation of a Los Angeles County Sheriff station and would include a vehicle car wash area and vehicle fueling with fuel storage tank. However, compliance with SCAMD Rule 461 and SWQCB Water Quality Order No. 2013-0001-DWQ would ensure proper use and maintenance of such facilities. The Project's remaining uses would function similar to office uses and would not include land uses that would routinely involve the use, storage, or processing of carcinogenic or non -carcinogenic toxic 2 Santa Clarito Valley Sheriff Station Traffic Study, Stantec Consulting Services Inc., March 29, 2017. air contaminants and no toxic airborne emissions would typically result from Project implementation. In addition, construction activities associated with the Project would be typical of other development projects in the City, and would be subject to the regulations and laws relating to toxic air pollutants at the regional, State, and federal level that would protect sensitive receptors from substantial concentrations of these emissions. Therefore, impacts associated with the release of toxic air contaminants would be less than significant. e) A project -related significant adverse effect could occur if construction or operation of the proposed project would result in generation of odors that would be perceptible in adjacent sensitive areas. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses and industrial operations that are associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies and fiberglass molding. The Project involves the development of a sheriff station with a 44,900 square -foot main building, a 4,000 square -foot maintenance building, an additional 8,000 square -foot building, and 358 parking spaces on a surface parking lot, which is not typically associated with odor complaints. Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include equipment exhaust. Odors from these sources would be localized and generally confined to the immediate area surrounding the Project. The Project would use typical construction techniques, and the odors would be typical of most construction sites and temporary in nature. As the Project involves no operational elements related to industrial projects, no long-term operational objectionable odors are anticipated. Therefore, potential impacts associated with objectionable odors would be less than significant. Cumulative Impacts As discussed in Question (c) above, a significant impact may occur if a project would add a considerable cumulative contribution to federal or State non -attainment pollutant. Because the South Coast Air Basin is currently in nonattainment for ozone, PM10 and PM2.5, related projects may exceed an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality exceedance. With respect to determining the significance of the proposed project contribution, the SCAQMD neither recommends quantified analyses of construction and/or operational emissions from multiple development projects nor provides methodologies or thresholds of significance to be used to assess the cumulative emissions generated by multiple cumulative projects. Instead, the SCAQMD recommends that a project's potential contribution to cumulative impacts be assessed utilizing the same significance criteria as those for project specific impacts. Furthermore, the SCAQMD states that if an individual development project generates less -than - significant construction or operational emissions impacts, then the development project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment. As discussed above, the mass daily construction and operational emissions generated by the project would not exceed any of thresholds of significance recommended by the SCAQMD. Also, localized emissions generated by the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD's Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). Therefore, the Project would not contribute a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for the pollutants which the Basin is in nonattainment. Thus, cumulative air quality impacts associated with the project would be less than significant. Project Construction and Operation Air Quality Emissions 00 i v Cl) o_ 0 N N M N O m m a Cl) O N 0 73 LU LU m U C 0 (V 0 0 LU LU LU m U N N 7 0 0 — o. U= `o U m •� • w E N r •� m G1 l U � c a f6 m m m � m v � Q •J O N O Y U) Dt2 a a t N N O N u r N a E - = - N ^Z Oa r r m U U c 00 0 0 N N N n M N O N N O) m a C N C OO E Q m 0) w O N O Q w 3:O O 0 m O N m O M �3 O- o U U O 6 C U m o r � Q QQ N O U C U m C O 6 u Z N E Q 5 w N Q O 0 O U m O r .� y n Q C) (n 3 C N n C O U U U r U (D d n O -O Z J d ° to O C) Q w 0 O (D .O o a -p (7 O) O C) mo L Q C N C OO E Q m 0) w O N O Q w 3:O O 0 m x � o •o •o .o .o .o -I �o •o m •N •N •N N •N •N •~ •N N m IJ Z :o :E m 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I o to l0 1 1 1 1 1 1 o to to to to l0 1� to Ip = p to to to to l0 1- 1 1 o to to I� I� I� If0 I� to cl m 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I x m m u m WI -I of m 1Em m IJ :o :E O , O , , U ' m , Z U W , Z , Z ml m, O m Z Z: . ,LLI ,LLI .Q '> ,W C : N MO m m m m m p m •t m U .O • U .O • (-) ��� m =_ m N •N •N ,0 ;0 ;0 •OI V • •0 Z :m :m ,U ,U ,U' � :'^ :o m a u v • v • m • m m • m m • m cl 2 m `? ._ `? :._� `? :._ � ,Q ,Q ,Q .Q:E „o .0 •a •a •a • :o Q :Q :Q 'O a .a •a •a :a 00 0 0 N N N C O .y N E W 0 N ,x ,g 0 o m m ;U --t---t--t--t--t--t--t--t--t--t--t--t--t--t--t--t--t -- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 to to l0 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O ,o Ip 10 10 10 10 Ip 10 1� IN 1 10 10 10 10 1� Ip IN 1� Ip Ip 1� IM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I� N ,N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I T :E :E :� � C ,C ,C ::S ::S •p •per •O •OI •OI •N •� •j •} ;a' .r .r .¢.N .N .�•C •C •C • o •o F Q • c •cl • C • C • N • N • • X W • d • d • O. • N • N • N • _ • C • E, E , E , W W • U) • U) :O m U ,Q U ,Q •'� Q • E E E d m O .'� IJ z � � � � •� •� •� :z :z:O :O :a . ' . ' . ' ;� ;� ;� , .Q ,g .o ,O 0 o 0 0 m .m .m 10-.1 .1- O .O .O a' a ' a ' a ' a ' a ' a : m : m ' m � m • E ' E ' E ' E �� • d o o o o o o o. .i� :.v :.v :.v :.v :.v ,O •O •O •O •O •d ,> �� 0000000 O ;O ;O ;O ;O ;O :a N C O .y N E W 0 N 00 I v Cl) 0 O N N Cl) O O N cO G LU LU m U O (V 0 O LU LU LU m U m 'm rm rn rn m 'm r .m rn rn ry O NV SON ON ry O NV SON ON N O p ry O o O O p N 0 0 O O 1 o to o to O O O 1 O I O to o to O O O I O O O Z O i0 O Z O i0 O N Z O p V 2 m N r V 2 m N r 1 m Im N IN r N Im I m Im N IN r N Im V O U T m O i40 rn O U T m O rn O t (� o O IirO d rr Ire M IN n� N d rr Ire M IN n� N U O O F V N N F V N N O f O rr IN' 1 N` O rr IN' I N` O O m t7 N N m Z t7 N V N N O QI O' .LN Z N N 1 ----- I m N O 1� N O I� IrnD 0 W N� 1 -F I -F dN N xLL O N dN N x O N Nh �N' O O t7 �O m 1N I`� t7 �O m IN I� Wxa o '°rna 15 '°rna vOi 'a� rn 1 M I umi, ii i` °o I 6 O viii i`Nh' I O ` � LL y 4 _� LL Od Od a Oq ci 1 M 1M Ito I v Ioyi Ito �o F m m �F v, a � �O N 10 O �O N 10 O NO C x W N 11 W N II WKd j0 W d Vi 1 m IN Ema V, iN 16 ma O iN O yO � O ii m 1 o >1 I R N O yym I m 1 a7 N `yyn I m a7 O O O ORR O C0 X n jm Im m 0 n Im m 16 O U o o (6 N IN F N N IN F N O O % C O a I� I� O Z m 1 O Im {� O Z m I O 1 c {� O O Z O O U 1 I L L O O Y I O O N VI O I m m O 'm'I I m m O o 0 O N i' V 0 : 1 C y U O�N N d N 7 ^2 00 I N >C C 0 O U (n R O U L 0 O N U) O N LO N m m a 0 O J C O U) L Cn U w 'N m ,^ Cl) N p (D rnID prn U o m o O 1d) 1 N w O ION 1 O � 73 hrn W of I a7 W p C) O R O p w R U oo Imo 1� > 0 0 N Im E EN m IN IN N O 0 LU W m 0 R r C) N � F N 7 w 'N m ,^ rn N p •Nm O �N ImN rnID prn U o m o 1d) 1 w O ION 1 rno^ � lino I hrn of I a7 rn 1 1 d)1 d) 1 o ov lom 1� � rn U oo Imo 1� e N Im E EN m IN IN N O N U m Im loy 1 ImN ryry rn^ � F O 0 1m 1 11� 10 N m Im IN 0 O U b 0 IN to N T� Z O im imN 1 l0 0 N O b m 1 1 u? lb m ND Oy IN Im OOp 1� 10 m 0.~ N_O 10 IN N NN m fC' n 1 1 -F -F 1 1 lb O IN IN oo IO 1� NN mfC' n Wd N_ i0 i0 O jN O LN 1 10 O jN 1 10 O LN m� 1 10 1 1N O N LLd N N i iN N NO 10 Ih n m 1 1 IN IN 1r 10 Or N f2F a O� NO 10 Ih N 16 m O 1N 1N ov I 1 oo IO 1� V _ 16 1m N_ i0 i0 O �0 m� T � O 1N 1N ov 1 1 oo IO 1� V Wd N_ i0 i0 O T � I I i 1co16 li 1 1 m m _F _F li 1 1 m m O 10 1� I v 1 00 1000 10 n O _F _F O I1O O N p O 10 1� 1 v 1 00 1000 10 n O O 1 O 10 O m IN IN y I� Im n vl Im 1 0 o IN15 � p m IN IN I Im Noi n v U o 1 Im o to IN o � w m 0o IN Im a 1 IN _F _F mo to IN N 0 w m 0o IN Im a C7 O mo to IN N n m Im to I I n C7 O N 10 IN i0 iN n {7 • iiii ilii T � T 0 O w p m v : `w ,0 q 0 U w 'N m m rn p •Nm O N m N o6 mID p rn U o �m o Id) 1 w O ION 1 rno^ mo 1 hrn I of I 1 d) I d) 1 o 15 rn � U ov lom 1� oo Imo 1� e N m E N m IN N I N O N U m Im loy ImN Nry F O 0 1m 1 1I� 10 N m Im IN e 0 O U b 0 N to N TNm Z O im imN 1 l0 0 N O b m I 1 N N 0 Oy IN Im OOp 1� 10 m d~ N_O 10 IN N I 1 -F -F 1 O IN IN o0 10 16 NN m fC' n Wd N_ 10 10 O ---- F---- F---- I 10 jN O LN 1 10 O Ild I IN ry 1 1N IN O� 1r 10 Or f2F N N a NO 10 Ih n m _ 16 1m �0 m� O 1N 1N ov I 1 oo IO 1� V Wd N_ i0 i0 O T � I I oa i 1co16 li 1 1 m m _F _F N p O 10 1� I v 1 00 1000 10 n O O I1O O IIm 1 p m IN IN y I� Im n vl 0 o IN15 � I IN _F _F 0 w m 0o IN Im a � mo to IN N m Im to I I n C7 O N 0 IN n �OIN {7 I 1 'i'iii •'iiii " ,0 0 U 00 i m 0 co 19 0 N O LU LU LU m U c O 0 O LU W LU m U A _ O Q U N 0 L a •N •M •`V (D N N I N l iN I 1 z 1 l y I I � E3: 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 m l 1 I = 10 10 i0 jm jm 1m 1 1 1 1 1 1 N 1 1 I N 1 1 I m IT 10 10 No 10 10 10 1 1 (n N IN IN IN 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I p 1 0 101 1 U 1 N 1 d 11 0 1 VI Iv IU 1 N 1 VI 1 I a 0 1 h iU ihi � 01 1 01 1 U 1 __ 1 C_ 1 41 1 01 p 1 p 1 L 1 C N 1= 1 U 1 7 ;o ;m z = U • N � .2 .0 N •� L a o m hi OI � OI • U L • C "> '- • U (7 •mJ •� •a d N EN L J az •N •M •V N 0) N 00 R d Q O7 C Y R IL w a Y N O N V N O O 0 R C w K C O Z O M N 00 O O L C R C d L K C O Z O O w O R O t a � r 0 O N R R In I w a n In R Y N f7 O a L: R Y c c c of ON U E a a R R c � a R 7 t7 t7 a w O O O W Y In In d In d 'O t L O Q Q Q d a 0 00 0 0 N N Cl) N O N m a 0 N O 73 W W R U c O m N 0 O LU W W_ m U O LL N O J l ............. m r r r m v r io m o ry o Im 1n m v m i1 m m m v r M �M m l I I I I I I I I I I I I I m I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 = I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O O O O 0 2 2 2 2O o co O IOo IOo IOo IOo IOo IOo 1IOo C6 ' to 0 I O I = I m 1 m 1 � 1 � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T7�TM T7�TM T7�TM T7�T7�T7�TD = O ¢ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I O 0 1 1 1 1 0 O 1 1 1 1 1 I N N 1 1 L 1 U 1 1 1 L 1 U 1 1 1 1 1 IX I 1 IY W 1 1 1 O 1 (] 1 1 N 1 1 1 1 1 I V1 1 1 N 1 1 1 1 O 1 1 1 E I E 1 1 I O I g 1 1 1-U 1 d 1 0 1 O 1 1 1 1 1 d 1 (n 1 0 1 O 1 1 1 00 1 1 1 1 Q 1'5 1 1 I I "O O 10 1� 1 Ip 1 IW 1 �� O 1 00 1� IN 10 1� 1 1'i 10 Id 1 1 1� 1 101 1 1� �N ,p 1-0 1L 1U 10 1y 141 1U 1'0 1U 1> 1> 1yJ x 1 1= 1 1 1 O 1 C 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1` 1> 1 0 1> 1 0 1— 1 0 I E d :� :: ::............ .. :: :a :a :�..L: I E m y) • O • O • O • O • O � L 2 , , , , .O co ,L •0 55 •C a �O � 1 m I O U X 1 X 1 X X � m 0 c c c Ip N 1 1 1 1 1 1 U 1 1 1 L 1 1 1 > m 1 1 I 1 1 I y 0 x l x I x I x d O O O 10 o Io Io Io � 1 1 im 1m 1m 1� 1 1 I m 1 1 00 > J I I J I I 1 n o Io Io to �� � E I = 1 � Z ; ; I t t 0 0 0 Io � •M 1 1 00 E 1 � Z 1 > I d o 10 F� co 1 1 16 I N ; ;(D 1 60 d E 1 o = Z 1 1 I I I W O 1 1 1 1 I 0 U 1 1 I 0 1 1 I 0 1 1 I I 1 1 O 1 1 I 1 1 1 0 O 'O � N U E 2 O m .0 Z O : N ,L L': 00 I v Cl) O_ O N N O N n (V C 0 O U 0 O U 0 O N U) O N W N a 0 O J C O U) L Cn U Cl) O O N O 73 W W m U I_ m O r n 0 � N O c LU W f�6 W � U N M m �w N m O m {7 {7 U o .m rn .N I N o N 1 Z 1 1 1 w e v jm rn U Im rn U T i0 O w a 1 l0 R N p N O 0 �m m w S O mm O I ICW 7 16 o Im rn F iN l0 N � O m Im Im 0 p �m m Z I Id m �e m O Im rn m°- o m N Z iN +f+ +f+ I 1 O n w U �s 0 m a o to l0 0 +f+ 1 _ 1 1m N 6 w N O O t7 I O I O t7 O {7 a wa mo I�Imo o 0 1 Orn m I 1 1 I i -/I N O I m ID N OI f2 O IN N O 1 00 N x iN I 1 1 m to j� M Io Im rn N I 1 LLa m � m w to Iv om to lom w rnm 1 mo Im luoio ao xa w r Iv m la 16 Io 1 a m I 1 I I 1 .mom �o N o Iv a O i0 i0 O o Ir n ---- I 1 wa T o 1� N w 1 om O moo io i^oo horn v r- r- e 1 a O N IO Im m Im N p IN rn N m l0 0 �0 0 X p N O 1 m O m to to D N rn Z m �o �o Im p rn p IN N O m �e a' I� l0 O Iym 0 m x O jc 06 Z U Im m N -�N Im p IN m � N iN N o m m w w o > o w U LL ;O N m O m {7 {7 U °� �o •r m o N Z I 1 I 1 w e o I� Imo g U T o Io IN O a - 1 ori to jm R N O p N O V m O I N w S m 1 N O rnD r- r- to Im N OU ry � b m Im Im N m I o Z N i0 i� ID O U o m +f+ +f+ I 1 n w I 1 O I N �s a o to l0 0 in N w I O I w w MN O t7 I O I O t7 O {7 a wa mo I�Imo o 0 1 Orn m I 1 OI f2 O IO Ip O LLd O �O i0 O I 1 OV m to j� M Io Im rn N I 1 �o w to Iv om to lom w rnm 10� mo Im luoio ao xa w m la 16 Io 1 a m I 1 I I .mom o IO Ilo N LLd O i0 i0 O ---- I 1 N om to lom om O moo io i^oo horn v r- r- e r to jr a O N IO Im m ---- F---- F ---- 10 X p N O 1 m O m to to D N rn Z m �o �o C7 m Io lin IO Im O1 O N IO 10 a' O O i0 i0 O U 00 I v Cl) O_ O N N O N n (V C 0 O U 0 O U 0 O N U) O N O) N a w O J C O U) L Cn U Cl) O O N O 73 W W m U I_ m O r n 0 � N O c LU W f�6 W � U N M m o N m O m {7 {7 U o .m rn .N I N o N 1 Z 1 1 1 w o v jm Im rn rn U o I� Imo g U T i0 O m a 1 l0 R N p N O 0 �m m 6 S O mm O I ICW 7 16 o Im rn F iN l0 N � O m Im Im 0 p �m m Z I Id m �e m O Im rn m°- o m N Z iN N U •0 •0 0 0 I 1 6 +f+ 1 _ 10 1 Im 0 m m �S v, jry n w I O I v w MN O t7 I O I O t7 O {7 1 I mo I�Imo o 0 1 00 m i -/I N O I m ID N O IN N 1 00 N x OI f2 iN O IO Ip O LLd 1 O �O i0 O I 1 OV m to j� M Io Im rn N LL a 1 1 1 1 �o v Iv n w om mo Im luoio ao x10� a m la a m I 1 1 �o o Iv a I I o Ir n o IO Ilo N LLd wa T o 1� I 1 m 1 >o 1 om to lom om r I n LL d N i N moo io i^oo hoo 1 v to I� ---_r----r ---- e Im N p a IN rn N m m l0 0 o �0 0 ---- F---- F ---- I I 10 Im p D N rn Z rn p IN N m �e C7 I� l0 O1 O N IO 10 Iym 0 m x O O jc 06 Z Im m N U -�N Im p IN m N N iN U LL ;O N m O m {7 {7 U m �o •r m o N Z I 1 I 1 w o o I� Imo g U T o Io IN O a - 1 ori to jm R N O p N O V m O I N 6 S m 1 N O rnD r- r- to Im N OU ry � b m Im Im N m I o Z N i0 i� ID O o m +f+ +f+ I 1 'n I 1 6 s a o to l0 0 in N w I O I v w MN O t7 I O I O t7 O {7 a wa mo I�Imo o 0 1 00 m 1 OI f2 O IO Ip O LLd O �O i0 O I 1 OV m to j� M Io Im rn N 1 �o w to Iv om to lom w om mo Im luoio ao x10� a m la a m I 1 I I .mom o IO Ilo N LLd O i0 i0 O I 1 N om to lom om O moo io i^oo hoo v to I� ---_r----r ---- e r to jr a O N O Im 1ID m o ---- F---- F ---- I I 10 X p N O 1 m O m to to D N rn Z m �o �o C7 m Io lin IO Im O1 O N IO 10 a' O O i0 i0 O U 00 I v Cl) O_ O N N O (V n Cl) O O O r N O -p N O LU 0 LU Q LU m U U L C W+ O_ N C (n O � U O L LUW m U Cl) M Ir •N �_ wCO N m o Ci O n N n N U m loo N N O N Z I 1 Z v 1 � b U I 1 -------------- T O O a a - o 0 N o o l0 0 U O �O i0 N N a 1 lug to N m r N rn 6 s - N F N N N O 00 iN im m m U o im im N N to N r N o m m N rn N Z N N N O n Z U O 0 m r n _ _ NS 6 r r O N a {7 n i -ll N n N � � in u� x wLL 0 j N N m� x o o LL LL I 1 0 10 dN O Im IN r OI f2 m m a LLLL m rn �O �cC m rn X LL o� N N W � a_ O iN i0 0 O 10 10 Ola 1 I Io �o p �y iON � N LL m O xLL W rn N O O m N ID N m o 0 O 0 0 c m cC O m O LLLL U I X m W O O O z o Imo Imo 0 N N N co N Im I - O m o o to j m. O o 1 O N Z N v N 1LQ m o m ~ U O Ir •N �_ Um o .m •m n �m •m o N I 1 Z 1 I 1 -------------- o MN 10 {7 U o o l0 0 T O �O i0 O a 1 lug to n N O - oo Iv Im U o 00 iN im ICN S o im im n F to 0 no NN O U O v IN 00 iN im ICN m O m n Z im �m O U o m rfr r*r I 1 _ 1 I0 It7 N 46 O N O O N {7 a o Io Io 0 in u� oo I� to 0 x o o I 1 dN O Im IN r OI f2 O 10 IN N LLLL O �O i0 O I 1 o� o to Iv o Im Im a vl aF O iN i0 O 10 10 1 I Io �o p �y iON � N � O xLL W � I� INo N O 10 Ih O 1 O Im Im c m cC o 1r O IN Im m O LLLL O i0 i0 I N oo lom lom Om o Imo Imo 0 co Im I - o to j m. o 1 O N m ID 1LQ O O N 1 O N O Im Im Z o IIn 10 a C7 o Im Im 1 h O o I� Iv N � O i0 i0 O 00 I v Cl) O_ O N N O (V n Cl) O O O r N O -p N O LU 0 LU Q LU m U U L C W+ O_ N C (n O � U O L LUW m U Cl) M Ir •N �_ wCO N m o Ci p n N n N U m loo N N O N Z I 1 Z v 1 � b U I 1 -------------- T O O a a - o 0 N p o o l0 N N T O �O i0 N m r N rn 6 s 1 lug to N N F - N N N O m m U 00 iN im N N o im im N r N o m to m N rn N Z N N N O ICN o 0 p n o 0 0 0 0 0 0 m o 0 o m r n _ rfr r*r I 1 NS 6 r r a n i -ll N n N � � a o Io Io 0 x wLL j N N m� in u� oo I� to LL LL 0 10 o o m m a dN m rn �O �cC m rn X LL N N W � a_ I 1 o� 0 o to Iv o Im Im a vl aF Ola O iN i0 O 10 10 LL 1 I Io m �o rn N p � N m N ID N m O o 0 I� INo N O 10 Ih O 0 0 1 O O U c m cC o 1r O IN Im m O LLLL O i0 i0 X m W O O O z N oo lom lom N N N N o Imo Imo 0 O m o Im I - O Z N v N o to j m. o 1 O N m m o ~ U O Ir •N �_ Um o .m •m n �m •m o N I 1 Z 1 I 1 -------------- o MN 10 {7 U o o l0 0 T O �O i0 O a 1 lug to n N O - oo Iv Im p o 00 iN im ICN S o im im n F to 0 no NN O p O v IN 00 iN im ICN m O m n Z im �m O U o m rfr r*r I 1 _ 1 I0 It7 N 46 O N O O N {7 a o Io Io 0 in u� oo I� to 0 x o o I 1 dN O Im IN r OI f2 O 10 IN N LLLL O �O i0 O I 1 o� o to Iv o Im Im a vl aF O iN i0 O 10 10 1 I Io �o p �y iON � N � O xLL W � I� INo N O 10 Ih O 1 O Im Im c m cC o 1r O IN Im m O LLLL O i0 i0 I N oo lom lom Om o Imo Imo 0 co Im I - o to j m. o 1 O N m ID 1LQ O O N 1 O N O Im Im Z o IIn 10 a C7 o Im Im 1 h O o I� Iv N � O i0 i0 O 00 I v Cl) O_ O N N O (V n (D O O G -p N O LU 0 W p LU m w U L O N C � p � U O L LUW m U Cl) M ,m •m v N � O U m N W N U N N N N O N Z I 1 Z V N N � 1 � e U I 1 -------------- T O O a - o N U o o l0 o 0 T O �O i0 N N 16 1 Im Im N N F N N N O o Im Im N S U OI o ;m im o 0 R m Im rn N O O m N N N N Z N N N O n Z U O 0 m m � _ _ m N46 r N N � o 0 a 7 t7 i -ll N 17 N O O i/IN x wLL W j N N m� I� 1� LL LL x o o Imo 0 � o 1 a� dN O Im IN r OI f2 O 10 IN N xa O �O i0 O W T a a_ - o� �o o I� o Im Im N n Ola o Io to LL 1 I to m �o rn N U a N N ID N m O O O N O 10 Ih O O N O 1 N o m IM Im CD o In O IN Im m O id 0 �e O i0 i0 0 x m U m W Z O N Oo loM m rn C7 m rn O O � Z N v N o Iv Im M O m o m 16 U ~ U O a ,m •m v � 0 Oo '� •v, virn Uh o .m •m n �m •m o N I 1 Z 1 I 1 -------------- O N IN NQ o U o o l0 0 T O �O i0 O a 1 Im Im rn N U o Im Im rn n m S OI o ;m im n F m Im rn N O Oo Im Im rn m O In m O n Z im im O U o m rfr r*r I 1 _ m I 1 I r N O M �S O O IN 7 a o Io Io 0 i/IN 00 W i� i0 O t7 N I� 1� x o o Imo 0 1 dN O Im IN r OI f2 O 10 IN N LLLL O �O i0 O I 1 o� o I� o Im Im N n o Io to 1 I to �o o jm Iom a � I� Imo O xa W � N O 10 Ih O 1 o IM Im c m cC o In O IN Im m O LLLL O i0 i0 O Iv Iv O N Oo loM O jpM MO mo O O Im Im o Iv Im M O o I� IN U o I� loi a o Im Ir M UX O Im IN 0 o m O IN IN N rn n Z O i t7 I O {7 C7 o IN Im I 1 M O O i0 IO O 00 I v Cl) O_ O N N O (V n (D O O G -p N O LU 0 W p LU m w U L O N C � p � U O L LUW m U Cl) M ,m •m v N � O U m N W N U N N N N O N Z I 1 Z V N N � 1 � e U I 1 -------------- T O O a - o N U o o l0 o 0 T O �O i0 N N 16 1 Im Im N N F N N N O o Im Im N S U OI o ;m im o 0 R m Im rn N O O m N N N N Z N N N O n o 0 U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 m o 0 m � _ _ m N46 r N N � o 0 a 7 t7 i -ll N 17 N O O i/IN x wLL W j N N m� I� 1� LL LL ILa o �o Imo 0 � o 1 a� dN O m IN r OI f2 O 10 IN N xa O �O i0 O W T a a_ - o� �o o I� o Im Im N n Ola o Io to LL 1 I to m �o rn N U a N N ID N m O O O N O 10 Ih O O N O 1 N o IM Im CD m o In O IN Im m O id 0 �e O i0 i0 0 x m U m W Z O N Oo loM m rn C7 m rn O O � Z N v N o Iv Im M O m o m 16 U ~ U O a ,m •m v � 0 Oo '� •v, virn Uh o .m •m n �m •m o N I 1 Z 1 I 1 -------------- O N IN NQ o U o o l0 0 T O �O i0 O a 1 Im Im rn N U o Im Im rn n m S OI o ;m im n F m Im rn N O Oo Im Im rn m O In m O n Z im im O U o m rfr r*r I 1 _ m I 1 I r N O M IN �S O O 7 a o Io Io 0 i/IN 00 W i� i0 O t7 N I� 1� ILa o �o Imo 0 1 dN O m IN r OI f2 O 10 IN N LLLL O �O i0 O I 1 o� o I� o Im Im N n o Io to 1 I to �o o jm Iom a � I� Imo O xa W � N O 10 Ih O 1 o IM Im c m cC o In O IN Im m O LLLL O i0 i0 O Iv Iv O N Oo loM O jpM MO mo O O Im Im o Iv Im M O o I� IN U o I� loi a o Im Ir M UX O Im IN 0 o m O IN IN N rn n Z O i t7 I O {7 C7 o IN Im I 1 M O O i0 IO O 00 I v Cl) O_ O N N O (V n (V >C C 0 O U 0 O U M 0 N O O V � (V m � (6 w a J 0 O (n L Cn U Cn (D O N N _0 O O N LU 0) W c LU 16 m U 0 U O (n (V > U 0 o W U W m a U M ,m m d O N N N O O �m rn ' o •N I N o N 1 Z 1 1 1 w w v o jm tom o� I� l0 0 U T INo O IO IN ho N T i0 O N� d 1 O o to Im m U o Iv a m VO 4 j4 jr O O 1 n O N O iN 1� O I N O U Iv a 0 m Z iN N O U +f+ +f+ I 1 0 n q m m �s +f+ 1 _ 1 1O O N46 O d� o l0 I I 1 0 O O O O 0 Im gym" O WO O 1 I O to Imo �o i -ll N O I m rn NN 00 10 O n 2'� N O O 10 I x LLLL 1 O �O i0 O d N 1 r N m� o� o to Im o to to LL a aF 1 oo ioo im m 1 o Io l0 0 O m o Im o l0 rn 0 m jm tom o� 10� o to Imm rno xa 1 I la a �o o Im rn o l0 0 wLL rn� 0 o to I� T o �0 o �o �0 d 1 I I �0 1 I Ola d LL I 1. I Id d O IO Im o O O V oo o o im rnoo ---- F---- F ---- IN N o to jo 0 Ox o o Im O O N O IO 10 m N O Iv a O O 1� ---IO i' m QO 1 m O IO 10 W O 1m O i0 i0 O Im 7 Ox rn O a° d `0 m o Z p! im 0 1 m IN U, N ly h O m 1 � m 'a o m m U E ;O ~ Q ,m rn N O O O O O {7 o N Z I 1 I 1 w w v o jm tom o� o U T INo O IO IN ho N d 1 -___O i ____r---- N� 0 O o to Im m s 4 j4 jr O O 1 n 1 IO 1� O O I CD CD Z O U 0 m +f+ +f+ I 1 n q I 1 O O 10 m �s a o to l0 0 ill 't) I I da O O O O 0 Im gym" O WO O x O to Imo �o 1 1 10 In n 2'� N O O 10 I LLLL O �O i0 O 1 o� o to Im o to to � 0 aF oo ioo im m o Io l0 0 1 ____i ____i m jm tom o� 10� o to Imm rno xa I la a I 1 I I rn� o to I� LLLL o �o �0 0 I I w d I O IO Im o O O O I V l0 1ID V U o o ---- F---- F ---- o to jo 0 Ox o o Im O O N O IO 10 m N O Z O i0 O ---IO QO o to jm IO Im m O IO 10 W O � O i0 i0 O rn O a° d `0 m p! 0 00 I v Cl) O_ O N N O (V n (V >C C 0 O U 0 O U M 0 N O O LD N (V m � (6 w a J 0 O (n L Cn U Cn (D O N N _0 O O N LU 0) W c LU 16 m U 0 U O (n (V > U 0 o W U W m a U M ,m m d O N N N O O •m rn ' o •N I N o N 1 Z 1 1 1 w w v o jm tom o� I� l0 0 U T INo O IO IN ho N T i0 O N� d 1 O o to Im m U o Iv a m VO 4 j4 jr O O 1 n O N O iN 1� O I N O Iv U a 0 m Z iN N N U •0 •0 0 0 n q I 1 O O 10 m +f+ 1 _ 1 1O O N46 O 0 d� o l0 1 0 I I 1 I O O O O 0 Im gym" O WO O i -ll N O I m rn NN 00 10 O 10 In x 2'� N 1 d N O �O i0 O r N m� 1 LL a o� 1 o to Im o to to � 0 aF 1 oo ioo im m o Im rn O m o l0 0 m jm tom o� 10� o to Imm rno xa 1 I la a �o o Im rn o l0 0 wLL rn� 0 o to I� T o �0 o �o �0 d 1 I I �0 1 I Ola d LL I 1. I Id d O IO Im o O O V oo o o im rnoo ---- F---- F ---- IN N o to jo 0 Ox o o Im O O N O IO 10 m N O Iv a O O 1� ---IO i' m QO 1 m O IO 10 W O 1m Ox O Im 7 m Z rn im o p! 1 0 m IN U, N ly h O m 1 � m 'a o m m U E ;O ~ Q ,m rn N O O O O O Ci o N Z I 1 I 1 w w v o jm tom o� o U T INo O IO IN ho N d 1 -___O i ____r---- N� 0 O o to Im m s 4 j4 jr O O 1 n 1 IO 1� O O I CD CD Z O 0 m +f+ +f+ I 1 n q I 1 O O 10 m �s a o to l0 0 ill 't) I I da O O O O 0 Im gym" O WO O x O to Imo �o I 1 1 10 In n 2'� N O O 10 I LLLL O �O i0 O 1 o� o to Im o to to � 0 aF oo ioo im m o Io l0 0 1 ____i ____i m jm tom o� 10� o to Imm rno xa I la a I 1 I I rn� o to I� LLLL o �o �0 0 I I w d I O IO Im o O O O I V l0 1ID V U o o ---- F---- F ---- o to jo 0 Ox o o Im O O N O IO 10 m N O Z O i0 O ---IO QO o to jm IO Im m O IO 10 W O � O i0 i0 O rn O a° d `0 m p! 0 00 I N n (D O N cO G LU LU m U I_ O p N c N oLU rn W 16 C) a LO M m m d o m rn N O {7 O m CD p O m I m O j N 1 Z 1 Z 1 1 v I 1 m j rn U N I N v T O i O d 1 U O O Io Im to O __O 1 ---- r 10 n 0 o Io 0 S 1 a N i N N O 1 Ci d O � O m m O Z i V O U O m 0 Z m O +f+ 1 U 'nq y O N S O I r 1 O n a o 10 0 _ 1 I N46 6 i'll N {7 V I O V N m I O ID "a 0 N 1O N x 1 NN d N O IO IDV C� f2 xa1� r N m� O IO 100 O OO o w LL a to Im 1 1 I 1 1 m to rn N i0 N aF O IO IO 0 10 0 O �O i0 1 �o m to rn 0 o Ir oo I o 1' r 10 n �cC N IO N W LL T O i O O d 1 �O �0 d O 1 I Ola OD WLL T O to Im m d LL 1 O 1 m a o Io 1� w 1 d N om 1 00^ O 0 ^00 i n00 I 1 m 1 m N oo to lom oo^ O I Imo _O �O m 1 0 O 1 o 0 N i N OU _F O IO ly a m 1 m O i0 i0 O r 1 n O N N N i N _F 1 ID OX Z C7 {7 0 m 1 mr ly o O O m O i0 QO IO 1N N � O IO 10 O i0 i0 O O U O m 'o a7 d o m rn N O O O m W O O O O O I I N Z I 1 I 1 w w v o jo tom om o I� Ivo U T O Io Im yo vi d __O 1 ---- 0 O IO IN N U o Io Iv a o 16 N OU I to O O IO IV I V CD IO 1� O m O Z I _ 1' O U 0 m +f+ +f+ I 1 _ I 1 I I N46 6 O O t7 {7 a o Io 10 0 NN O IO IDV C� f2 xa1� O IO 100 O OO o w to Im m 1 I 1 OI f2 O IO IO O LLLL O �O i0 O I 1 O V 0 o Ir oo I o 1' n N o Io 10 0 I 1 �O d o jo �o d O '�cC O IO IOD OD WLL T O to Im m d I 1 O to Im m a o Io 1� rn� o to I� LLLL o �o �0 0 I 1 w d N oo to lom oo^ O I Imo _O �O O i0 i'O O IO 10 O OU o IO 1� O IO ly a O i0 i0 O O IO Im m O IO 1m ID OX Z O O t7 o to l0 {7 0 O i0 i0 O O IO 1� QO IO 1N N � O IO 10 O i0 i0 O O 00 I N n (D O N cO G LU LU m U I_ O p N c N o rn W m C) a LO M m 0 d o m rn N O {7 O 0 CD p O m I m O j N 1 Z 1 Z 1 1 v I 1 m j rn U N I N v T O i O d 1 U O O Io Im to O __O 1 ---- r 10 n 0 o Io 0 S 1 a N i N N O I Ci d O � O 0 m W Z i V N O O IO I� O O 0 O 0 b m 0 o 0 0 +f+ 1 O 'nq y O N S O I r 1 O n m a o 10 0 +f+ +f+ I 1 1 I _ i'll N V I O V N {7 0 I O ID "a 0 N 1O N x 1 NN d N O IO IDV C� f2 xa1� r N 0�2 O IO 100 O OO o w LL a to Im 1 1 I 1 1 m to rn N i0 N aF O IO IO 0 10 0 O �O i0 1 �o m to rn 0 o Ir o0 o I' r 10 n �cC o �o N IO N W LL T O i O O d 1 O 0 1 I Ola OD WLL T O to I0 of d LL I O 1 0 a o Io I� w 1 d N om 1 00^ O 0 ^00 i n00 I 1 0 I 0 N oo to l00 00^ O I Imo _O �O 0 1 0 O 1 . o 0 N i N OU _F O IO ly a 0 1 0 O i0 i0 O r 1 n O Z N N N i N _F 1 D OX Z O O o o l0 7 0 1 0r C7 O m ly o O 0 O i0 QO IO 1N N � O IO 10 O i0 i0 O O rn O a0 d m U O m 'o a7 d o m rn N O O O 0 W O O O O O I I N Z I 1 I 1 w w v o jo X00 0� o I� Ivo U T O Io Im yo vi d __O 1 ---- 0 O IO IN N U o Io Iv a o 16 N OU I to O O IO IV I V IO I� O m O O U 0 m +f+ +f+ I 1 _ I 1 I I N46 6 O O t7 {7 a o Io 10 0 NN O IO IDV C� f2 xa1� O IO 100 O OO o w to Im m 1 I 1 OI f2 O IO IO O LLLL O �O i0 O I 1 O V 0 o Ir o0 o I' n N aF o �o o Io 10 0 I 1 o jo �0 0 '�cC O IO IOD OD WLL T O to I0 of d 1 O to Im 0 a o Io I� rn� o to I� LLLL o �o �0 0 I 1 w d N oo to l00 00^ O I Imo _O �O O i0 i'O . O IO 10 O OU o IO 1� O IO ly a O i0 i0 O F _F I I O IO I0 O O 1m D OX Z O O o o l0 7 0 O i0 i0 O O IO 1� QO IO 1N N � O IO 10 O i0 i0 O O rn O a0 d m 2 � U 00 I (h N O co (6 a w N N F N N m •m Nm , nm O U a mN ,mN o •o 1 ' O N Z ' m � m 1 m o jo U a o to - N U pv IDv m Im 6 s a o :o O N pv IDv Z � O U m _ 1 N m N 46 U) O a~ N IN N _F r�0 ill N N ' N 'N 1 x o 0 Ip N N jN O �O `N m� O 10 M IM LLa N IN >O M,O _F x N 'N a m Im ~ t0o mlo m NO Aft j O IO N IN xa w � 1� o to M10 rna Q 1 N N m 1 m �y 1 _F 1 M ;M 1 O 10 m _F d > N IN O 10 p Q m Im 1 o.o N �N m �m T T m 1 N IN Z Vlp ' N N_ IN N N -F �1 i 1 F 1 10 O O N IN C� o.o r ,a a ,v v M,M N m•O •J cx_ C W v LL V F a � z m m � m m m m Q O T •O .W. a F N o O _ O,O U) v N'p N r�0 r T m.p T Ip N N C o,p M >O M,O x o T ~ t0o mlo m T j Uj 1 O Uj m M10 M Q (n � � d 1 of 1 m _y_ d > 1 1 Q m 1 o.o T ' mlo m o Y Vlp V N NI Nlp N N �1 i 1 F m: C� o.o O. O M,M N m•O •J U:O N o � 0 p.Y 0 � J o N• (7 O. cx_ C W v LL V z O .O O T •O O o O _ O,O U) v U o.p o,p M >O M,O x Z m •m O x U m U o.o F U o.o O M,M O. N ¢] • O J m.a Ci C ' cx_ C W v LL V 00 I N n Cl) O O N O 73 W W m U C O N 0 O LU W W m U 9 N rn m LU W mo U O w LE w m •m m m O U m •m N •N m_ •m w �m 0 00 ,00 Z NO INO 1 M IM _F w �w 1 O �o Imo 1 . U m m Im 6 m S m Im F 1� m Im 0 1� m m Im O U 0 m 1 N N �N ' N 46 a� o to ill N N � N o 0 x o to 1 v N � , N m� 1 1 LL LL 1L _1 a o to 1 NO N �N �cC O 10 XLL W � O 10 , 1 �0 rn� 1 a , LL , _F O N IN 1 00 1O0 1 . m ,m O m ,m M U 1� o to 0 m ,m m m 1 o to 1 1 O o to a a ' w m • m w m p E U m m Z Z D 00 I N n Cl) O O N O 73 W W R U C O 0 O LU W W m U v m rn N � m •o rn m_ •o rn I w to oo to w rnoo � j� Z No 1 0 hrn of 1 vi I 00 to rnoo 2 00 to rnoo U co �o o oo T m I � m m N OU N m OU to m rn m z m to m b U to m rn m b m �o z 1 I N O U A b m N N N 1 A N 10 N 100 N N N I I O a o l0 0 N 10 N 1 I o �0 0 I NN N 10 N wa o �0 0 I I I � ul I N m� i ii a N N 1 1 I 0_ N N 10 N 10 N N $F O 10 O N IO N o 10 O O iO OO I T m a_ I I I ill 0 Ola N I O N �cC LL to O 10 O O iO OO ILLL T of l o I I m a_ 1 1 O o U Ola 1 I m to rn LL 1 1 1 C7 n O � 0 CD 1 0 0 1 m O w 2 I 0 m 0 �O O to m U z v EF rn 9 1 m to rn x O `w to 'a O 1 C7 n 1 o 1 n O � 0 1 m O v 2T I to >> r m m x m m z v EF rn 9 `w •a O v m rn N m �o rn I w to oo to w rnoo � j� Z No of I 0 hrn vi I 2 00 to rnoo N OU m to m b to m rn m z �o I N O U b m I A N 10 N 100 N N N a o l0 0 I I NN N 10 N wa o �0 0 I m� ii a I I I O_ N N 10 N 10 N N I illO N IO N o 10 O O iO OO ILLL T m a_ I I I io Ola LL I I I of l o I I of O to U I m to rn x I n I o I C7 n O � 0 I m O w 2 I 0 m 0 �O m0 m z v EF rn 9 `w 'a O 00 I v Cl) 0 0 N N (D 0 N O 73 W W m C) O 0 O LU W W m C) O W m N ry CL C O Z N 6Fo a C) > r 0 O J N w O D Z ' o N Z � 'x mo Amo 'yo U yo I . N U o 0 m Im 0 0 to r •f N 0 b m Im m o to o 0 N O b m Ny I Ny N— N� Op IOp aF NO iN0 I� -h N N ,QN OD 100 wLL N I� I� v N ' I N m� 1 I LL LL I o 'o o- m Oo IOo ar° mo imo I� �p 10� w 'w ov 'ov mm imm jo I OI CC I a LL I � -h I O �O Q O 0 N O 10 O 10 OU o io o to v 'v I 0 00 'moo Z mo Imo I M IM I ' O 1' `o ,a a v 0 m v w m m m m - m 00 I V Cl) O r O N N O N n N >C C 0 O U (n R O U L_ M 0 N O O N N N N � m Q !6 a 0 0 J C O (n L Cn U N O •O �m ID O (D O U o •o �0 0 O N O 1 I 1 I O � I I W 1 I b W p � U 1 loy 1 loo oy 00 U w 1 Ico yo R T o U (n O� U (V 0 V, I^ m 0 � 0 o m o to l0 Od 73 R W W W r Q W O m m 1 l0 (i N f0 7 N O •O �m ID O O •O �O O U o •o �0 0 O 1 I 1 I � I I 1 I b w � U 1 loy 1 loo oy 00 U 1 Ico yo T I IN N � O� U o jo Im o 10 10 m 0 � 0 o m o to l0 rn 0 N 0 I I i im O W O b m 1 l0 rn 0 ... .L .... L.... N O b m I I d N_ N A O 10 10y O 10 100 O O� �r o 10 INo ,�o a o to I� 1 I NN NN f 0 10 0 O 10 10y O 10 IOp O Oy Op wa O 10 10 O 10 10y 10 IOp O Oy O O jo j� Op � wLL rn� 1 I ii a I I ii a 1 b oo w o � �o �o boy o to l0 0 oy 0 0 ar O io i'o ho � ar o O io i'o ho ino o to Iv 0 10 toy w oy ino o to Iv 0 10 toy w oy 0 w � >0 1 I ora 1 LL 1 I LL _F .F N I IO O O 1 to O m 1 10 O m _F .F _F _F I Im o I Im 1 to o O x Z I w I lov 1 loo w ooy 00 x Z 1 Imo rno 1 Imo rno 1 Im -------------- 1 I� r jn tom rn C7 O � 1 Im 1 1w r jn �Om 1' oo N O � O 1� Iv N G Gi GG GG GG 1 1 'G'Gi GG'Gi GG .0 �u m '".o `oo f a �U •a f a 2U •`oa `m L Y R N O •O •m ID O O •O •O O U o •o •0 0 O 1 1 1 1 � I I 1 1 b w � 1 loy 1 loo oy U 1 Ico 00 yo T I IN N � O U o jo jm o 10 10 m 0 � 0 o m o to l0 rn 0 N O I I i im O m O b m 1 l0 rn 0 ... .L....L.... N O b m 1 1 O 10 INy d N_ N� O 10 BOO O� �r o to INo ,�o a o l0 1� 1 1 NN NN f2 O 10 10 O 10 10y 10 IOp O Oy O O jo j� Op � wLL dN I I ii a I I 1 1 b O � o o jo boy to l0 0 oy 0 0 � ar o O io i'o ho ino o to Iv 0 10 toy w oy 0 w � 1l0 11� >0 1 1 Ola 1 1 LL 1 1 _F _F N I 10 O O 1 10 O m _F _F I Im 1 to o O x Z I I w I lov 1 loo w ooy 00 1 Imo rno 1 Im 1 1w r jn �Om rn 7 O � 1' loo N O 1� Iv 1 1 'G'Gi GG'Gi GG dd jp '" a' .o o f a 2U •`oa `m N Q U 00 (U n Cl) O O N O 73 W W m U C O (U 0 O LU LU LU m C) O LL N O J C F d F d F d O O O w E � 0 'o m m � 00 i Cl) o_ 0 N N M N O N (6 a Cl) O N 0 73 LU LU m U C 0 (V 0 0 LU LU LU m U 7 0 0 O `D • � E °' — o. U= `o U m •� • w E N r •� m G1 l U � c a f6 m m m � m v � Q •J O N O Y U) Dt2 a a t N N O N u r N a E - = - N ^Z Oa r r m U U c 00 0 0 N N N n M N O N N O) m a C N C OO E Q m 0) w O N O Q w 3:O O 0 m O N m O M �3 O- o U U O 6 C U m o r � Q QQ N O U C U m C O 6 u Z N E Q 5 w N Q O 0 O U m O r .� y n Q C) (n 3 C N n C O U U U r U (D d n O -O Z J d ° to O C) Q w 0 O (D .O o a -p (7 O) O C) mo L Q C N C OO E Q m 0) w O N O Q w 3:O O 0 m x � o •o •o .o .o .o -I �o •o m •N •N •N N •N •N •~ •N N m IJ Z :o :E m 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I o to l0 1 1 1 1 1 1 o to to to to l0 1� to Ip = p to to to to l0 1- 1 1 o to to I� I� I� If0 I� to cl m 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I x m m u m WI -I of m 1Em m IJ :o :E O , O , , U ' m , Z U W , Z , Z ml m, O m Z Z: . ,LLI ,LLI .Q '> ,W C : N MO m m m m m p m •t m U .O • U .O • (-) ��� m =_ m N •N •N ,0 ;0 ;0 •OI V • •0 Z :m :m ,U ,U ,U' � :'^ :o m a u v • v • m • m m • m m • m cl 2 m `? ._ `? :._� `? :._ � ,Q ,Q ,Q .Q:E „o .0 •a •a •a • :o Q :Q :Q 'O a .a •a •a :a 00 0 0 N N N C O .y N E W 0 N ,x ,g 0 o m m ;U --t---t--t--t--t--t--t--t--t--t--t--t--t--t--t--t--t -- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 to to l0 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O ,o Ip 10 10 10 10 Ip 10 1� IN 1 10 10 10 10 1� Ip IN 1� Ip Ip 1� IM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I� N ,N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I T :E :E :� � C ,C ,C ::S ::S •p •per •O •OI •OI •N •� •j •} ;a' .r .r .¢.N .N .�•C •C •C • o •o F Q • c •cl • C • C • N • N • • X W • d • d • O. • N • N • N • _ • C • E, E , E , W W • U) • U) :O m U ,Q U ,Q •'� Q • E E E d m O .'� IJ z � � � � •� •� •� :z :z:O :O :a . ' . ' . ' ;� ;� ;� , .Q ,g .o ,O 0 o 0 0 m .m .m 10-.1 .1- O .O .O a' a ' a ' a ' a ' a ' a : m : m ' m � m • E ' E ' E ' E �� • d o o o o o o o. .i� :.v :.v :.v :.v :.v ,O •O •O •O •O •d ,> �� 0000000 O ;O ;O ;O ;O ;O :a N C O .y N E W 0 N 00 I M O O N cO G LU LU m U O (V 0 O LU LU LU m U N m •M � N m �M � Q NN �mN IDN Q NN �mN IDN N O V IN N' V IN N' p O O p O 0 1 o to o to I O 0 o Io ry O O O 1 O O O N O O O I O O O O O Z O i0 O Z O i0 O N Z O p m m 1 m IN IN I m IN IN 2 Q r m Im r rn 2 Q r m Im r rn V t O o p rn p rn r Im r Im N Q r IN N Q r IN N O rm INO 1 NO rm INO I NO (J O O F V l+) V 1N {7 N O F V l+) V IN {7 N R 0 O O rn O rn r jm r Im N Q r IN N Q r IN N O O Nm INO v Im NO O Nm INO v IIn NO (J O_ 00 m m Z V N QI o .LN Z N O N O O I O O O I O O O O 1 I O 1 110 IrnD NO 0 I� W N� 1 I NN O O NN O O NN O t7 �O N t7 �O N IjLL �' WLL I' x W O F � 1 I Ii co I O fi Ii T O ` LL y 4 _� LL O d N O d V O R Ci 1 N 1 M Im I V I M �F LL m r iN m r LL V iN V LLf {7 �O d� N IW Iy T �O d� N IW T NO XLL v 1� a XLL _ I� O WKd 'ma V, iN V ma O iN O� O Ii m 1 o Ii m >1 I R N 00 O Im N 1 1 o N O Im N I o N O O O O RCD O �o O o00 m O Cm X jo o m to o O U o (c6 Ir N N N r N N o 1IN IIN N N 0 N IN I N N O >= O O Z N Im O Im N O O Z N I� O Im N O O Z o O Y U t7 I N 1 {7 a t7 I N {7 N IY/1 Om Im m O m Im m O o 0 O y U .� O -El d i m IN N IN Y R d i m IN N IN N dU y9 � d r N 7 ^2 00 I (V E E D U) C 0 O U (n R O U L_ N 0 N O U)O In LO a% (V a) m m n Q w J C O R U) L Cn U M (D O 1d) 1 N w O lom 1 O Z 73 hrn W I of I � W p C) O R O p w R U oo Imo 1� > 0 0 N Im -E -EN N 0 W W W 0 R 32 r E C) N � N 7 1d) 1 w O lom 1 rno^ Z lino I hrn I of I � 1 1 d)1 d) OV 10 t7 Im � N U oo Imo 1� e � N Im -E -EN N N N m -E -EN Im Ism N � O ,aN - F O ,aN - F U O m I� to m Im ICN I 1�m hrn NN Z O 1� 1 - 0 Im hrn NN Z L. - N O N U b m m 1 1 I 1 lb N ND Oy IN IN OOp 1� 10 n 0.~ N_O 10 IN N d~ 1 1 -F -F 1 1 lb O IN IV OC 1 1 oo IO 1� N NN N mfC' ID Wd N_ i0 i0 O Wd N_ 10 10 O jN 1 10 O LN m� 1 10 1 Im O N LLd i iN N LLa 1 1 d) IN Im Ir 10 N 00 rn f2F OC NO 10 Ir N n f2F OC NO 10 Ir N n ill0 10mC' w, IN IN oo IO 1� W Wd N_ i0 i0 O Wd T � I I O T � I I oa 1 1� h ii 1 I m m ii _F _F m NO o IOI v O Ir I m 00 O O loo 1 n N m O I O 10 OO m Im 1 OO p m Im I� y rno U o 1� IN o to IC n a --------�---- a 0 w I Ir 00 IN Im rn N 0 w Ir 00 IN Im rn N Z mo �m N m i� N i0 iN oi {i � Io IN • ii ii ilii T T I 1 'i'iii•'ii ii " O w w m v `w 0 q 0 U Id) 1 w O lom 1 rno^ Z mo I hrn I of I � 1 d) I d) � U OV 10 t7 Im oo Imo 1� N e � N m -E -EN N N Im Ism � O ,aN - F m I� to rn O U O m Im ICN I 1�m hrn NN Z O - N O U b m I 1 N N 0 Oy IN IN OOp 1� 10 n d~ N_O 10 IN N I 1 -F -F 1 O IN IV OC I 1 o0 10 16 NN N m fC' ID Wd N_ 10 10 O jN I 10 O LN 1 10 O LLa I IN N 1 d) IN Im 1r 10 Or rn f2F OC NO 10 Ir N n ill0 m� d 1N IN oo IO 16 W Wd N_ i0 10 O T � I I ii I I m m _F _F NO o I w I m 00 1000 Ir O loo 1� n N m O 1 (O 1 O OO IIm 1 p m Im I� y I� IN rno o o to IC a 0 w Ir 00 IN Im rn N Z mo �m N m i� � N i0 iN I 1 'i'iii•'ii ii " ,0 0 U 00 i m 0 co 19 0 N O LU LU LU m U c O 0 O LU W LU m U A _ O Q U N 0 L a •N •M •`V (D N N I N l iN I 1 z 1 l y I I � E3: z 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 m l 1 I = 10 10 i0 jm jm 1m 1 1 1 1 1 1 N 1 1 I N 1 1 I m IT 10 10 No 10 10 10 1 1 (n N IN IN IN 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I p 1 0 101 1 U 1 N 1 d 11 0 1 VI Iv IU 1 N 1 VI 1 I a 0 1 h iU ihi � 01 1 01 1 U 1 __ 1 C_ 1 41 1 01 p 1 p 1 L 1 C N 1= 1 U 1> ;o z = U • N � .2 .0 N •� L a o m hi OI � OI • U L • C "> '- • U (7 •mJ •� •a d N EN L J az •N •M •V N 0) N 00 R d Q O7 C Y R IL w a Y N O N V N O O 0 R C w K C O Z O M N 00 O O L C R C d L In w C O Z O O w O R O t a � r 0 O N R R In I w a n In R Y N f7 O a L: R Y c c c of ON U E a a R R c � a R 7 t7 t7 a w O O O W Y In In d In d 'O t L O Q Q Q d a 0 00 0 0 N N Cl) N O N m a 0 N O 73 W W R U c O m N 0 O LU W W_ m U O LL N O J l ............. m r r r m v r io m o ry o Im 1n m v m i1 m m m v r M �M m l I I I I I I I I I I I I I m I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 = I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O O O O 0 2 2 2 2O o co O IOo IOo IOo IOo IOo IOo 1IOo C6 ' to 0 I O I = I m 1 m 1 � 1 � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T7�TM T7�TM T7�TM T7�T7�T7�TD = O ¢ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I O 0 1 1 1 1 0 O 1 1 1 1 1 I N N 1 1 L 1 U 1 1 1 L 1 U 1 1 1 1 1 IX I 1 IY W 1 1 1 O 1 (] 1 1 N 1 1 1 1 1 I V1 1 1 N 1 1 1 1 O 1 1 1 E I E 1 1 I O I g 1 1 1-U 1 d 1 0 1 O 1 1 1 1 1 d 1 (n 1 0 1 O 1 1 1 00 1 1 1 1 Q 1'5 1 1 I I "O O 10 1� 1 Ip 1 IW 1 �� O 1 00 1� IN 10 1� 1 1'i 10 Id 1 1 1� 1 101 1 1� �N ,p 1-0 1L 1U 10 1y 141 1U 1'0 1U 1> 1> 1yJ x 1 1= 1 1 1 O 1 C 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1` 1> 1 0 1> 1 0 1— 1 0 I E d :� :: ::............ .. :: :a :a :�..L: I E m y) • O • O • O • O • O � L 2 , , , , .O co ,L •0 55 •C a �O � 1 m I O U X 1 X 1 X X � m 0 c c c Ip N 1 1 1 1 1 1 U 1 1 1 L 1 1 1 > m 1 1 I 1 1 I y 0 x l x I x I x d O O O 10 o Io Io Io � 1 1 im 1m 1m 1� 1 1 I m 1 1 00 > J I I J I I 1 n o Io Io to �� � E I = 1 � Z ; ; I t t 0 0 0 Io � •M 1 1 00 E 1 � Z 1 > I d o 10 F� co 1 1 16 I N ; ;(D 1 60 d E 1 o = Z 1 1 I I I W O 1 1 1 1 I 0 U 1 1 I 0 1 1 I 0 1 1 I I 1 1 O 1 1 I 1 1 1 0 O 'O � N U E 2 O m .0 Z O : N ,L L': 00 I (V n (rV rC C D (n C 0 O U 0 O L_ N 0 N O Cn O In co N (V a) IT IT n Q to J C O (n L Cn U (D O N O 73 W W m U I_ m O r n 0 � N O c LU W f�6 W � U N M m o N m V O m O O N O m W O o .m rn •N I N o N 1 Z 1 1 1 w o v jm rn U T Im rn T i0 O N m a_ 1 1m o N p O o p o �m m s o mm o Im gem 6 S o Im rn F r- Io N O m to Im 0 p �m m I Id m �e m O Im rn m°- 0 m +f+ +f+ I 1 O U w 6 �s 0 0 m a o to l0 0 +f+ 1 _ 1 Im N 46N w N O O t7 I O I O t7 O {7 wa No Ici Imo co l0 1� rno � 1 ____ i i ________ 1 mN to IyV i -/I N >_ O I m ID N 'p1 f2 O IN N x LLd 1 N O ci iN 1 1 m to j� M o I m n N ^�- O I 1 LLa m � m om to lor---- w to jv m w om 1 1 0 mo io i�0 0 �O w r Iv 16 0 1 o Im I 1 I I 1 m� �o N o Iv a O i0 i0 O o Ir n 10� o Im w N m a_ 1 1 om p >o m00 i0 im n00 v to I ---- o 1 to Ir Im N p IN 10 rn N m O i0 O pX O 0 IN r O N to to N N rn Z p Im rn p IN N (9 m �e O I� Io a' O O i0 i0 O im 0 W T O m 0i 0i Z w 1 Im m U N -�N Im p IN m N � N iN o m m v o U LL ;O O .N N m V O m O O N O m W O N � n o N Z I 1 I 1 w o o g U T INo O 10 I(O O a 1 ___ I Im N O - co to IN rn p r to Iv m m o Im m s N 1 I Im m Iv N O o 0 m to Im m z O U 0 m +f+ +f+ I 1 I 1 N I O I N w 6 �s 0 a o to l0 0 in N w I O I v w N xa O t7 I O I O t7 O {7 wa No Ici Imo co l0 1� rno � 1 ____ i i ________ mN to IyV >_ m m 'p1 f2 O 10 Ip O LLd O �O i0 O 1 O 0 m to j� M o I m n N ^�- O I 1 �o om to lor---- w to jv m w om xa 0 mo io i�0 0 �O w 16 0 1 m I 1 I I m� o to Im N LLd O i0 i0 O I 1 N om to lom om p 00 m00 i0 im n00 v to I ---- o r to MM to Ir U m N o 1 m pX O 0 IN r O N to to N N rn Z m �o �o (9 r 0 I V Ir N O N o 10 10 a' O O i0 i0 O m ° ;aN `0 m w i > 0 U 00 I (V n (D O N O 73 W W m U I_ m O r n 0 � N O c LU W f�6 W � U N M m o m V N O m O O N O m W O o .m rn •N I N o N 1 Z 1 1 1 w o v jm rn U T Im rn T i0 O N w a_ 1 1m o N p O o p o �m m s o mm o Im gem 6 Im rn S o o F 0 r- Io N m O 0 p �m m O I Id m �e m Im rn m°- +f+ +f+ I 1 I 1 N I O I N w •O •O O O 0 m 0 •O •O O O +f+ 1 o to l0 0 _ w 1 Im N m m �S w v, jry n O t7 I O I O t7 O {7 x No I� Imo rno 1 1 i -/I N O I m ID N O IN N x OI f2 1 N O LLd ci iN O O i0 O 1 1 OV m to j� M to Im n N LL a 1 1 1 1 w to jv om to lom w om xa v Iv n o w Im d 0 1 m I 1 1 �o o Iv a o to Im N o Ir n 0� O o Im m X a o 1 w a_ 1 1 N >� om 1 00 r I n LL d n00 N i N I - o 1 r to jm o Im N p IN rn N m 10 O i0 O N o 1 m pX O 0 IN r O N to to N N rn Im p rn p IN N (9 m �e O I� Io a' O O i0 i0 O im 0 W T O m 0i 0i Z p w 1 Im m U N -�N Im p IN m N N iN o m m w w o > o w U LL ;O O .N m V N O m O O N O m W O N � n o N Z I 1 I 1 w o o g U T INo O 10 I(O O a 1 ___ I Im N O - co to IN rn p r to Iv m m o Im m s N 1 I Im m Iv N O o 0 m to Im m z O O m +f+ +f+ I 1 I 1 N I O I N w 6 �s 0 a o to l0 0 in N w I O I w w N wa O t7 I O I O t7 O {7 x No I� Imo rno 1 OI f2 O 10 Ip O LLd O O i0 O 1 OV m to j� M to Im n N 1 �o w to jv om to lom w om xa 0 mo �o hyo 0 �o w d 0 1 m I 1 I I m� o to Im N LLd O i0 i0 O I 1 N om to lom om p 00 m00 i0 im o n00 I - o r to jm o O m o IN Ir U m o N o 1 m pX O 0 IN r O N to to N N rn Z m �o �o (9 r 0 I V Ir N O N o 10 10 a' O O i0 i0 O m ° `0 p w xw > 0 U 00 I (V n rN rC C D (n C 0 O U (n 0 O U L M 0 N O O O N (V m 6 Q n O J C O (n L Cn U (D O r N O -p N O LU 0 W p W m U U L C W+ O N C O � U O L LUW m U Cl) M m w N m o O Q hN ISN U � e N N O N Z 1 Z v � 1 � e U I 1 ------------- T O O v a a - o 0 N p U o o l0 N N T O �O i0 N m r N rn 6 S 1 N N F N N N O O Im to m m U N N o N r N o m im im m N rn N OU Im N O U 0 m Z r n _ w N r r ^�- S N N a h i -ll N 1� N N N w a N N ws O 0 N d N N m� O N o Io Io {7 0 LL LL O w oo I� to N m m a m rn �O 1 I 1 m rn X LL O Im IN r W � a a_ - OI f2 �o N LLLL Ola O 1 o� LL O Im Iv o IN Im m aF rn N O m N D N m O O O 0 O o Iv Iv o Iv IoN W O � O U � I� INo N O IO Ih O a 1 I 1 X m m O o 0 z O i0 i0 N N O o O m o OO m N 2 N 0 N m o m im I . w o 16 O v Im ~ O U O n m w O o m W O U m o ,m m m O N 1 Z 1 I 1 ------------- v o jm jry U o o l0 0 T O �O i0 O 1 Oo Im jo`�i U O Im to S o m F im im NIN OU Im Z O U o m ---I rr 1 r fr r*r Im Nw O 0 N SO a O N o Io Io {7 0 Y/IN oo I� to N wa o o Amo 0 1 I 1 dN O Im IN r OI f2 O 10 IN N LLLL O �O i0 O 1 o� O Im Iv o IN Im o N aF O iN i0 O IO 10 I 1 �o o Iv Iv o Iv IoN � O xLL W � I� INo N O IO Ih O a 1 I 1 o IN Im c m cC o I� Ir O IN Im m O LLLL O i0 i0 I to o N oo lom lom OO ImoINO m O im I . O v Im N O Im n U O o I� loi a O I� Iv N o m Im N Ox Z o Im O Im N o o �m �o a I 1 o jn jm m 0 O rn O a° w m p o 2 > 0 U 00 I (V n rN rC C D (n C 0 O U (n 0 O U L M 0 N O O to CD N 0 m 6 Q n O J 0 O (n L Cn U (D O r N O -p N O LU 0 W p W m U U L 0 W+ O N C 0 � U O L LUW m U Cl) M m w N m o O p hN ISN U � e N N 0 N Z 1 Z v � 1 � e U I 1 ------------- T O O v a a - o 0 N p o o l0 0 p O �O i0 N N 1 N m r N rn 6 S N N F N N N O m m U o N N im im N r N o m m N rn N N O o 0 p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 m o 0 0 r n _ N N r r ^�- S N N a h i -ll N 1� N N N NN O 0 N wm O N o Io Io {7 0 d N N m� LL LL Y/IN oo I� to N O m wa m m a m rn �O dN m rn X LL W � a a_ - N LLLL O O Ola o� O Im Iv o IN Im o N aF LL O iN i0 m rn N p m N D N m O O o Iv Iv o Iv IoN O 0 O W 0 INo N U a 1 I 1 o IN Im X m m O o 0 z I to N N o O oo lom lom O m o w m Ci 2 N 0 N Im im m o e m o O Im ~ U U O m v O o m W O U m o ,m m m 0 N 1 Z 1 I 1 ------------- v o jm jry U o o l0 0 T O �O i0 O 1 Oo Im jo`�i U O Im to S o m F im im NIN OU Im Z 0 U o m ---I rr 1 r fr r*r I NN O 0 N SO a O N o Io Io {7 0 Y/IN oo I� to N wa o o Amo 0 I 1 I 1 dN O Im IN r OI f2 O 10 IN N LLLL O �O i0 O I 1 o� O Im Iv o IN Im o N aF O iN i0 O IO 10 I 1 �o o Iv Iv o Iv IoN O XLL W INo N a 1 I 1 o IN Im c m cC o I� Ir O IN Im m O LLLL O i0 i0 I to o N oo lom lom O ImoINO O O Im im O v Im N O Im n U O o I� loi a O I� Iv N o m Im N 0 Z o m O Im IN o I 1 o jn jm m 0 O 2 :> .� � U 00 I (V n (rV rC C D (n C 0 O U 0 O U L N 0 N O O N N (V m 6 Q n O J C O (n L Cn > U (D O O NG -p N O LU 0 W p LU m U U C w+ O_ N C rn p � U O L LUW m U Cl) M O v N O O m N W N U N N N N O N 1 Z 1 I 1 ------------- � b U o Im jm n V T O O U a a - 7 N p U O �O i0 o 0 1 to N N 16 N F N N N O m o U 0 iy i^ o o 0 im im N O m N N N N Z N- N N O U Z 0 m U m � _ N N N N �S o 0 a t7 i -ll N 17 N 0 0 �S O O �N 7 wLL o Io Io 0 d N N m� LL LL i/IN 00 N � o iN i0 O t7 N a� I� 1� wa o o Imo 0 xa 1 I 1 W T a a_ - r �o OI f2 Ola N LLLL O �O i0 O LL m o� rn N O m N D N m O O O N O N �o o jm tom m � 0 0 Oe xa W � id 0 O 0 x m O m m Z o I� In O IN Im m O LLLL m rn 1____ m rn 0 O v Iv m K Z N v N OO o16 I'n0INO m o m O ~ Im im 1. U O O N O U ^ m m o ,m .m O N 1 Z 1 I 1 ------------- o Im jm n V O IN Im V U o o l0 0 T O �O i0 O 1 to Oa o j 16 0 iy i^ o 7N m F im im N 0 N to rn O Im Im I I N Z ---.gym---gym--- O U 0 m rfr r*r rrr I rr 1 r _ N I 1 1 r N O �S O O �N 7 a o Io Io 0 i/IN 00 N iN i0 O t7 N I� 1� wa o o Imo 0 1 I 1 dN O Im IN r OI f2 O 10 IN N LLLL O �O i0 O I 1 o� o Im I� o In Im rn �o o Io to I 1 I to �o o jm tom m � � I� Imo O xa W � N O 10 Ih O a 1 I 1 o Im Im c m cC o I� In O IN Im m O LLLL O i0 i0 1____ O v Iv m N oo lom lom OO I'n0INO O Im im 1. O In IN rn O oo m IN U o Im ly � o Im Iv n O O IN N OX Z O N O IN IN D n ----F""-F---- o n Im e 0 O O i0 i0 O 2 �> .� � U 00 I (V n (rV rC C D (n C 0 O U 0 O U L N 0 N O O M � N (V m 6 Q n O J C O (n L Cn > U (D O O NG -p N O LU 0 W p LU m U U C w+ O_ N C (n O � U O L LUW m U Cl) M O v N O p m N W N U N N N N O N 1 Z 1 I 1 ------------- � b U o Im jm n V T O O U a a - 7 N p O �O i0 O p 1 to o 0 Oa N N 16 N F N N N O 0 iy i^ o m o p im im o 0 0 N to rn O m N N N N Z N- N N p o 0 p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 m o 0 0 m � _ N N N N �S o 0 a r t7 i -ll N 17 N 0 0 wLL i/IN d N N m� iN i0 O t7 LL LL I� 1� � o o o Imo 0 a� 1 I 1 dN O Im IN r xa W T a a_ - N LLLL �o O Ola o� o Im I� o In Im rn �o LL m rn N p m N D N m O O o jm tom m � O N O � I� Imo N xa W � N O 10 Ih O 0 a 0 Oe id 0 Im Im 0 x m m O p m m Z 1____ m rn O v Iv m N m rn 0 K Z N v N o16 Im im 1. m o m O In IN ~ O U O O N O U ^ m m o ,m .m O N 1 Z 1 I 1 ------------- o Im jm n V O IN Im V U o o l0 0 T O �O i0 O 1 to Oa o j 16 0 iy i^ o 7N m F im im N 0 N to rn O Im Im I I N Z ---.gym---gym--- O U 0 m rfr r*r rrr I rr 1 r _ N I 1 1 r N �S O O O �N 7 a o Io Io 0 i/IN 00 N iN i0 O t7 N I� 1� wa o o Imo 0 1 I 1 dN O Im IN r OI f2 O 10 IN N LLLL O �O i0 O I 1 o� o Im I� o In Im rn �o o Io to I 1 I to �o o jm tom m � � I� Imo O xa W � N O 10 Ih O a 1 I 1 o Im Im c m cC o I� In O IN Im m O LLLL O i0 i0 1____ O v Iv m N oo lom lom OO I'n0INO O Im im 1. O In IN rn O oo m IN U o Im ly � o Im Iv n O O IN N OX Z O N O IN IN D n ----F""-F---- o n Im e 0 p O i0 i0 O 2 �> .� � U 00 I (V n rN C E D (n C 0 O U 0 O U L N 0 N O O CD V � N V IT 6 � n Q 0 J 0 O (n L Cn U (D O N N _0 O O N LU 0) W c LU 16 m U 0 U O (n (V � U 0 o W U W m a U M ,m m d O N N N O O m rn ' o •N I N O N 1 Z 1 1 1 w w v o jo tom o� I� l0 0 U T O IO IN rno N T i0 O d a 1 1 N O o 0 U o Iv a m 4 j4 jm O IO Im m m VO O N OU iN N n b 1� CD CD N O Iv m W U a 0 U m 0 m Z iN N rfr rfr I 1 O n q U m �s 0 m a o to l0 0 +f+ 1 _ 1 1O O N46 O d� O O o l0 o tcio Imo �o 0 1 I 1 1 10 In i -ll N 2'� N O I m rn NN 00 10 O C LLLL O 1ci d wa o 0 0 1 o to jm o to to d N aF oo ioo im r N m� o Io l0 LL a 1 1 I Id 1 o jo tom O m 10� o Im o l0 rn 0 rno xa I la a I 1 1 1 �o o Im rn I I o l0 0 o to I� LLLL wLL 0 0 I 1 T o �0 d a_ 1 1 d N �0 oo^ 1 I Ola �o LL I 1. o O O O 10 to Ir O Id d N n IoM oo^ O oo im rnoo OX IN N Z O i0 O ---IO Iv a O 1� 0 O i' m � 1 O O rn IM m x w U 1 0 Z o im 1 m IN U, N ly h O m 1 oi � N i 0 m {7 'a o m m U E ;O ~ Q N O U O O O O o �o •m {7 m • I _ I O N Z 1 I 1 w w v o jo tom o� o I� Imo U T O IO IN rno N d 1 O U o 0 6 s 4 j4 jm O IO Im m m 1 1 oo to Im N OU I n b CD CD m �m O IO Im m W Z O U 0 m rfr rfr I 1 n q I 1 O O 10 m �s a o to l0 0 ill 't) I I O O O O O O a w o tcio Imo �o 1 I 1 10 In n 2'� N O O 10 I LLLL O �O i0 O 1 o� o to jm o to to a7 0 aF oo ioo im m o Io l0 0 1 I Id �o o jo tom d o� 10� o to Imo rno xa I la a I 1 I I rn� o to I� LLLL o �o �0 0 I 1 w d N oo to lom oo^ 0 oo �o Amo �o I I I O IO Im o O O O 10 to Ir O U o n o to jN a OX O O IN O O N O IO 10 N N O Z O i0 O ---IO o Io lomi I 1 0 O O O n IO 10 n � O O i0 i0 O O rn O a° d `0 m w U 2 > 0 00 I (V n rN C E D (n C 0 O U 0 O U L N 0 N O O LO In _ N CD V IT 6 � n Q 0 J 0 O (n L Cn U (D O N N _0 O O N LU 0) W c LU 16 m U 0 U O (n (V � U 0 o W U W m a U M ,m m d O N N N O O m rn ' o •N I N O N 1 Z 1 1 1 w w v o jo tom o� I� U T l0 0 T i0 O d a 1 1 N O o 0 U o Iv a m VO 4 j4 jm O IO Im m m O N N OU iN 1� I N O Iv U �m O IO Im a 0 m Z iN 'O N N Q O U •0 •0 0 0 n q I 1 O O 10 m +f+ 1 _ 1 1O O N46 O 0 d� o l0 ill 't) 0 I I 1 O O O O O O i -ll N O I m rn NN 00 10 O C O 1ci d wa 2'� N o 0 0 1 d N O �O i0 O r N m� 1 LL a o� 1 o to jm o to to a7 0 aF 1 oo ioo im m O m o Im o l0 rn 0 1 I Id �o o jo tom d o� 10� 1 1 o to Imo rno �o o Im rn o l0 0 wLL 0 I I T o �0 o to I� d a_ 1 1 o �o �0 0 �0 1 I Ola w d N LL oo^ I oo �o Amo 1. �o Id d N IoM oo^ O o oo O O 10 to Ir O im rnoo o n IN N o to jN a Iv a O N N O 1� O i0 O i' m ---IO 1 o Io lomi I 1 IM x n 1 Z O O im o rn 1 m w U 2 > 0 m IN U, N ly h O m 1 oi � N i 0 m {7 'a o m m U E ;O ~ Q N O U O O O O o �o •m {7 m • I _ I O N Z 1 I 1 w w v o jo tom o� o I� Imo U T O IO IN rno N d 1 O U o 0 s 6 4 j4 jm O IO Im m m 1 1 oo to Im N OU I n 0 CD CD m �m O IO Im m W Z O 0 m rfr rfr I 1 n q I 1 O O 10 m �s a o to l0 0 ill 't) I I O O O O O O a w o tcio Imo �o 1 I 1 10 In n 2'� N O O 10 I LLLL O �O i0 O 1 o� o to jm o to to a7 0 aF oo ioo im m o Io l0 0 1 I Id �o o jo tom d o� 10� o to Imo rno xa I la a I 1 I I rn� o to I� LLLL o �o �0 0 I 1 w d N oo to lom oo^ 0 oo �o Amo �o I I I O IO Im o O O O 10 to Ir O U o n o to jN a OX O O IN O O N O IO 10 N N O Z O i0 O ---IO o Io lomi I 1 0 O O O n IO 10 n � O O i0 i0 O O rn O a° d `0 m w U 2 > 0 00 I r M O O N N (D N n N E E D (n C 0 O U (n 0 O U L N 0 N O O O N N m 6 Q n O J C O (n L Cn U (D O N cO G LU LU m U I_ O p N c N oLU rn W 16 C) a U) M m m N N O 7 O m CD p O m I m I I O j N 1 Z 1 1 1 w w v m j rn U N I N T O i O d 1 O___ N Oa - to U r 10 n o Io 0 S 1 N i N N O U o l0 1� o to I^ n m Z I .. O O U 0 +f+ +f+ I 1 m _ I 1 I I +f+ 1 O O t7 {7 n y q N S O IO r 1 O n a o 10 0 1 O 10 IDV C� i'll N V I O V N m I O ID �$ N 1O N wa o 10 0 OI f2 O 10 10 O d N O �O i0 O r N m� 1 LL a O V 1 o to Ir oo l 0 1' n N 1 m to rn N i0 N aF �o 0 10 0 d 0 '�cC 1 1 O 10 IOD OD �o m to rn vr____r---- a r 10 n �cC N IO N W LL T O i O O o l0 1� d a_ 1 1 o to I� �0 1 I 0 Ola ---- I 1 LL d 1 oo to lom oo^ 1 o IO Imo mo w 1 d N om 1 00n ^ O ^00 i 00 O IO Im m OU O O 1r ly n m 1 m O O O i0 i0 a O m 1 0 O n 1 O O 1N O O t7 o to l0 N {7 0 o 0 O i0 i0 O N i N .F O O 1m 1 S m 1 m O O V IO 10 V I 1 n O O O N N rn N i N p U .F 1 0 � 1m m ly o 0 O � m N IN O i0 m d :a U O ,0 0 N O O O O O n O I I N Z 1 I 1 w w v o jo tom o� U o o Ido Ir �o n T O Io 1 c vi d1 � ____i ____i O___ N O - � o o I� 0 0 6 N O U o l0 1� o to I^ n m Z I .. O U 0 m +f+ +f+ I 1 _ I 1 I I N46 6 O O t7 {7 a o Io 10 0 NN O 10 IDV C� f xa w O IO 100 O to Im OO m 1 I 1 OI f2 O 10 10 O LLLL O �O i0 O 1 O V o to Ir oo l 0 1' n N o Io 10 0 I 1 I 1d �o o jo �0 d 0 '�cC O 10 IOD OD wLL O to 1 C e6 vr____r---- a 1 I 1 O to Im m a o l0 1� rn� o to I� LLLL o �o �0 0 ---- I 1 w d N oo to lom oo^ Om o IO Imo mo O to I� O IO Im m OU O O 1r ly n O O O i0 i0 a O O O Ir n OX O O 1N O O t7 o to l0 N {7 0 Z O i0 i0 O O O 1m 1 S O O O V IO 10 V � O O i0 i0 O O rn O a° d `0 m p U 2 :> .� 0 � 00 I N n N E E D (n C 0 O U (n 0 O U L N 0 N O O N N m 6 Q n O J C O (n L Cn U (D O N cO G LU LU m U I_ O p N c N oLU rn W 16 C) a U) M m 0 N N O 7 O 0 CD p O m I m I I O j N 1 Z 1 1 1 w w v m j rn U N I N T O i O d 1 O___ N Oa - to U r 10 n o to 0 S 1 N i N N O U o l0 1� o to I^ n m Z I .. N O O O m O O O O 0 m O O O O +f+ 1 I 1 I I n y {7 q N S O IO r 1 O n a o Io 10 0 a o 10 0 1 O IO Id d i'll N V I O V N 0 I O ID �$ N 1O N wa o 10 0 dN O 10 10 O r N 0�2 O �O i0 O LL a 1 O V 1 o to Ir o0 o I' n N aF m to rn N i0 N aF 0 10 0 �0 1 1 o jo �0 d 0 �o m to rn wLL r 10 n �cC a N IO N W LL T O i O O to Im d a_ 1 1 o to I� �0 1 I Ola o �o �0 0 I 1 LL I w d 1 oo to l00 00^ 00 w 1 d N om 1 00 ^ O ^00 i n00 O IO Im 0 0 I 0 O O 1r ly n O O O i0 i0 a O 0 1 0 O 1 O O Ir n o 0 O O 1N O O t7 o to l0 N {7 0 N i N O i0 i0 O .F 0 1 0 O O 1m 1 S I 1 n O Z V N N O O i0 i0 O O N i N rn .F 1 m p �> 0 m 10 ly 0 O 0 0 IN � N O i0 d :a U O ,0 0 N O O O O O n O I I N Z 1 I 1 w w v o jo X00 0� U o o Ido Ir �o n T O Io 1 c vi d1 � ____i ____i O___ N O - � o o I� 0 0 6 4 j4 jr N O U o l0 1� o to I^ n m Z I .. O O m +f+ +f+ I 1 _ I 1 I I N46 6 O O t7 {7 a o Io 10 0 O IO Id d MN NN O 10 IDV CQQ f xa w O IO 100 O to Im OO m 1 I 1 OI f2 O 10 10 O LLLL O �O i0 O 1 I I O V o to Ir o0 o I' n N aF o �o o Io 10 0 I 1 1d �0 o jo �0 d 0 mx O 10 IOD OD wLL O to 1 C e6 a 1 I 1 O to Im 0 a o to I� rn� o to I� LLLL o �o �0 0 I 1 w d N oo to l00 00^ 00 o IO Imo 00 O to I� O IO Im 0 OU O O 1r ly n O O O i0 i0 a O O O Ir n OX O O 1N O O t7 o to l0 N {7 0 Z O i0 i0 O O O 1m 1 S O O O V IO 10 V � O O i0 i0 O O rn O a° d `0 m p �> 0 U 2 00 I (h N O co (6 a w N F m m °gym �O'm a � 1 ' ' o N Z ' J 1 m r jr U a o to - N .r. a Nm IMm 6 F 1� 1� o �oy O O O U th_m IMm m C 1� L O U m 1 N6 N �N N N O a~ r N IN T m.p _F illN N yN �yN x o 0 o,p J O jN O �O `N m� M,O O 10 M IM LLa x N IN o T _F ~ t0o m 'm a T m Im Uj 1 O Uj NO M N �N xm w � a_ o to 1 d rna 1 1 N N m 1 m �y 1 _F m m ;m m O 10 1 1 _F m 1 o.o m Im M IM O ' mlo N IN o Y M �M V T N 1 r0 Ir0 z ' �1 i 1 F i� m: U 1 N IN r ,a a ,v mJ • o •J v U:O N o � Q.Y 5 c O E O C >. C� C E cncn a F` N V cx_ C W v LL V F a � z J m m Q O T •O .r. a F N mco o O n U o;p C , O,O � N'p N r�0 r T m.p T Ip N N C o,p J O M > M,O x o T ~ t0o mlo m T j Uj 1 O Uj M2 M `o d 1 of 1 m _y_ d > 1 1 Q m 1 o.o T ' mlo m o Y Vlp V N NI Nlp N N �1 i 1 F m: U o.o m mJ • o •J U:O N o � Q.Y 5 o F J o N• (7 J cx_ C W v LL V z O,O O T •O O o O n U o;p _ O,O U o.p o,p O M > M,O x Z m •m `o O x U m U o.o F U o.o J N 6] • O O F � • N J m.a Ci C ' cx_ C W v LL V 00 I N n N E E D U) C 0 O U 0 O U L N 0 N O O O) CDN m m C Q J C O U) U) > U) M O O N O 73 W W m U C O N 0 O LU W W m U w d 0 a d C LU 0 La 9 N rn m LU W mo U O w LE w N m •m m m r r O U m •m N •N m_ •m w m 0 00 ,00 Z NO INO 1 M IM _F w �w 1 O �o Imo a 1 . m m N O U m m Im 6 m S m Im F 1� O m m 0 1� m Z m m � 1� O U 0 m 1 N N �N ' N 46 a� o to ill N NN N � N N 1r ta O 0 wa o to v N � , N m� 1 1 LL LL 1L _1 a o to NO N �N �cC O 10 XLL W � O 10 1 �0 rn� 1 1 a , LL , _F O N IN 1 00 1O0 1 . m ,m O m ,m M U 1� o to 0 m ,m m m 1 o to 1 1 O o 0 a ' a W m • m w m p E U m m Z 'ZD 00 I N n N E E D U) C 0 O U (n R O U L N 0 N O O O N N (V (6 n Q 0 0 J C O U) L Cn C) U M O O N O 73 W W R U C O 0 O LU W W m U v m rn N � m •o rn m_ •o rn I w to oo to w rnoo � j� Z No 0 hrn of 1 vi I 00 to rnoo 2 00 to rnoo m N OU N m OU to m rn m z m to m b U to m rn m b m �o z 1 I N O U A b m N N N 1 A N 10 N 100 N N N I I O a o l0 0 N 10 N 1 I o �0 0 I NN N 10 N wa o �0 0 I I � ul II I N m� i N 10 N 10 N N 1 1 I 0_ N N 10 N 10 N N $F O 10 O a N o �0 0 to o l0 0 wLL o �0 0 I T m a_ I I I ill 0 Ola N I O N 10� LL to o l0 0 wLL o �0 0 T of l o I I m a_ 1 1 O to U Ola 1 I m to rn LL 1 1 1 C7 n O � 0 of 1 0 of 1 m O w 2 I 0 m 0 �O O to m U z v EF rn 9 1 m to rn x O `w to z 'a O 1 C7 n 1 o 1 n O � 0 1 �F� m O v 2T I to >> m m x m m m z v EF rn 9 0 `w •a O v m rn N m �o rn I w to oo to w rnoo � j� Z No of I 0 hrn vi I 2 00 to rnoo N OU m to m b to m rn m z �o I N O U b m I A N 10 N 100 N N N a o l0 0 I I NN N 10 N wa o �0 0 I m� I II I O_ N N 10 N 10 N N I illO N IO N 10� to o l0 0 wLL o �0 0 T m a_ I I I io Ola LL I I I of l o I I of O to U I m to rn x I n I o I C7 n O � 0 I m O w 2 I 0 m 0 �O m0 m z v EF rn 9 `w 'a O 00 I Cl) 0 0 N N N E E D U) C 0 O U 0 O U L N 0 N O o N N � m 6 C n Q 0 J C O U) U) > U) (D 0 N O 73 W W m C) O 0 O LU W W m C) O W m N ry CL C O Z N wFo a C) > r 0 O 16 J N w O D Z ' o N Z � 'x mo Amo 'yo U yo I . N U o 0 m Im 0 0 to r •f N 0 b m Im m o to o 0 N O U b m Ny I b N— N� Op IOp aF NO iN0 I� -h N d d) N ,QN a` OD 100 Op IOp x N IN v N I ' N m� 1 I LL LL I o 'o o- m Oo IOo ar mo imo I� �p 10� w 'w ov 'ov mm imm jo I OI CC I a LL I � -h I O �O Q O 0 N O I10 O 0 OU o io o to v 'v I 0 00 'moo Z mo Imo I M IM I ' O 1' T ,a a v v m - m 00 I r Cl) O r O N N O N n N E E D (n C 0 O U (n R O U L N 0 N O O N N N (V m 6 Q n J C O R (n L Cn U N O •O �m ID O (D O U o •o �0 0 O N O 1 I 1 I O � I I W 1 I b W p � U 1 loy 1 loo oy 00 U w 1 Ico yo w R T o U (n O� U (V 0 V, I^ m 0 � 0 o m o to l0 O d R W W W r Q W O b m 1 l0 (i N � f0 7 N O •O �m ID O O •O �O O U o •o �0 0 O 1 I 1 I � I I 1 I b w � U 1 loy 1 loo oy 00 U 1 Ico yo T I IN N � O� U o jo Im o 10 10 m 0 � 0 o m o to l0 rn 0 N 0 I I i im O W O b m 1 l0 rn 0 ... .L .... L.... N O U b m I N d N_ N A O 10 10y O 10 100 O O� �r o 10 INo ,�o a o to I� 1 I NN NN f 0 10 0 O 10 10y O 10 IOp O Oy Op Wa O 10 10 O 10 10y 10 IOp O Oy O O Op � WLL to I� dN I I LL a I I LL a 1 b oo w o � �o �o boy o to l0 0 oy 0 0 ar O io i'o ho � ar o O io i'o ho ino o to Iv 0 10 toy w oy ino o to Iv 0 10 toy w oy 0 w � >0 1 I ora 1 LL 1 I LL _F .F N I IO O O 1 to O m 1 10 O m _F .F _F _F I Im o I Im 1 to o O x Z I w I lov 1 loo w ooy 00 x Z 1 Imo rno 1 Imo rno 1 Im -------------- 1 I� r jn tom rn C7 O � 1 Im 1 1w r jn �Om 1' oo N O � O 1� Iv N G Gi GG GG GG 1 1 'G'Gi GG'Gi GG .0 �u m '".o `oo f a �U •a f a 2Uo •`oa `m L Y R N O •O •m ID O O •O •O O U o •o •0 0 O 1 1 1 1 � I I 1 1 b w � 1 loy 1 loo oy U 1 Ico 00 yo T I IN N � O U o jo jm o 10 10 m 0 � 0 o m o to l0 rn 0 N O I I i im O m O b m 1 l0 rn 0 ... .L....L.... N O U b m 1 1 O 10 INy d N_ N� O 10 BOO O� �r o to INo ,�o a o l0 1� 1 1 NN NN f2 O 10 10 O 10 10y 10 IOp O Oy O O Op � WLL to I� dN I I LL a I I 1 1 b O � o o jo boy to l0 0 oy 0 0 � ar o O io i'o ho ino o to Iv 0 10 toy w oy 0 w � 1l0 11� >0 1 1 Ola 1 1 LL 1 1 _F _F N I 10 O O 1 10 O m _F _F I Im 1 to o O x Z I I w I lov 1 loo w ooy 00 1 Imo rno 1 Im 1 1w r jn �Om rn 7 O � 1' loo N O 1� Iv 1 1 'G'Gi GG'Gi GG d U w-0 a' o loo o f a 2Uo •`oa `m N Q U 00 (U n Cl) O O N O 73 W W m U C O (U 0 O LU LU LU m C) O LL N O J C F d F d F d O O O w E � 0 'o m m � Off -Site Right -of -Way Improvements Air Quality Emissions rn LD r O N N_ >C 0 0 U M 0 0 U L_ 0 0 O m o) Q d o J C N E a) 0 D- M M M O N 0 73 W W_ m U C 0 N 0 0 LU LU LU m U Y N a Y C C d 7 0 N U � N 0 0 C. U E .'C_' N co w w w O a� C Q 0 J i O r 0 O O 0 O a d � U o � �p w O � j N � M O V O LL O N 0 O � N O M M O N (0 Q O O J O N T N 0_ Q N � LL d 'yi O N o d t U Q N d O o a` O z c � o m 0 N O N N o '� E � a — o. c xa U c `o N U N E r � .� U o m f6 m U 4T L f6 m m ) � n U W o Q J C o O d T c O t O C N T => N a E - = - N ^Z Oa r m U U— ER \ Lu 7 LD { / CO / 45\ C) / } 2 \ ( \ / j ) r { { § / ! ( � ( \ \ { E ® _ \ \ \ } \ \ k \ 0 \ \ \ (D W E \ 0 ° \ / _ . \ \ \ \ \ j j k . � \ ) / \ - / / LU 9 = mo \ \ ) \ \ \ \ \ ER \ Lu LD 0 N N N n N >C C 0 O U 0 O U L 0 O N CT C Q 0 O J C N E N 0 O Q d 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O 10 10 1� 10 10 IM 10 Im IN O 10 10 I- I 10 1 100 16 I? 1� ILL 1� IN10 10 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 :d ,x :-O :F :F :F ,g m ,Q N N •� ,Y `m ,N ,�'� ,C ,C ,C ,C ,` ,N a.a m '0 m '� '� m 'LL ,C_ ,O ,� E ,O ,W m ,LL ,a ,LL ,a , Q , Q ;N n ,y) m 0 O , O ,O Z "NO , � Z N > NO' DU O. LL ,LL ,Q 'U > "Z Q ,dNO' N O ,O N .t p ;U •O •O •� m d 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O 10 10 1� 10 10 IM 10 Im IN O 10 10 I- I 10 1 100 16 I? 1� ILL 1� IN10 10 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a L E 7 N N C O .y N E W 0 N :d :-O :F :F :F o ,Q N N •� ,Y ,Y ,N ,�'� ,C ,C ,C ,C ,` ,N a.a m '0 m '� '� m 'LL ,C_ ,O ,� E ,O ,W m ,LL ,a ,LL ,a , Q , Q , Q n ,y) m 0 O , O ,O N "NO Z N > NO' DU O. LL ,LL ,Q 'U > "Z Q ,dNO' , O ,O .t .t p .O •O •O •� m : m O Z o :O :O N N m ' N :m ' N :m :m :C7 :C7 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :U n •� :a a L E 7 N N C O .y N E W 0 N 00 O) LD O N N M O O N O 73 W LU m U O m N 0 O LU LU LU m U cY_ C N N N O O U r 0 n 0 p o 0 ry Z O O O O O r O n U T o 0 N a 3 m N rn U ? ? m om m o� � o ^ ^ r O m m U ? ? 0 ooim �� m r ^ z_ N O O O b o 0 0 0 m N N N 0 N N N N N m o a o 0 ii > N O O mfg O O LLa o 0 N N a o 0 xa o 0 w � 3 v O - N N > r m n m rna m LL O O N m n O O 0 m 0 o O � � U v a m m ON m N W Z U' V V 0 0 0 � E E � N N i N % m a cY_ C N N N O O U r 0 n 0 p ry o O 0 O Z O O O r O n U T o 0 N a 3 m N rn U ? ? m om m o� � o ^ ^ r O m m U ? ? 0 ooim �� m r ^ z_ N O O O b o 0 0 0 m N N N 0 N N N N N m o a a o 0 ii L N mfg O O LLa o 0 t7 O a o 0 xa o 0 w � 3 >o r m n m ma LL O O N m n O O 0 m 0 o O � � U v a m m ON m N W Z U' V V 0 o 0 E E � N N i N % m a d) Ln 0 0 N N Lfl N n M 0 0 N O 73 W W R U O N 0 cO G W W m U O jo j l0 1 o 00 Z l0 1 i0 i O O _F _F oN to to v oN m to l0 7 a 3 ---- 4---- 4---- 1 1 om to to N O U oo^ N NO i0 i0 NO ° m 1O IO o N O I I ON 10 10 00 10 10 O OD O_ NO i0 i0 CD to to NO 0 z Z _L O U b m 1 1 Nq ND w 1 1 ON 10 10 OOp 10 10 Oh Op 1 1 -F -F � 10 10 pN 10 10 O00 i0 i0 NN N dm d Oh O00 ILa N 10 10 N W _F _F 1 1 1 10 1 10 N dN �2 O 01 LLd i i0 O O b ppN �0 �0 OV ON N to to N illp N f2 d 10 10 OD 10 10 Op 10 10 d Op OO IL a O O N N ILa � 11 11 N >O 1 10 O ola 1 10 o 0 O ii 1 l _F _F N O O 10 10 1 1 O O O O 10 10 O O O N O i0 i0 OO _F _F O U d 10 10 OD 10 10 yo �o �o d Op yo U v to to a ---- F---- F ---- a p w jo jo oo to to �o �o w 000 Z oo v to to 00 a 1 1 r to to o �o 10 n 0 C7 O O w o to l0 0 10 1 1 'i'iiii'iiii " 1 'i'iii •'iiii " T O T d O q w d `w ,0 0 U ,0 0 lo j 0 I 1 o 0 ry Z O l0 1 i0 i O O O oN to to v oN a 3 ---- ----4---- 1 om to to N O U oo^ N NO i0 i0 NO ° m lO IO o N O I I ON 10 10 00 10 10 O OD O_ NO i0 i0 NO Z _L O U b m I 1 N 0 w I 1 OOp �0 �0 Op I 1 -F -F � IO 10 pN 10 10 NN N dm d Oh a O00 i0 i0 0 0 O00 W N 1 F _F I 1 I 10 I 10 N dN �2 O OI LLa I to O 0 b ppN �0 �0 OV ON N to to N illy N' f2 d IO 1O OO 10 10 Op IO 10 d OO OO ILa � N I10 110 N >O I 10 O ola i jo o 0 O ii I l _F _F N O O 10 10 1 O O O O 10 10 O O O N O i0 i0 OO _F _F O d 10 10 OD 10 10 d Op U yo �o �o yo v to to a p w to jo oo to to �o �o w 000 Z oo v to to 00 a 1 -------------- r o to n C7 O w o to l0 0 1 'i'iii •'iiii " 0 O ,0 0 U d O N 0 O o V Q N O d1 Z O LD V O Q 'j O N V o N_ (D N (.1 O F 0 y o O 0 m z 4 N � 0 O ? O O 0 M O V w O C) ^2 f O w a R O C) J N O L wx ^2 p D a O LD w N N o O C m Q a� C N O q � O N xa O O W D- E E >O O N �a O LL N O O O N o r O o U o 0 N 0 O o z o LU LU m C) C O o O � o m N 0 O W w W R av C) A O O N 11 m m 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 o to to to to O U 1 1 1 1 1 1(7 LL 1 1 1 T a 1 1 1 I 1 I m 1 1 1 0 J X 1 N 11 r --r--r--r--r--7 " 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I JEO 1 1 1 1 I m m 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 o to to to to � 0 O 1 1 1 1 1 1(7 N 1 1 1 T m 1 1 1 I 1 I m 1 1 1 1 I X 1 r --r--r--r--r--7 " 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I JEO 1 1 1 1 I .y m m 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1(7 1 1 1 1 T 1 1 1 I 1 I F 1 1 1 1 I X 1 1 E E Q Y 1 1 1 1 1 d 1 ry w o iC N O d 1 01 � 1 F 1 p 1` 1 1 1 1 E 1 1 (p 1 Q) 1 1 Q) 1 L p S: 0 Sw Sa Sw.i E m z m a .y m m m m m m 5 5 (7 16 16 16 16 1(7 M 17 LD O N N O C (rV C (V O Q O N _0 O LU W W Fo U c O N 0 0 LU W W Fo C) O N O oo 'vm drn I O I N 1 Z 1 1 1 Iv c a U T i0 O d 1 N a_ IM 0 O N t7 O IO f V {7 O 16 � 1 IM N O U 0 IN t7 fV {7 0 0 Z 1 O U 0 m 1 _ N w 1 h l N s O No 1 n d� 00 l0 y 0 1 I d2 O IV V wa o 10 0 1 d N �N N I I d .Ot �2 ON 00 00 00 LL a NO i 1 0 1 1 w O� ON iM N aF m0 iN N 0 10 O 1 NO O IN N 0 1^ {2 dcC O IN N W d T O i O O d 1 0 1 oa mo rno LL m 1 m 1 IV N 0 1 l0 V � 0 w 1 _ IN N � O 1m o V; U 0 im U) x 1m o_ z i � U N N O Im rn O Q N C 0 0 o.::k:: a 0 5 w s rn D - a R r o ++ W f`6 rn d m d VN ~ O r (6 LL M > M 7 m Ln m O N N O (V n Ln O co (V m a B (D O N O 73 W W M U 1= o O N O N O c LU W f�6 W � U N M m O O N O m o O 0 U M o y m I O j O I I N 1 I Z 1 I 1 1 -------------- Iv c w n v oNi jo �oN n U T � 1� ludo 0 T O 10 IV O N d 1 O to Ic m p � to Im n 16 O N N n s O U 1 N O � o U IO Iv O O to LQ Z 1 N p •0 •0 0 0 0 0 0 O rfr rrr 1 r U N m 0 rn NS DO In n I 1 I I r I O t7 N F1 o to l0 0 o Iv a x d to Id d O t7 I O I O t7 O {7 mo �o �No 00 LL a to 1� vi a 1 1 I � IO d IN >N N O 0 O IO Im rn OI f2 aF O 10 1m0 g LLa O i0 �O O 1 1 O_ A NO N 10 IN O 1 0 I m n ID ^�- O yO o I^ {2 O IN N X W 1 0o d d to Iv oo °' to IoN d oa7 t70 IO INO NO Xa a W oa oo d 1 v I a 1 >� O LLa O i0 i0 O O 1 I i0 O 10 1p0 O N 00 O i0 i�0 00 4O (n rn � 1m n l o a7 . . o N m 1 I O n 10 I� m U 7 � 10 IN e I� I� 1m m m j0 I O 1m N 10 In 0x Z rn rn t7 O V m 0 0 W 0 0 O 0 i0 i O �0 -Mimi :. _F _F 7 m18 Im e p m � 10 Im to l0 m K o 0 0 LL ;O o �o �0 AM;; Mimi Mimi rn d O m ao U O N p oo 'vm drn U o .v a I O j N 1 Z 1 1 1 Iv c a U T i0 O a_ IM N O N t7 O IO f V {7 O 16 � 1 1M N O U I N t7 f V {7 O O O Q Z 1 N p •0 •0 0 0 0 0 0 rfr rrr 1 r N m oy I� rn NS DO In n v � o Iv a x I LL a a � d IN N O 0 om Im n aF DO iN N 1 NO O IN N o I^ {2 O IN N X W d 1 0 1 oa oo o0 LL v I a 1 O 1 10 m O i0 O IN N O 1m rn 1m n 0x 1m 7 Z I� I� 1m m O 1m p Im rn rn K 0 �0 -Mimi :. o m m 0 d o d U LL ;O 00 O) Ln O) O N N (D (V n B B (D O N O 73 W W M U C O N 0 O LU W W M U Y w m O N m O O O 06 m •O .y r N O O I I N 1 I � 1 I 1 I____ w n v oNi jo tom n U � 1� ludo 0 T O 10 IV O 1 p � to Im n m to s 1 I N O � ID U IO Iv 0 toLQ O U 0 m 1 I _ 1 I I r I N46 6 O t7 N a o Io Io 0 inN w to Iv w N xa O t7 I O I O t7 O {7 mo �o �No 00 x to I� vi 1 1 I �.N IO Im OI f2 O 10 10 g LLd O i0 �O O 1 O_ A N 10 IN 1 0 I m n ID yO 1 I �o w 10 Iv om to lom w O� 10� mo to Ido ao 1 I I LLd O i0 i0 O 1 I 10 I00 O 00 00 . . m to Im OU � IO IN e m to I� o N 10 In {� Ox m o v m C7 m 10 Im e p � 10 Im to l0 m � 0 0 Mimi p! 0 0 w rn Ln 0 0 N N LD O o_ m m n M M (D 0 N 0 73 W W m C) E 0 0 O LU W W m C) d N O 10 O O 10 O 10 ' o N Z � v o jo o io o U T N a to O 10 i o 0 I N U 6 s L o 0 o to N O I O 10 p p] O 10 O I O Z � O U 0 m w o I o NN o 'o 00 O �s LL o ;o a� LU o to 0 0 N V O O I wa :CJ o to I OI f2 O 10 rx o to m a_ � I I rna LL o to O 10 .F N Q O �O O O O 10 N O 10 O 10 .F O O �O O 10 U o to o to Ox o ;O O o o to Z o to o to I p Ip Z ,a v Iv P' V rn C O t"6 E O C a E E cncn Q k - N V Cl) V II o p Q x L LU W w o y o LL t LU O 0 0 w V :CJ = rn Ln r O N N O LD r O m m n M M Cl) O O N O 73 W W m U C O m N 0 O LU W W m U N O O U N O O •O o •o O O U O N 0 1 0 l0 O 10 Z Z O 10 o to O 0 0 O O 0 1 0 O v o ;o o to U U o to O 0 - T N O 10 O 10 o 0 1 O p s 6 o 0 o Ip 0 o s N O N OU 1 O 10 b m o to o to o b O U m O m 0 � + 1 O U NN o to 00 O �s o ;o a� o to 0 0 1 N O O O 1 wa o to 1 v N 1 1 m� 1 LL LL 1 0 wa 0 _ 010 jN 1 0 0 o io �F a o to o to li a O _ 0 0 xa o to w � a_ 1 1 1 �0 ma 0 1 1 xa 1 LL w _F N �o 1 O 10 O O 10 p N O O 10 o to li LL O 0 O 0 OU o ,o 0 0 O O O O O O o io o to 1 O 0 x p 0 0 Z Ox o 0 o o ,o O o o to Z 0 o to o to o 1 tt C7 o 0 1 0 1 0 to p tt o o to o to 1 � o m 5 m m a a' w m Z m @m @m':c_ w Eim U m Z 'ZD � O O N O O O U o o O 0 p N 0 O Z O 0 0 O O 0 0 O 2 U T a a O 0 - O 0 N O U o O 0 o s O OO N OU O o b O o o 0 m o 0 z O U b m 0 0 N O O N o 0 wa 0 0 jN m� li a O _ O $ F a O o 0 O 0 in o 0 0 0 xa o 0 w � a_ �o rn� li LL O 0 O 0 N � O O O O O O O O 0 o o O 0 x p 0 0 Z o 0 o 0 0 � 0 p o 0 tt 2T o 0 0 0 m O v m 0 � o m 5 m m Z v `o w Z rn m O n Q N n LD O N N m R n M M Cl) O O N O 73 W W R U C O 0 O LU W W R U N A• L6 2 � O O N O O O U o o O 0 p N 0 O Z O O O O O O O O 2 U T a a O 0 - O 0 N O U � o 0 R 0 0 r 0 0 N OU O o b O o O 0 m d d Z N O U b m 0 0 O N O N o 0 wa 0 0 j N N m� Ild 0 0 _ O m 0 0 a o 0 0 in o 0 10� 0 0 0 0 xa o 0 w � a a_ _ �o rn� O O O O N O O O O O O O U o 0 o o 0 0 x p 0 0 Z o 0 0 0 0 C7 0 p o 0 � 2 0 0 0 0 m O w m >> a r o m0 m z 0 0 0 � Z N O o N C R N N CL C O Z C a O O 0 J N m rn LD 0 N N 19 M M O N O 73 W W m U O 0 O LU W W m U co 7 1 � ' o N Z � o i i N Z U I I oo loo I m . m 1m df d) � O U d o00 loon O I IpN 1 loo N IN U m m •f 1 N O O 0 U Oo IOo O NO INO m Z O U m 1m O U op b mo vlo F m I 11 m -i i m N O U 1 I w 1 lom d om ry b Nq N mo ON ION 00 100 aF I IN 1 oo ioo N Z IN -h N d1 d) N �N OD 100 U Op IDp m WLL b N IN -h d N ' 1 N m� 1 1 O 10 IN 1 I LL LL I O 10 ION O 10 IOp ON Op a� o to loo 'ON O N ON 00 100 ar oo ioo N IN -h �p N 'N '0N df2 Xa ON OD XLL Op O IOp O �O 3 N �0 F _F 1 ma ' LL I I ' LL a I O IO Q O O N O 10 O 10 w O � 1 -h p ip ipN 0 pN 0 a� N �N O 00 OD 100 U 1 IN yo 1�0 1 O 10 ION O,n da 0 0 1p 1000 00 100 Z DO IDO 1 O W � 110 1IN -i -i N >0 I O1 a O 10 1 1 O 10 -:-:k::-- LL 1 1 ,a m d d m � m m - m E I 10 N O co 7 o i i N Z I I d1 d � I IpN 1 loo ON U 1 00 00 lI 1co 7 m 1I i i dt N O U O l 0 1 oo to lom Io Imo d om op o Ip Iu?o mo vlo F I 11 m -i i m N O U 1 I w 1 lom d om 1 Imo mo mb I IN 1 N m Z L. O U b m 1 1 O 10 IN d N_ N A O 10 ION O 10 IOp ON Op a� o to loo 00 N fV NN NN f O 10 10 O 10 ION 10 IOp O ON Xa O O I IO Op O W 10 IN N F _F dN I I LL a I I d1 w O � p ip ipN 0 pN 0 a� p Ip loo 00 1 IN N O 10 ION O,n da 0 1p 1000 000 x O I IO O W � 110 1IN -i -i N >0 1 1 O1 a 1 1 LL 1 1 I 10 N O 1 10 O O (n _F _F � I I w I lom 1 Imo d om mo 1 Iv a � I ION ON Z I loo 1 loo 00 00 1 ------------- - E u u E a m N d N o a a 2U 0a `m N Q O O) Ln O) r O N N O M N +' f0 22 d N O •O �N O •O �O N O O O •O �O O U o •o �0 0 O 1 I 1 I � I I 1 I b w � U I IpN 1 loo ON 00 1 loo 00 m m 3 - 1 0 to I d) N O w U oo to lom o to Imo om mo op Ip Iu?o vlo F I II m 'i m N O U 1 w 1 om d om b 1 Imo mo m I IN 1 N m Z L. O U b m I d N A O 10 ION O 10 IOp Oh Op a� o to loo 00 i i N -F -F fV NN NN f 0 10 0 O 10 ION O 10 IOp O ON Op Xa IL I IO O 10 IN O N _F .F rn� 1 I ii a I I 1 b O � p ip ipN O pN O a� p Ip loo 00 1 IN N inp o to Iv O 10 ION d Oyl xa � 1� loo O 00 IL � 110 IIN N >0 ora 1 I 1 LL 1 I _F .F N I 10 O O 1 to O (n _F .F � I I d I lom 1 Imo d om mo 1 Iv a � Z I I w I ION 1 Ioo d ON 00 1 Ioo 00 d Iv d om I to h n 00 K mo 1� No O io P' Tei .c •�" � u m a �U •`oa � `m N Q • U w ; N U) R cG1 C 0 R cOI C 06 1"1 O N E J Z N n LD O LD N m m n M M M O O N O 73 W W_ m U O 0 cO G LU LU m U O L O m 00 i E E D U) 0 0 U 0 0 U L LO 0 O N CD � m m � Q a o J C rN C a) 0 D- E E N U) 0 M O N 0 73 W W_ m U C 0 N 0 0 LU LU LU m U L C� CC C m N co Y d � E o O L Q' O U Et W o N co w d O w C Q 0 0 J i O r 0 O O 0 O a m d � o 0 � o m j N U) M O V O LL O N 0 O � N O M M O N (0 Q O O J O N T N 0_ Q N � LL d 'yi O N o — d t U Q N d O o a` O z c � o m 0 N O N m N m E � a — o. c xa U c `o N U N E r � .� U o m f6 m U 4T L f6 m m ) � n U W o Q J C o O d T c t W 2 o E ^ O t N N o d>� O C N T => N a E - = - N ^Z Oa r m U U— \ \ / { ( / \ \ (D \ \ / \ \ ( \ ƒ 0 \ § \ { ) \ y \ E _ \ _ { ! ( ( f / \ ® § \ k \ \ \ \ \ \ k (D o _ \ w \ \ 0 \ . \ ° E / \ j j ) LU mo / 9 \ \ = \ - / ) \ � \ \ / \ . \ \ \ 00 I 0 0 N N N n d 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O 10 10 1� 10 10 IM 10 Im IN w � 1� 1� ILL 1� IN 1'O 10 10 10 o l0 1� � 10 to ,x :d ,g m ,Q `m N N ,N ,C ;y ,L ,� •� ,C ,C ,C ,C ,` ,N d T Z "NO . . . d_ . "O . . N . ¢ . U . U . . . • C • p • tp 0 55 C_ O LL LL O_ m ;N , , ,� E ,O m , ,a , ,a , Q Z , Q n , 0 m , 0 O , O , � N "NO U ZLL Z N > NO' D O. N I ,Q 'U > " Q ,dNO' , O N ,O .t ;U p d 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O 10 10 1� 10 10 IM 10 Im IN w � 1� 1� ILL 1� IN 1'O 10 10 10 o l0 1� � 10 to a L E 7 N N C O .y N E W 0 N :d ,Q N N ,N ,C ;y ,L ,� •� ,C ,C ,C ,C ,` ,N d T Z "NO . . . d_ . "O . . N . ¢ . U . U . . . • C • p • tp 0 55 C_ O LL LL O_ m 'LL , , ,� E ,O m , ,a , ,a , Q , Q , Q n , 0 m , 0 O , O ,O N "NO U ZLL Z N > NO' D O. I ,Q 'U > " Q ,dNO' , O ,O .t .t p .O •O •O •� m : m O Z o :O :O N N m ' N :m ' N :m :m :C7 :C7 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :U n •� :a a L E 7 N N C O .y N E W 0 N 00 I M O O N O 73 W W m U O N 0 O LU LU LU m U N E E D U) C 0 O U R O U L 0 Q N N m Q 0 J N E N O D- E E N U) O cY_ C N N N � � N Q U r 0 n U 0 p ry n o O 0 O Z O O Z O m O � O m o U m o U T o 0 N a o 0 N a Q t7 {7 Q t7 {7 N N m V N ID V O ^ n F ^ n N p Q t7 {7 Q t7 {7 m ^ n z_ ^ n N N O O O b o 0 0 0 m o 0 0 0 m N N N 0 N N 0 N N N N N m o N m o a o 0 ii o 0 > N O O mfg O O LLa o 0 LLa o 0 N N a o 0 a o 0 xa 0 w o xa � 3 0 w v O - N N > rna m LL O O ma LL N O m n O O N 0 m 0 m O O U o v a O m m U x a m m O m o m 0 m z n m O o m 0 m n 0 n 0 R C7 n 0 0 J � N E N i N % � N E cY_ C N N N � � N Q U r 0 n 0 p ry o O 0 O Z O O O m O � m o U T o 0 N a Q t7 {7 N N m V N ID V O ^ n F N p Q t7 {7 m ^ n z_ N O O O b o 0 0 0 m N N N 0 N N N N N m o V V ix a a o 0 i L N mfg O O LLa o 0 N N a o 0 xa 0 w o � 3 >o r m n m ma LL O O N m n O O d m o m O U v a m m x m m O o m 0 m z n C7 n 0 0 E J N E N i N x � 00 I N n (D O N O 73 W W R U O N 0 cO G W W m U O jo j l0 1 o 00 Z l0 1 i0 i O O _F _F oN to to v oN U T oo �o �o m to to 00 a7 a 3 ---- 4---- 4---- 1 1 om to to N O U oo^ N NO i0 i0 NO ° m 1O IO o N O I I ON 1010 00 10 10 O OD O_ NO i0 i0 CD to to NO 0 Z L N O U b m I 1 Nq ND w 1 1 ON 10 10 OOp 10 10 Oh Op 1 1 -F -F � 10 10 pN 10 10 O00 i0 i0 NN N d� d Oh O00 ILa N 10 10 N ILa _F _F 1 1 1 10 1 10 N dN �2 O 01 LLd i i0 O O m ppN �0 �0 OV ON N to to N illp N f2 d 10 10 OD 10 10 Op 10 10 d Op OO IL a � O O N N ILa � 11 11 N >O 1 10 O ola 1 10 o 0 O ii 1 l _F _F N O O 10 10 1 1 O O O O 10 10 O O O N O i0 i0 OO _F _F O U d 10 10 OD 10 10 yo �o �o d Op yo U v to to a v to to a p w jo jo oo to to �o �o w 000 Z oo v to to 00 a 1 1 r to to o �o �0 n 0 C7 O O o to l0 0 1 1 I 1 'i'iii •'iiii " T O � T d OI q ,0 0 U ,0 0 to j 0 I 1 o 0 ry Z O l0 1 i0 i O O O oN to to v oN U T oo �o �o m to to 00 a7 a 3 ---- ----4---- 1 om to to N O U oo^ N NO i0 i0 NO ° m lO IO o N O I I ON 10 10 00 10 10 O OD O_ NO i0 i0 NO Z _L N O b m I 1 N 0 w I 1 OOp �0 �0 Op I 1 -F -F � IO 10 pN 10 10 NN N d� d Oh O00 i0 i0 O00 ILa N 10 10 I 1 I 10 I 10 N dN �2 O OI LLa I to O 0 m ppN �0 �0 OV ON N to to N illy N' f2 d IO 1O OO 10 10 Op IO 10 d OO OO ILa � N I10 110 N >O I 10 O ola i jo o 0 O ii I l _F _F N O O 10 10 1 O O O O 10 10 O O O N O i0 i0 OO _F _F O d 10 10 OD 10 10 d Op U yo �o �o yo v to to a p w to jo oo to to �o �o w 000 Z oo v to to 00 a 1 -------------- r o to n (7 O o to l0 0 I 1 'i'iii •'iiii " ,0 0 U d O N O O o c V G Q o 0 N O p Z O O V O p t o N V o N_ (D N Q (.1 O F 0 y o O 0 m Z C N EO C V O ) O O m 0 20 � N — Z /) of O (n R 'Ql N N L x m O � w LD 0 r j N n N O Q Q OI ^2 O 0 (D LL a N Z m d M o -i df o rn _ N O Q q O xa o N w O D- E E m� o �a o (D LL N O O O o N o r O o U o 0 N 0 O o Z o LU LU m C) C O o O � o m N 0 O W w W R av C) A O O r --r--r--r--r--7 " 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 JEO 1 1 1 1 I m m 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 O U 1 1 1 1 1 1(7 LL 1 1 1 T a 1 1 1 I 1 I m 1 1 1 0 J r --r--r--r--r--7 " 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 JEO 1 1 1 1 I .y m m 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1(7 1 1 1 1 T 1 1 1 I 1 I F 1 1 1 1 I 1 N X 1 Q 0 1 1 1 1 1 d 1 w o i)� � O 0 � 1 1 F 1 p 1` 1 1 1 1 E 11 Q) 1 Q) 1 L 1(p 1— 1> IL c) S: Sw Sa Sw.i E m z m a .y m m m m m m 5 5 (7 16 16 16 16 1(7 00 I O N _0 O LU W W Fo U c O N 0 0 LU W W Fo C) O N O oo 'vm drn I O I N 1 Z 1 1 1 Iv c a U T i0 O d 1 N a_ IM 0 O N t7 O IO f V {7 O 16 � 1 IM N O U O ION 00 O U 0 m 1 _ N w 1 h l N s O n d� oO l0 0 1 I d2 O IV V wa 1 d N >N N I I d .m �2 ON 00 00 LL a NO i 1 000 1 1 w O� ON iM N aF m0 iN N 0 IO O 1 NO O IN N o I^ �2 dcC O IN N W d T O i O O d 1 0 1 oa mo rno LL m 1 m 1 IV N 0 1 l0 V � 0 w 1 _ IN N � O 1m e V; U 0 im x 1m v o_ z i � U m N N O Im rn O Q N C 0 0 a 0 5 w s rn °- a R o ++ W f`6 0 rn d m d VN C r (6 LL M > M 7 00 I (V n LD O co (V m a (D O N O 73 W W M U 1= o O N O N O c LU W f�6 W � U N M O N d ��2 O N p P O O r U P� CDN li a I O j O I I N 1 I Z 1 1 1 I -------------- IV V d N V N �O SON n T i0 O T O 10 IV O N d a 1 N O U N to Im N 16 to N N rn s O U 1 N o� O N 1 0 W N 0 Io Q N m m m toI� Z 0 0 .............. O rfr 1 U u m 0 rn NS DO In n 1 I _ 1 I I r I N 6 O t7 N �S a o to l0 0 Fm o Iv a in um d to Id d N da O t7 I O I O t7 O {7 mo �o �No 00 Wa to v LL a 1 1 I a 1 N f2 I O m 10 10 g OI LLa O 0 O O i0 �O O n aF 1 DO iN N O_ A N 10 IN I O I (O n ID yO NO O IN N 1 0O d to Iv oo °' to IoN d oa7 'xf2 O OD IO ISO O OO d a_ 1 1 0 1 d 1 oa oo o0 >� v I a 1 LLa O i0 i0 O IV 1 I 1 10 m O N oo °' to ION oo^ p r00 Io I�� to I� NOO a7 IN N . . Im rn to IN � O to Im U omi to lug O n Ox 1m 7 Z n jo to n 10 N O pX Z N O V m to IO n o 1m Im m O i0 i0 O Im rn _F .F rn 0 C7 m to Im m p � to lum to l0 n K o 0 AM;; Mimi Mimi 0oLL rn O ao d m U d O •O O O N p oo 'vm drn U o .v a I O j N 1 Z 1 1 1 IV V V U T i0 O a_ IM N O N t7 O IO f V {7 O 16 � 1 IM N O U o� Q � •0 •0 0 0 rfr 1 u m oy I� rn NS DO In n v � o Iv a x r____ I LL a a 1 d IN N O 0 om Im n aF DO iN N r____ 1 NO O IN N O IN N X W d a_ 1 1 0 1 oa oo o0 LL v I a 1 IV N O 1 10 m O i0 O IN N O Im rn 1m n Ox 1m 7 Z I� I� O 1m Im m p Im rn K rn 0 �0 Mimi M. IT] 0oLL ;O 00 I (V n to C N E N O D- E N U) O (D O N O 73 W W M U C O (V 0 O LU W W M U Y w O N ��2 N r OO r O 0 O O I I N 1 I Z 1 1 I -------------- d N V N �O SON n T O 10 IV O a 1 N O U N 10 10) N 10 N N O s 1 I N O N 1 0 W N O 10 N O m m to Z 1 I____ O U 0 m 1 I _ 1 I I r I N46 O t7 N a o to l0 0 0 in u� w to Iv w N xa O t7 I O I O t7 O {7 mo �o �No 00 x to I� vi 1 I 1 I �.N IO Im OI f2 O 10 10 g LLd O i0 �O O 1 N 10 IN n 1 �o w to Iv to loo w �o 10� om oo to Ido �o 1 I I OI f2 O IO I� � LLd O i0 i0 O 1 I N oo^ to Ipm moo^ O r00 Io I�� NOO to IN � O to lm U omi to lug O n ---- F---- F---- n to I o n 10 N O OX N O V n O i0 i0 O _F _F C7 m to lm m O � to IN 10 10 n � O O O i0 i0 Mimi Mimi OAM;; p! 0 0 w 00 I 0 0 0 N N � E E D U) C 0 O (n 0 O U L 0 O to CD 0 m Q 0 0 J to C E 0 D- E E N U) 0 (D 0 N 0 73 W W m C) E 0 0 O LU W W m C) d N O 10 O 0 O O 10 O N Z � v o jo o io o U T N a to O 10 o 0 I N O U 6 s L o 0 o to N O I O 10 p p] O 10 O IO Z O U 0 m w o I m w NN Z o 'o 00 O �s lL o ;o a� LU o to 0 0 N V O O I wa :CJ o to OI f2 O 10 LLd O 10 010 o io �F a o to o to oo o o jo O o xa w � o to � I rna LL o to O 10 .F N O �O O O Q N O 10 O 10 O 10 .F O O O O 10 U o to o to 0 o ;O O o o to Z o to o to I 0 0 0 p Ip Z ,a v Iv P' V rn C O t"6 E O C a E E cncn Q k - N V Cl) V II o p Q x L �J LU W w o y m w Z U lL t LU O 0 0 w V :CJ = 00 I m C N E N O D- E E N U) 0 Cl) O O N O 73 W W m U C O m N 0 O LU W W m U N O O U N O O •O o •o O O U o o O 0 1 O 10 N Z Z O 10 o to O 0 O O O 0 1 o O 2 o ;o U U o to O o - T N � O 10 � o 0 1 N p 6 s o 0 o to 0 o s N O N OU 1 O 10 b m o to o to o b O U m O m 0 � O U NN o �o 00 O �s o ;o a� o to 0 0 N 2 N O O O 1 wa o to v N ' 1 m� 1 LL LL 1 wa 1 o 010 jN o io �F a o to o to li a O _ 0 0 xa w o to 0 � a_ � 1 1 �0 ma 0 1 ' xa ' LL w _F N �o 1 O �O O O p N O 10 O 10 o to li LL O 0 O 0 OU o ,o 0 0 O_ O O O O O o io o to 1 O 0 x p 0 0 Z Ox o 0 o o ,o O o o to Z 0 o to o to o 1 tt 2T o 0 1 to p tt o o to o to 1 � o m m� m a a ' w (D m '(D rn Z m Es Es w _ Z 'ZD N f6 f`6 7 f6 z w N D C J >1 a aI R w w r N Ln 7 � O O N O O O U o o O 0 p N 0 O Z O 0 O O O 0 o O 2 U T a a O o - O 0 N O U o O 0 o s O OO N OU O o b O o o 0 m o 0 z O U b m 0 0 N 2 O O N wa o 0 jN m� li a O _ O a o 0 0 in o 0 0 0 xa o 0 w � �o rn� li LL O 0 O 0 N � O_ O O O O O O O 0 o o O 0 x p 0 0 Z o 0 o 0 0 � 0 p o 0 tt 2T o 0 0 0 m O v m >> � o m m� m Z v `o w 0 Z rn m `m m o O n Q 00 I N n LD O N N m R a Cl) O O N O 73 W W R U C O 0 O LU W W R U E E D U) 0 O U R O U L 0 O CD N m C Q 0 O J C N E N O D- E E N U) O N A• L6 2 � O O N O O O U o o O 0 p N 0 O Z O O 0 0 O O 0 0 � U T a a 0 o - 0 0 N O U � o 0 R 0 0 r 0 0 N OU O o b O o O 0 m d d Z N O U b m 0 0 O N O N wa o 0 j N N 01 f2 Ild 0 0 _ O m 0 0 a o 0 0 in o 0 0 0 xa o 0 w � a a_ _ �o rn� O O O O N O O O O O O O O 0 o o O 0 x p 0 0 Z o 0 0 0 0 0 0 p o 0 � 2T 0 0 0 0 m O m m >> � o 4i5 0 m z 0 O n N C R N N CL C O Z C a O O 0 J N m 00 I 0 o_ 0 N N 19 O N O 73 W W m U O 0 O LU W W m U N E E D U) C 0 O U (n 0 O U L 0 O (n CD N C Q 0 O J N O O O O O ,O 1 0 N Z � o i i N Z U I I oo loo I m �_ . m Im df d)� N O U d o00 loon O I IpN 1 lo N IN U m m •f 1 N O O 0 U Oo IOo O NO INO m Z O U m Im N O U op b mo vlo F m I 11 m - i m N O U 1 I w 1 lom d om ry b Nq N mo ON ION 00 100 aF I IN 1 oo ioo N Z IN -h N dl d) N �N �2 OD 100 Op IDp WLL b N IN -h d N ' 1 N m� 1 1 O 10 IN 1 I LL LL I O 10 ION O 10 IOp I -h a� o to loo 'ON O N ON 00 100 ar oo ioo N IN -h �p N 'N '0N df2 Xa ON OD XLL Op O IOp O �O 3 N �o _F _F I ma ' LL I I ' I -h LL a O �O Q O 0 N O 10 O 10 d, O � 1 -h p ip ipN 0 pN 0 a� N �N O 00 OD 100 U 1 IN yo Imo 1 O 10 ION O,n da 0 0 1p 1000 00 loo Z DO IDO 1 O W � 110 1IN N 0 I 0 O1 a O 10 1 1 O 10 LL 1 1 ]ZE I 10 N O co 7 N O O O O O o i i N Z I I dl d � I IpN 1 lo ON o U S 1 Ipo O Oo lI 7 m � 1I- -i 'i dl N O U O l 0 1 oo to lom Io Imo d om op o Ip lu?o mo vlo F I 11 m - i m N O U 1 I w 1 lom d om 1 Imo mo mb I IN 1 N m Z L. N O b m 1 1 O 10 IN d N_ N A O 10 ION O 10 IOp O,n Op a� o to loo 00 N fV NN NN f O 10 10 O 10 ION 10 IOp O ON Xa O O I IO Op O W 10 IN N _F _F dN I I LL a I I 1 1 dl d, O � p ip ipN 0 pN 0 a� p Ip loo 00 1 IN N O 10 ION O,n da 0 1p 1000 000 x O I IO O W � 110 1IN N >0 1 1 O1 a 1 1 LL 1 1 _F _F I 10 N O 1 10 O O (n OO _F _F 0 I I w I lom 1 Imo d om mo 1 Iv a � I ION ON Z I loo 1 loo 00 00 1 1- 0 d I v I d om I to h n K mo 1� INo O O to Iv 1 1 T N m m m dam-' d 6 � c E u u m Uo x o a �U oa 00 I N E E D U) x O U (n R O U L 0 O (n CV N m C Q to O J N +' f0 22 d N O •O �N O O O N O O O •O �O O U o •o �0 0 O 1 I 1 I � I I 1 I b w � U I IpN 1 loo ON 00 1 loo 00 T I m m 3 - 1 0 to I d) N O w U oo to lom o to Imo om mo op Ip Iu?o vlo F I II m 'i m N O U 1 w 1 om d om b 1 Imo mo m I IN 1 m N m Z ... .L .... L.... N O U b m ; I d N A O 10 ION O 10 IOp Oh Op 00 a� o to loo i N fV i -F -F NN NN f 0 10 0 O 10 ION O 10 IOp O ON Op Xa IL I IO O 10 IN O N _F .F rn� 1 I ii a I I 1 b w O � p ip ipN O pN O a� p Ip loo 00 1 IN N O 10 ION Oh X(L � 1� IDO O 00 IL � 110 IIN N >0 ora 1 I 1 LL 1 I _F .F N I 0 O O 1 to O (n _F .F 0 I d I lom 1 Imo d om mo 1 Iv a Z I I w 1 loo d 00 1 loo 00 d Iv d om I�2 o h n 0 K mo 1� INo O io m 01 m • dam-' 6 Tei .c E" a �U •`oa � `m N Q • O 1"1 O N E J Z 00 N n LD O LD N m a C N E N O D- E E N U) 0 M O O N O 73 W W_ m U O 0 cO G LU LU m U O L O m Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station Appendix IV Appendix IV. Biological Technical Report Prepared by Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc. dated June 14, 2017 BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT FOR SANTA CLARITA VALLEY SHERRIFF STATION LOCATED IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared For: Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. 300 East Esplanade Drive, Suite 1660 Oxnard, California 93036 Contact: Susan Tebo Phone: (805) 288-5354 Prepared By: Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc. 29 Orchard Lake Forest, California 92630 Phone: (949) 837-0404, ext. 22 Fax: (949) 837-5834 Report Preparer: Zack West June 14, 2017 I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page # 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................1 1.1 Background and Scope of Work........................................................................1 1.2 Project Location.................................................................................................1 1.3 Project Description.............................................................................................2 1.4 Existing Conditions............................................................................................4 2.0 METHODOLOGY................................................................................................4 2.1 Summary of Surveys..........................................................................................5 2.2 Botanical Resources...........................................................................................6 2.3 Wildlife Resources.............................................................................................8 2.4 Jurisdictional Delineation................................................................................10 3.0 REGULATORY SETTING................................................................................11 5.1 3.1 State and/or Federally Listed Plants and Animals...........................................11 5.2 3.2 California Environmental Quality Act.............................................................13 5.3 3.3 Jurisdictional Waters........................................................................................15 5.4 4.0 RESULTS.... ......20 4.1 Existing Conditions..........................................................................................21 4.2 Vegetation........................................................................................................21 4.3 Wildlife............................................................................................................23 4.4 Special -Status Vegetation Communities (Habitats).........................................23 4.5 Special -Status Plants........................................................................................23 4.6 Special -Status Animals....................................................................................29 4.7 Raptor Use.......................................................................................................39 4.8 Nesting Birds...................................................................................................39 4.9 Soils..................................................................................................................39 4.10 Jurisdictional Delineation................................................................................39 5.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS..........................................................................................40 5.1 California Environmental Quality Act.............................................................41 5.2 Impacts to Native Vegetation...........................................................................42 5.3 Impacts to Special -Status Plants......................................................................43 5.4 Impacts to Coastal California Gnatcatcher......................................................43 11 5.5 Impacts to Burrowing Owl .................................. 5.6 Impacts to Other Special -Status Animals ........... 5.7 Impacts to Critical Habitat .................................. 5.8 Impacts to Nesting Birds ..................................... 5.9 Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters ......................... 5.10 Indirect Impacts to Biological Resources ........... 5.11 Cumulative Impacts to Biological Resources ..... 6.0 MITIGATION/AVOIDANCE MEASURES.....................................................46 Exhibit 2 6.1 Vegetation Communities.................................................................................46 Soils Map 6.2 Special -Status Plants........................................................................................46 Exhibit 5 6.3 Burrowing Owl................................................................................................47 Corps Jurisdictional Delineation Map 6.4 Nesting Birds...................................................................................................47 Exhibit 7 6.5 Jurisdictional Waters........................................................................................47 6.6 Indirect Impacts to Biological Resources........................................................48 7.0 REFERENCES.....................................................................................................49 8.0 CERTIFICATION...............................................................................................51 TABLES Table 2-1. Summary of Biological Surveys for the Project Site .............................. Table 2-2. Summary of Burrowing Owl Surveys .................................................... Table 2-3. Summary of Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys ............................ Table 3-1. CNPS Ranks 1, 2, 3, and 4 and Threat Code Extensions ........................ Table 4-1. Summary of Vegetation/Land Use Types for the Project Site ................ Table 4-2. Special -Status Plants Evaluated for the Project Site ............................... Table 4-3. Special -Status Wildlife Evaluated for the Project Site ............................ Table 4-4. Summary of Vegetation/Land Use Impacts ............................................ Table 5-1. Proposed Impacts to Corps, Regional Board, and CDFW Jurisdiction... EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 Regional Map Exhibit 2 Vicinity Map Exhibit 3 Soils Map Exhibit 4 Vegetation Map Exhibit 5 Burrowing Owl Survey Map Exhibit 6A Corps Jurisdictional Delineation Map Exhibit 6B CDFW Jurisdictional Delineation Map Exhibit 7 Site Photographs iii APPENDICES Appendix A Floral Compendium Appendix B Faunal Compendium Appendix C Resumes of Report Contributors 1V 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background and Scope of Work This document provides the results of general biological surveys and focused biological surveys for the approximately 32.1 -acre Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff Station (the Project) located in the City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California (Exhibit 1). This report identifies and evaluates impacts to biological resources associated with the proposed Project in the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and State and Federal regulations such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Clean Water Act (CWA), and the California Fish and Game Code. The scope of this report includes a discussion of existing conditions for the approximately 32.1 - acre Project site, all methods employed regarding the general biological surveys and focused biological surveys, the documentation of botanical and wildlife resources identified (including special -status species), and an analysis of impacts to biological resources. Methods of the study include a review of relevant literature, field surveys, and a Geographical Information System (GIS) -based analysis of vegetation communities. As appropriate, this report is consistent with accepted scientific and technical standards and survey guideline requirements issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), and other applicable agencies/organizations. The field study focused on a number of primary objectives that would comply with CEQA requirements, including (1) general reconnaissance survey and vegetation mapping; (2) general biological surveys; (3) habitat assessments for special -status plant species; (4) habitat assessments for special -status wildlife species; and (5) focused surveys for those species potentially present in a constraining role. Observations of all plant and wildlife species were recorded during the general biological surveys and are included as Appendix A: Floral Compendium and Appendix B: Faunal Compendium. For this report, the term Study area encompasses the lands studied to provide the biological resources context for analysis of potential impacts to such resources by the proposed Project. The project footprint is split into two types: either temporary or permanent. The permanent impacts occur from the permanent development of the lands (e.g. sheriff station, streets, graded slopes) while temporary impacts occur on lands directly impacted during construction but restored to original condition post -construction. 1.2 Prosect Location The Project site comprises approximately 32.1 acres in the City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California [Exhibit 1 — Regional Map] and is located within an unsectioned portion of Township 4 North, Range 16 West, of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5" quadrangle map Newhall, California (dated 1952 and photorevised in 1988) [Exhibit 2— Vicinity Map]. The Project site is bordered by commercial and industrial development to the north and east and undeveloped land to the west and south. 1.3 Proiect Description Setting The City of Santa Clarita, is proposing to construct a new Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff Station at 26201 Golden Valley Road (the temporary location of Los Angeles County Fire Station #104) and its offsite improvements within the right of way of Golden Valley Road between Centre Pointe Parkway and Robert C. Lee Drive. In addition to the fire station, the site was previously occupied by a seasonal temporary homeless shelter from 2008 to 2010. The site is situated on approximately 7.64 acres that was part of the mass grading done for Golden Valley Road between September 2001 and March 2002. The project site is identified by the Los Angeles County Assessor as 2836-012-905 and 2836-016-909. Lands directly adjacent to the south and west are vacant and the land directly north contains a modular office and accessory structures. Land to the east of Golden Valley Road contains 11.5 acres of industrial facilities. History The project area was developed in 2000-2002 as part of the Golden Valley Road project. This 2.4 mile section of Golden Valley was constructed between Sierra Highway and Soledad Canyon Road and required the movement of 20 million cubic yards of soil. The construction filled a portion of Oro Fino Canyon as well as a number of unnamed drainages under authorizations from California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board). All exposed slopes were seeded with a coastal sage scrub seed mix. Proposed Project The proposed project will consist of a new approximately 45,000 -square foot main building with a Type 1 Holding Facility; a 4,000 -square foot vehicle maintenance building, a 4,000 -square foot buildable zone within the parking lot may be used for future office and or storage, fueling station, car wash area, parking lot, heliport, trash enclosure, outdoor lockers, 180 -foot tall communications tower, emergency generator, road improvements, landscaping, perimeter and retaining walls, and off-site utility improvements. These utility improvements include the extension of a Santa Clarita Water Division pipeline from Robert C. Lee Parkway to the project area through the existing Golden Valley Road right of way. Site operations outside the main building are anticipated to include: helicopter landing and take- off, vehicle maintenance and repair, enclosed mobile qualifying range, emergency generator, PA system, siren testing, and temporary storage. These operations can be expected 24 -hours a day with helicopter flights averaging two per day. The Sheriff's Station is anticipated to be staffed at existing levels and allow for additional personnel in the future as deemed necessary. The 4,000 -square foot buildable zone will accommodate up to two stories and 8,000 -square feet of future office and or storage. The site will include three access points to Golden Valley Road. Although the site has already been graded, additional grading for the site will be necessary to form building pads and to accommodate site drainage. 2 Anticipated Offsite grading may include: • North property line area — the northwest corner may be graded to accommodate helicopter operations adjacent to the heliport. The northeast area will include retaining walls to expand the project area. • West property line area— grading will include a 15 -foot buffer area outside of the property line. The grading in this area will also remove a small, localized landslide. • South property line area — the existing offsite 12" -drain stand pipe at the base of the southern slope will need to be raised so it functions more reliably and ensures adequate drainage. In addition, the area around the stand pipe needs to be stabilized and kept clear of vegetation so the inlet is not obstructed, it will receive regular maintenance. Offsite improvements are anticipated to include: • Southbound Golden Valley Road — from Centre Point Parkway to 500 feet south of the project site, within project limits, and the Golden Valley Road right-of-way. Improvements include curb, gutter, sidewalk, raised median modifications, streetlights, driveways, and possibly an asphalt overlay. In addition, the existing 36" stormdrain line will be extend to just south of the project area to capture the existing roadway surface drainage. • The southbound Golden Valley Road will be fully paved within the existing right of way and striped to accommodate the proposed turn movements at the three points of access to the station, from 800 feet south of Centre Point Parkway to approximately 300 feet south of the Sheriff's Station. A length of approximately 1,750 feet. The 300 -foot area south of the Sheriff's Station will include a bus stop. • Northbound Golden Valley Road — from Robert C. Lee Parkway to Centre Point Parkway. A 16" water line will be extended along Golden Valley Road from its current terminus, at Robert C. Lee Parkway to a pressure reducing station, and then connect to an existing 16" water line in the project area. All construction will be completed within the existing right of way. The pressure reducing station will be located across from the Sheriff's Station in the area east of Golden Valley Road at the top of the roadway slope. Curb, gutter, streetlights, sidewalk improvements, trail signage, and an asphalt overlay may be constructed concurrently or at a later date. From the proposed new water main in Golden Valley Road, fire, domestic, and irrigation laterals will be provided to the site. One onsite, private hydrant is anticipated to be provided, as well as three public hydrants along the project frontage. Facilities for cable, natural gas, and electrical service to the site already exist in the immediate area. Telephone, data, and other communications lines will require extension from Center Pointe Parkway or Robert C. Lee Parkway and across Golden Valley Road in front of the Sheriff's Station. A 10 -inch sewer line and 36 -inch storm drain line exists adjacent to the site in Golden Valley Road. The existing storm drain terminates approximately at the northerly property line, and is anticipated to be extended southward along the site frontage for purposes of capturing roadway and site -related drainage. The sewer (8") and storm drain (36") lines have already been stubbed out to the site from these main lines in the Golden Valley Road. 3 The project is anticipated to be operational in late 2020. The project is anticipated to be commensurate with a LEED (Leadership Energy Environmental Design) Silver level certification or an equivalent level of green building technologies. Approvals necessary prior to project construction are anticipated to include: City Council approval for this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and applicable authorizations from the agencies with possible jurisdiction over the drain inlet area to the south. Once these approvals have been obtained, City of Santa Clarita Building and Safety and Public Works approvals will be required for onsite and offsite construction documents. Caltrans approval will be necessary for construction of the heliport, as well as for helicopter operations. 1.4 Existing Conditions The Project site consists of a mixture of vacant, undeveloped, and developed land supporting a temporary Los Angeles County Fire Department station, a graded pad north of the fire station, the existing Golden Valley Road alignment and associated slopes. In addition, vacant and undeveloped lands are located adjacent to the fire station, graded pad, and Golden Valley Road. Elevations within the study area range from approximately 1,340 feet above mean sea level (amsl) to approximately 1,760 feet amsl. Topography with the study area ranges from steep hills along the western boundary, to the gently sloping Golden Valley Road. Soils within the study area are mapped as Ojai Loam, Saugus Loam, and Yolo Loam by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) [Exhibit 3 — Soils Map]. Vegetation communities observed within the study area include chamise chaparral, a chamise chaparral/coastal sage scrub ecotone, coastal sage scrub, elderberry scrub, mule fat scrub, non- native grassland, and disturbed/developed areas. The Project site provides generally moderate to low value for locally common plant and wildlife species. Wildlife species observed consist of common species expected where an urban landscape interfaces with wildlands, primarily birds. 2.0 METHODOLOGY To adequately identify biological resources in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, Glenn Lukos Associates (GLA) assembled biological data consisting of the following main components: Delineation of aquatic resources (including wetlands and riparian habitat) subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Board, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW); Performance of vegetation mapping for the Project site; and Performance of habitat assessments, and site-specific biological surveys (focused surveys), to evaluate the presence/absence of special -status species in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. El The focus of the biological surveys was determined through initial site reconnaissance, a review of the CNDDB [CDFW 20171, CNPS 8a' edition online inventory (CNPS 2017), Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil data, other pertinent literature, and knowledge of the region. Site-specific general surveys within the Project site were conducted on foot in the proposed development areas for each target plant or animal species identified as having potential to occur in a constraining role. Vegetation was mapped directly onto a 200 -scale (1"=200') aerial photograph following Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland 1986). All flora and fauna identified on site during vegetation mapping was included in a floral and faunal compendia prepared for the Project (Appendices A and B). Vegetation communities not listed under the above-mentioned vegetation classification systems were named based on the dominant plant species present. All vegetation mapping was imported into ArcGIS for acreage analysis. 2.1 Summary of Surveys GLA conducted biological studies in order to identify and analyze actual or potential impacts to biological resources associated with development of the Project site. Observations of all plant and wildlife species were recorded during each of the above-mentioned survey efforts [Appendix A: Floral Compendium and Appendix B: Faunal Compendium]. The studies conducted include the following: • Performance of vegetation mapping; • Performance of site-specific habitat assessments to evaluate the potential presence/absence of special -status species (or potentially suitable habitat) to the satisfaction of CEQA and federal and state regulations; • Focused surveys for rare plants, burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), and coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica); and • Delineation/evaluation of aquatic resources (including wetlands and riparian habitat) potentially subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board), and CDFW. Table 2-1 provides a summary list of survey dates, survey types and personnel. Table 2-1. Summary of Biological Surveys for the Project Site. Survey Type Survey Dates Biologists General Biological Survey 12/22/16, 1/13/17 ZW Jurisdictional Delineation 1/13/17 ZW Focused Rare Plant Surveys 3/29/17, 4/26/17 DM, ZW Focused Burrowing Owl Surveys 3/15/17, 4/19/17, 5/17/17 JA, ZW Survey Type Survey Dates Biologists Focused Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys 3/15/17, 3/29/17, 4/5/17, 4/12/17, 4/19/17, 4/26/17 JA, DM JA = Jeff Ahrens DM = David Moskovitz ZW = Zack West Individual plants and wildlife species are evaluated in this report based on their "special -status. " For the purpose of this report, plants were considered "special -status" based on one or more of the following criteria: • Listing through the Federal and/or State Endangered Species Act (ESA); • Occurrence in the CNPS Rare Plant Inventory (Rank IA/113, 2A/213, 3, or 4); and/or • Occurrence in the CNDDB inventory. Wildlife species were considered "special -status" based on one or more of the following criteria: • Listing through the Federal and/or State ESA; and • Designation by the State as a Species of Special Concern (SSC) or California Fully Protected (CFP) species. Vegetation communities and habitats were considered of "special status" based on their occurrence in the CNDDB inventory. 2.2 Botanical Resources A site-specific survey program was designed to accurately document the botanical resources within the Project site, and consisted of five components: (1) a literature search; (2) preparation of a list of target special -status plant species and sensitive vegetation communities that could occur within the Project site; (3) general field reconnaissance surveys; (4) vegetation mapping according to Holland (1986); and (5) habitat assessments and focused surveys for special -status plants. 2.2.1 Literature Search Prior to conducting fieldwork, pertinent literature on the flora of the region was examined. A thorough archival review was conducted using available literature and other historical records. These resources included the following: CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants for the USGS 7.5' quadrangles: Newhall, Green Valley, Mint Canyon, Oat Valley, San Fernando, Simi Valley East, Val Verde, Warm Springs Mountain, and Whitaker Peak, California (online edition, v8-02) (CNPS 2017); and 6 CNDDB for the USGS 7.5' quadrangles: Newhall, Green Valley, Mint Canyon, Oat Valley, San Fernando, Simi Valley East, Val Verde, Warm Springs Mountain, and Whitaker Peak, California (CDFW 2017). 2.2.2 Vegetation Mapping Vegetation communities within the Project site were mapped according to Holland (1986). Where necessary, deviations were made when areas did not fit into exact habitat descriptions. These vegetation communities were named based on the dominant plant species present. Plant communities were mapped in the field directly onto a 200 -scale (1"=200') aerial photograph. A vegetation map is included as Exhibit 4. Representative site photographs are included as Exhibit 7. 2.2.3 Special -Status Plant Species and Habitats Evaluated for the Project Site A literature search was conducted to obtain a list of special status plants with the potential to occur within the Project site. The CNDDB was initially consulted to determine well-known occurrences of plants and habitats of special concern in the region. Other sources used to develop a list of target species for the survey program included the CNPS online inventory (2017). Based on this information, vegetation profiles and a list of target sensitive plant species and habitats that could occur within the Project site were developed and incorporated into a mapping and survey program to achieve the following goals: (1) characterize the vegetation associations and land use; (2) prepare a detailed floristic compendium (Appendix A); (3) identify the potential for any special status plants that may occur within the Project site; and (4) prepare a map showing the distribution of any sensitive botanical resources associated with the Project site, if applicable. 2.2.5 Botanical Surveys GLA biologists David Moskovitz and Zack West visited the site on March 29, April 26, and May 4, 2017, to conduct general and focused plant surveys. Surveys were conducted in accordance with accepted botanical survey guidelines (CDFG 2009, CNPS 2001, USFWS 2000). As applicable, surveys were conducted at appropriate times based on precipitation and flowering periods. An aerial photograph, a soil map, and/or a topographic map were used to determine the community types and other physical features that may support sensitive and uncommon taxa or communities within the Project site. Surveys were conducted by following meandering transects within target areas of suitable habitat. All plant species encountered during the field surveys were identified and recorded following the above -referenced guidelines adopted by CNPS (2010) and CDFW by Nelson (1984). A complete list of the plant species observed is provided in Appendix A. Scientific nomenclature and common names used in this report follow Baldwin et al (2012), Munz (1974), Roberts et al (2004), and Roberts (2008). 7 2.3 Wildlife Resources Wildlife species were evaluated and detected during field surveys by sight, call, tracks, and scat. Site reconnaissance was conducted in such a manner as to allow inspection of the entire Project site by direct observation, including the use of binoculars. Observations of physical evidence and direct sightings of wildlife were recorded in field notes during the visit. A complete list of wildlife species observed within the Project site is provided in Appendix B. Scientific nomenclature and common names for vertebrate species referred to in this report follow the Complete List of Amphibian, Reptile, Bird, and Mammal Species in California (CDFG 2008), Standard Common and Scientific Names for North American Amphibians, Turtles, Reptiles, and Crocodilians 6e Edition, Collins and Taggert (2009) for amphibians and reptiles, and the American Ornithologists' Union Checklist 7ffi Edition (1998) and its supplements through 2016 for birds. The methodology (including any applicable survey protocols) utilized to conduct general surveys, habitat assessments, and/or focused surveys for special -status animals are included below. 2.3.1 General Surveys Birds During the general biological and reconnaissance survey within the Project site, birds were detected incidentally by direct observation and/or by vocalizations, with identifications recorded in field notes. Mammals During the general biological and reconnaissance survey within the Project site, mammals were identified and detected incidentally by direct observations and/or by the presence of diagnostic sign (e.g. tracks, burrows, scat). Reptiles and Amphibians During the general biological and reconnaissance survey within the Project site, reptiles and amphibians were identified incidentally during surveys. Habitats were examined for diagnostic reptile sign, which include shed skins, scat, tracks, snake prints, and lizard tail drag marks. All reptiles and amphibian species observed, as well as diagnostic sign, were recorded in field notes. 2.3.2 Special -Status Animal Species Reviewed A literature search was conducted in order to obtain a list of special -status wildlife species with the potential to occur within the Project site. Species were evaluated based on two factors: 1) species identified by the CNDDB as occurring (either currently or historically) on or in the vicinity of the Project site, and 2) any other special -status animals that are known to occur within the vicinity of the Project site, or for which potentially suitable habitat occurs on the Project site. 2.3.3 Habitat Assessment for Special Status Animal Species GLA biologist Zack West conducted habitat assessments for special -status animal species on December 22, 2016 and January 13, 2017. An aerial photograph, soil map and/or topographic map were used to determine the community types and other physical features that may support special -status and uncommon taxa within the Project site. 2.3.4 Focused Surveys for Special -Status Animals Species Burrowing Owl GLA biologists Jeff Ahrens and Zack West conducted focused surveys for the burrowing owl in all suitable habitat areas within the Project site. Surveys were conducted in accordance with survey guidelines described in the 2012 CDFG Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. The guidelines stipulate that four focused survey visits should be conducted between February 15 and July 15, with the first visit occurring between February 15 and April 15. The remaining three visits should be conducted three weeks apart from each other, with at least one visit occurring between June 15 and July 15. The first three focused survey visits were conducted on March 15, April 19, and May 17, 2017. The last visit will be performed in June with results of the focused survey provided in a Memorandum to this report. As recommended by the survey guidelines, the survey visits were conducted between morning civil twilight and 10:00 AM. Weather conditions during the surveys were conducive to a high level of bird activity. Surveys were conducted by walking meandering transects throughout areas of suitable habitat. Exhibit 5 identifies the burrowing owl survey areas at the Project site. Transects were spaced between 22 feet (7 m) and 65 feet (20 m) apart, adjusting for vegetation height and density, in order to provide adequate visual coverage of the survey areas. At the start of each transect, and at least every 320 feet (100 m) along transects, the survey area was scanned for burrowing owls using binoculars. All suitable burrows were inspected for diagnostic owl sign (e.g., pellets, prey remains, whitewash, feathers, bones, and/or decoration) in order to identify potentially occupied burrows. Table 2-2 summarizes the burrowing owl survey visits. The results of the burrowing owl surveys are documented in Section 4.0 of this report. The final survey visit is scheduled to be completed the week of June 19, 2017. Table 2-2. Summary of Burrowing Owl Surveys Survey Date Biologist Start/End Time Start/End Temperature Start/End Wind Speed (mph) Cloud Cover (%) 3/15/17 JA 07:15-11:05 am 58-73° F 2-5 15-20 4/19/17 JA 06:35-10:40 am 51-70° F 1-3 0 5/17/17 ZW 5:35-6:55 pm 74-71° F 2-6 0 TBC JA = Jeff Ahrens ZW = Zack West TBC = To Be Completed During June 2017 9 Coastal California Gnatcatcher GLA biologists Jeff Ahrens (permit TE 052159-5) and David Moskovitz (permit TE -084606-3) conducted focused surveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher in all suitable habitat areas within the Project site. Surveys were conducted in accordance with the 1997 USFWS survey guidelines, which during the breeding season (March 15 through June 30) require a minimum of six surveys (per survey polygon) with at least one week separating each survey visit. The survey guidelines limit individual biologists to surveying a maximum of 80 acres per day. The Project site contains approximately 6.17 acres of suitable habitat for the gnatcatcher. Therefore, the survey area was one single survey polygon. Focused surveys were conducted on March 15 and 29, 2016, and April 5, 12, 19, and 26, 2017. Pursuant to the survey guidelines, the surveys were conducted between sunrise and 12:00 p.m. Weather conditions during the surveys were conducive to a high level of bird activity. Table 2-3 summarizes the gnatcatcher survey visits. The results of the gnatcatcher surveys are documented in Section 4.0 of this report. Table 2-3. Summary of Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys Survey Date Biologist Start/End Time Start/End Temperature Start/End Wind Speed (mph) Cloud Cover (%) 3/15/17 JA 07:15-11:05 am 58-73° F 2-5 15-20 3/29/17 DM 07:10-12:15 am 60-80° F 2-4 0 4/5/17 JA 07:10-11:10 am 52-68° F 1-3 75-100 4/12/17 JA 07:00-10:00 am 48-67° F 1-3 0 4/19/17 JA 06:35-10:40 am 51-70° F 1-3 0 4/26/17 DM 07:00-11:30 am 58-74° F 5-10 25-50 JA = Jeff Ahrens DM = David Moskovitz 2.4 Jurisdictional Delineation A jurisdictional delineation was conducted for the Project site on January 13, 2017. Prior to beginning the field delineation a 200 -scale color aerial photograph and the previously cited USGS topographic maps were examined to determine the locations of potential areas of Corps/CDFW jurisdiction. Suspected jurisdictional areas were field checked for the presence of definable channels and/or wetland vegetation, soils and hydrology. Potential wetland habitats at the subject site were evaluated using the methodology set forth in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual' (Wetland Manual) and the 2008 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Supplement (Arid West Supplement). The presence of an Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) was ' Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. z U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Supplement (Version 2.0). Ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR -06- 16. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. 10 determined using the 2008 Field Guide to Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States' in conjunction with the Updated Datasheet for the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States.' While in the field the limits of the OHWM, wetlands, and CDFW jurisdiction were recorded using GPS technology (sub -meter accuracy Global Positioning Satellite unit [2017 Trimble Geo 7X handheld]) and on copies of the aerial photography. Other data were recorded onto the appropriate datasheets. The results of the Jurisdictional Delineation are depicted on Exhibits 6A and 6B. 3.0 REGULATORY SETTING The proposed Project is subject to state and federal regulations associated with a number of regulatory programs. These programs often overlap and were developed to protect natural resources, including: state- and federally listed plants and animals; aquatic resources including rivers and creeks, ephemeral streambeds, wetlands, and areas of riparian habitat; other special - status species which are not listed as threatened or endangered by the state or federal governments; and other special -status vegetation communities. 3.1 State and/or Federally Listed Plants or Animals 3.1.1 State of California Endangered Species Act California's Endangered Species Act (CESA) defines an endangered species as "a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant which is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range due to one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, or disease." The State defines a threatened species as "a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that, although not presently threatened with extinction, is likely to become an Endangered species in the foreseeable future in the absence of the special protection and management efforts required by this chapter. Any animal determined by the commission as rare on or before January 1, 1985 is a threatened species." Candidate species are defined as "a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that the commission has formally noticed as being under review by the department for addition to either the list of endangered species or the list of threatened species, or a species for which the commission has published a notice of proposed regulation to add the species to either list." Candidate species may be afforded temporary protection as though they were already listed as threatened or endangered at the discretion of the Fish and Game Commission. Unlike the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), CESA does not list invertebrate species. s Lichvar, R. W., and S. M. McColley. 2008. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States. ERDC/CRREL TR -08-12. Hanover, NH: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. (http://www.errel.usace.army.mil/library/technicalreports/ERDC-CRREL-TR-08-12.pdf). 4 Curtis, Katherine E. and Robert Lichevar. 2010. Updated Datasheet for the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States. ERDC/CRREL TN -10-1. Hanover, NH: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. 11 Article 3, Sections 2080 through 2085, of the CESA addresses the taking of threatened, endangered, or candidate species by stating "No person shall import into this state, export out of this state, or take, possess, purchase, or sell within this state, any species, or any part or product thereof, that the commission determines to be an endangered species or a threatened species, or attempt any of those acts, except as otherwise provided." Under the CESA, "take" is defined as "hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill." Exceptions authorized by the state to allow "take" require permits or memoranda of understanding and can be authorized for endangered species, threatened species, or candidate species for scientific, educational, or management purposes and for take incidental to otherwise lawful activities. Sections 1901 and 1913 of the California Fish and Game Code provide that notification is required prior to disturbance. 3.1.2 Federal Endangered Species Act The FESA of 1973 defines an endangered species as "any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range." A threatened species is defined as "any species that is likely to become an Endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range." Under provisions of Section 9(a)(1)(B) of the FESA it is unlawful to "take" any listed species. "Take" is defined in Section 3(18) of FESA: "...harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct." Further, the USFWS, through regulation, has interpreted the terms "harm" and "harass" to include certain types of habitat modification that result in injury to, or death of species as forms of "take." These interpretations, however, are generally considered and applied on a case-by-case basis and often vary from species to species. In a case where a property owner seeks permission from a Federal agency for an action that could affect a federally listed plant and animal species, the property owner and agency are required to consult with USFWS. Section 9(a)(2)(b) of the FESA addresses the protections afforded to listed plants. 3.1.3 State and Federal Take Authorizations for Listed Species Federal or state authorizations of impacts to or incidental take of a listed species by a private individual or other private entity would be granted in one of the following ways: • Section 7 of the FESA stipulates that any federal action that may affect a species listed as threatened or endangered requires a formal consultation with USFWS to ensure that the action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species or result in destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2). • In 1982, the FESA was amended to give private landowners the ability to develop Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) pursuant to Section 10(a) of the FESA. Upon development of an HCP, the USFWS can issue incidental take permits for listed species where the HCP specifies at minimum, the following: (1) the level of impact that will result from the taking, (2) steps that will minimize and mitigate the impacts, (3) funding necessary to implement the plan, (4) alternative actions to the taking considered by the applicant and the reasons why such alternatives were not chosen, and (5) such other measures that the Secretary of the Interior may require as being necessary or appropriate for the plan. 12 • Sections 2090-2097 of the CESA require that the state lead agency consult with CDFW on projects with potential impacts on state -listed species. These provisions also require CDFW to coordinate consultations with USFWS for actions involving federally listed as well as state -listed species. In certain circumstances, Section 2080.1 of the California Fish and Game Code allows CDFW to adopt the federal incidental take statement or the 10(a) permit as its own based on its findings that the federal permit adequately protects the species under state law. 3.2 California Environmental Quality Act 3.2.1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 CEQA requires evaluation of a project's impacts on biological resources and provides guidelines and thresholds for use by lead agencies for evaluating the significance of proposed impacts. Sections 5.1.1 and 5.2.2 below set forth these thresholds and guidelines. Furthermore, pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15380, CEQA provides protection for non -listed species that could potentially meet the criteria for state listing. For plants, CDFW recognizes that plants on Lists IA, 113, or 2 of the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants in California may meet the criteria for listing and should be considered under CEQA. CDFW also recommends protection of plants, which are regionally important, such as locally rare species, disjunct populations of more common plants, or plants on the CNPS Lists 3 or 4. 3.2.2 Non -Listed Special -Status Plants, Wildlife and Vegetation Communities Evaluated Under CEQA Federally Designated Special -Status Species Within recent years, the USFWS instituted changes in the listing status of candidate species. Former Cl (candidate) species are now referred to simply as candidate species and represent the only candidates for listing. Former C2 species (for which the USFWS had insufficient evidence to warrant listing) and C3 species (either extinct, no longer a valid taxon or more abundant than was formerly believed) are no longer considered as candidate species. Therefore, these species are no longer maintained in list form by the USFWS, nor are they formally protected. This term is employed in this document, but carries no official protections. All references to federally protected species in this report (whether listed, proposed for listing, or candidate) include the most current published status or candidate category to which each species has been assigned by USFWS. For this report the following acronyms are used for federal special -status species: • FE Federally listed as Endangered • FT Federally listed as Threatened • FPE Federally proposed for listing as Endangered • FPT Federally proposed for listing as Threatened 13 State -Designated Special -Status Species Some mammals and birds are protected by the state as Fully Protected (SFP) Mammals or Fully Protected Birds, as described in the California Fish and Game Code, Sections 4700 and 3511, respectively. California SSC are designated as vulnerable to extinction due to declining population levels, limited ranges, and/or continuing threats. This list is primarily a working document for the CDFW's CNDDB project. Informally listed taxa are not protected, but warrant consideration in the preparation of biotic assessments. For some species, the CNDDB is only concerned with specific portions of the life history, such as roosts, rookeries, or nest sites. For this report the following acronyms are used for State special -status species: • SE State -listed as Endangered • ST State -listed as Threatened • SR State -listed as Rare • SCE State Candidate for listing as Endangered • SCT State Candidate for listing as Threatened • SFP State Fully Protected • SP State Protected • SSC State Species of Special Concern California Native Plant Society The CNPS is a private plant conservation organization dedicated to the monitoring and protection of sensitive species in California. The CNPS's Eighth Edition of the California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California separates plants of interest into five ranks. CNPS has compiled an inventory comprised of the information focusing on geographic distribution and qualitative characterization of Rare, Threatened, or Endangered vascular plant species of California. The list serves as the candidate list for listing as threatened and endangered by CDFW. CNPS has developed five categories of rarity that are summarized in Table 3-1. Table 3-1. CNPS Ranks 1, 2, 3, & 4, and Threat Code Extensions CNPS Rank Comments Rank lA — Plants Presumed Thought to be extinct in California based on a lack of observation or Extirpated in California and detection for many years. Either Rare or Extinct Elsewhere Rank 1B — Plants Rare, Species, which are generally rare throughout their range that are also Threatened, or Endangered in judged to be vulnerable to other threats such as declining habitat. California and Elsewhere Rank 2A — Plants presumed Species that are presumed extinct in California but more common Extirpated in California, But outside of California Common Elsewhere Rank 2B — Plants Rare, Species that are rare in California but more common outside of Threatened or Endangered in California 14 CNPS Rank Comments California, But More Common Elsewhere Rank 3 — Plants About Which Species that are thought to be rare or in decline but CNPS lacks the More Information Is Needed information needed to assign to the appropriate list. In most instances, (A Review List) the extent of surveys for these species is not sufficient to allow CNPS to accurately assess whether these species should be assigned to a specific rank. In addition, many of the Rank 3 species have associated taxonomic problems such that the validity of their current taxonomy is unclear. Rank 4 — Plants of Limited Species that are currently thought to be limited in distribution or range Distribution (A Watch List) whose vulnerability or susceptibility to threat is currently low. In some cases, as noted above for Rank 3 species, CNPS lacks survey data to accurately determine status in California. Many species have been placed on Rank 4 in previous editions of the "Inventory" and have been removed as survey data has indicated that the species are more common than previously thought. CNPS recommends that species currently included on this list should be monitored to ensure that future substantial declines are minimized. Extension Comments 1 —Seriously endangered in Species with over 80% of occurrences threatened and/or have a high California degree and immediacy of threat. .2 — Fairly endangered in Species with 20-80% of occurrences threatened. California .3 — Not very endangered in Species with <20% of occurrences threatened or with no current California threats known. 3.3 Jurisdictional Waters 3.3.1 Army Corps of Engineers Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Corps regulates the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States. The term "waters of the United States" is defined in Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 328.3(a)5 as: (I) All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; (2) All interstate waters including interstate wetlands; s On October 9, 2015, the U.S. 6" District Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a nationwide stay on the Corps and EPA's definition of waters of the United States under the Clean Water Rule ("Clean Water Rule: Definition of `Waters of the United States"; Final Rule," 80 Federal Register 124 (29 June, 2015), pp. 37054-37127). As a result, the Corps' regulations that were in effect prior to the August 28, 2015 Clean Water Rule is again in effect until such a time as the Court order is satisfied, if this occurs. In addition, President Trump signed an Executive Order on February 28, 2017 that instructs the EPA and Corps to formally reconsider the Rule, which could lead to a re -write of the law or a complete repeal. 15 (3) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect foreign commerce including any such waters: (i) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or (ii) From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or (iii) Which are used or could be used for industrial purpose by industries in interstate commerce... (4) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition; (5) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a) (I)-(4) of this section; (6) The territorial seas; (7) Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (a) (I)-(6) of this section. (8) Waters of the United States do not include prior converted cropland .6 Notwithstanding the determination of an area's status as prior converted cropland by any other federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with the EPA. Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 123.11(m) which also meet the criteria of this definition) are not waters of the United States. In the absence of wetlands, the limits of Corps jurisdiction in non -tidal waters, such as intermittent streams, extend to the OHWM which is defined at 33 CFR 328.3(e) as: ...that line on the shore established by the fluctuation of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas. 1. Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, et al. Pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, federal regulatory authority extends only to activities that affect interstate commerce. In the early 1980s the Corps interpreted the interstate commerce requirement in a manner that restricted Corps jurisdiction on isolated e The term "prior converted cropland" is defined in the Corps' Regulatory Guidance Letter 90-7 (dated September 26, 1990) as "wetlands which were both manipulated (drained or otherwise physically altered to remove excess water from the land) and cropped before 23 December 1985, to the extent that they no longer exhibit important wetland values. Specifically, prior converted cropland is inundated for no more than 14 consecutive days during the growing season...." [Emphasis added.] 16 (intrastate) waters. On September 12, 1985, EPA asserted that Corps jurisdiction extended to isolated waters that are used or could be used by migratory birds or endangered species, and the definition of "waters of the United States" in Corps regulations was modified as quoted above from 33 CFR 328.3(a). On January 9, 2001, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling on Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Array Corps of Engineers, et al. (SWANCC). In this case the Court was asked whether use of an isolated, intrastate pond by migratory birds is a sufficient interstate commerce connection to bring the pond into federal jurisdiction of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The written opinion notes that the court's previous support of the Corps' expansion of jurisdiction beyond navigable waters (United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc.) was for a wetland that abutted a navigable water and that the court did not express any opinion on the question of the authority of the Corps to regulate wetlands that are not adjacent to bodies of open water. The current opinion goes on to state: In order to rule for the respondents here, we would have to hold that the jurisdiction of the Corps extends to ponds that are not adjacent to open water. We conclude that the text of the statute will not allow this. Therefore, we believe that the court's opinion goes beyond the migratory bird issue and says that no isolated, intrastate water is subject to the provisions of Section 404(a) of the Clean Water Act (regardless of any interstate commerce connection). However, the Corps and EPA have issued a joint memorandum which states that they are interpreting the ruling to address only the migratory bird issue and leaving the other interstate commerce clause nexuses intact. 2. Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States On June 5, 2007, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Corps issued joint guidance that addresses the scope of jurisdiction pursuant to the Clean Water Act in light of the Supreme Court's decision in the consolidated cases Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States ("Rapanos"). The chart below was provided in the joint EPA/Corps guidance. For project sites that include waters other than Traditional Navigable Waters (TNWs) and/or their adjacent wetlands or Relatively Permanent Waters (RPMs) tributary to TNWs and/or their adjacent wetlands as set forth in the chart below, the Corps must apply the significant nexus standard. For "isolated" waters or wetlands, the joint guidance also requires an evaluation by the Corps and EPA to determine whether other interstate commerce clause nexuses, not addressed in the SWANCC decision are associated with isolated features on project sites for which a jurisdictional determination is being sought from the Corps. The agencies will assert jurisdiction over the following waters: • Traditional navigable waters 17 Wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters Non -navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent where the tributaries typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically three months) Wetlands that directly abut such tributaries The agencies will decide jurisdiction over the following waters based on a fact -specific analysis to determine whether they have a significant nexus with a traditional navigable water: • Non -navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent • Wetlands adjacent to non -navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent • Wetlands adjacent to but that do not directly abut a relatively permanent non -navigable tributary The agencies generally will not assert jurisdiction over the following features: • Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent or short duration flow) • Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only uplands and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water The agencies will apply the significant nexus standard as follows: • A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by all wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical and biological integrity of downstream traditional navigable waters • Significant nexus includes consideration of hydrologic and ecologic factors 3. Wetland Definition Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act The term "wetlands" (a subset of "waters of the United States") is defined at 33 CFR 328.3(b) as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support ... a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." In 1987 the Corps published a manual to guide its field personnel in determining jurisdictional wetland boundaries. The methodology set forth in the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual and the Arid West Supplement generally require that, in order to be considered a wetland, the vegetation, soils, and hydrology of an area exhibit at least minimal hydric characteristics. While the manual and Supplement provide great detail in methodology and allow for varying special conditions, a wetland should normally meet each of the following three criteria: 18 • more than 50 percent of the dominant plant species at the site must be typical of wetlands (i.e., rated as facultative or wetter in the Arid West 2016 Regional Wetland Plant List? 8; • soils must exhibit physical and/or chemical characteristics indicative of permanent or periodic saturation (e.g., a gleyed color, or mottles with a matrix of low chroma indicating a relatively consistent fluctuation between aerobic and anaerobic conditions); and Whereas the 1987 Manual requires that hydrologic characteristics indicate that the ground is saturated to within 12 inches of the surface for at least five percent of the growing season during a normal rainfall year, the Arid West Supplement does not include a quantitative criteria with the exception for areas with "problematic hydrophytic vegetation", which require a minimum of 14 days of ponding to be considered a wetland. 3.3.2 Regional Water Quality Control Board Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires any applicant for a Section 404 permit to obtain certification from the State that the discharge (and the operation of the facility being constructed) will comply with the applicable effluent limitation and water quality standards. In California, this 401 certification is obtained from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Corps, by law, cannot issue a Section 404 permit until a 401 certification is issued or waived. Subsequent to the SWANCC decision, the Chief Counsel for the State Water Resources Control Board issued a memorandum that addressed the effects of the SWANCC decision on the Section 401 Water Quality Certification Program. The memorandum states: California's right and duty to evaluate certification requests under section 401 is pendant to (or dependent upon) a valid application for a section 404 permit from the Corps, or another application for a federal license or permit. Thus, if the Corps determines that the water body in question is not subject to regulation under the COE's 404 program, for instance, no application for 401 certification will be required... The SWANCC decision does not affect the Porter Cologne authorities to regulate discharges to isolated, non -navigable waters of the states.... Water Code section 13260 requires "any person discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that could affect the waters of the state to file a report of discharge (an application for waste discharge requirements). " (Water Code § 13260(a)(1) (emphasis added).) The term "waters of the state" is defined as "any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. Arid West 2016 Regional Wetland Plant List. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. 'Note the Corps also publishes a National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands (Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016- 30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016.); however, the Regional Wetland Plant List should be used for wetland delineations within the Arid West Region. 19 boundaries of the state." (Water Code § I3050(e).) The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in SWANCC has no bearing on the Porter -Cologne definition. While all waters of the United States that are within the borders of California are also waters of the state, the converse is not true waters of the United States is a subset of waters of the state. Thus, since Porter -Cologne was enacted California always had and retains authority to regulate discharges of waste into any waters of the state, regardless of whether the COE has concurrent jurisdiction under section 404. The fact that often Regional Boards opted to regulate discharges to, e.g., vernal pools, through the 401 program in lieu of or in addition to issuing waste discharge requirements (or waivers thereon does not preclude the regions from issuing WDRs (or waivers of WDRs) in the absence of a request for 401 certification.... In this memorandum, the SWRCB's Chief Counsel has made the clear assumption that fill material to be discharged into isolated waters of the United States is to be considered equivalent to "waste" and therefore subject to the authority of the Porter Cologne Water Quality Act. 3.3.3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Sections 1600-1603 of the California Fish and Game Code, the CDFW regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake, which supports fish or wildlife. CDFW defines a stream (including creeks and rivers) as "a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation." CDFW's definition of "lake" includes "natural lakes or man- made reservoirs." CDFW also defines a stream as "a body of water that flows, or has flowed, over a given course during the historic hydrologic regime, and where the width of its course can reasonably be identified by physical or biological indicators." It is important to note that the Fish and Game Code defines fish and wildlife to include: all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, invertebrates, reptiles, and related ecological communities including the habitat upon which they depend for continued viability (FGC Division 5, Chapter 1, section 45 and Division 2, Chapter 1 section 711.2(a) respectively). Furthermore, Division 2, Chapter 5, Article 6, Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code does not limit jurisdiction to areas defined by specific flow events, seasonal changes in water flow, or presence/absence of vegetation types or communities. 4.0 RESULTS This section provides the results of general biological surveys, vegetation mapping, habitat assessments and focused surveys for special -status plants and animals, and a jurisdictional delineation for Waters of the United States (including wetlands) subject to the jurisdiction of the 20 Corps and Regional Board, and streams (including riparian vegetation) and lakes subject to the jurisdiction of CDFW. 4.1 Existing Conditions The Project site consists of a mixture of undeveloped and developed land supporting a temporary Los Angeles County Fire Department station, a graded pad north of the fire station, the existing Golden Valley Road alignment and associated slopes. In addition, undeveloped lands are located adjacent to the fire station, graded pad, and Golden Valley Road. Elevations within the study area range from approximately 1,340 feet amsl to approximately 1,760 feet amsl. Topography with the study area ranges from steep hills along the western boundary, to the gently sloping Golden Valley Road. 4.2 Vegetation During vegetation mapping of the Project site, eight different vegetation communities/land cover types were identified. Table 4-1 provides a summary of vegetation communities/]and cover types and the corresponding acreage. Detailed descriptions of each vegetation community/land cover type follow the table. A Vegetation Map is attached as Exhibit 4. Photographs depicting the various vegetation communities/land cover types are attached as Exhibit 7. Table 4-1. Summary of Vegetation Communities/Land Cover Types for the Project Site Vegetation Community/Land Cover Type Study Area (acres) Permanent Impact (acres) Temporary Impact (acres) Chamise Chaparral 0.26 0.14 Chamise Chaparral/Coastal Sage Scrub 1.42 0.05 0.73 Coastal Sage Scrub 5.54 0.85 1.54 Elderberry Scrub 0.03 0.03 Mule Fat Scrub 0.08 0.01 0.09 Non-native Grassland 2.91 1.00 1.56 Ornamental 0.52 Developed/Disturbed 21.33 6.45 1.40 Total 32.10 8.35 5.48 4.2.1 Chamise Chaparral Approximately 0.26 acre of the Project site located within the central -western portion is vegetated with chamise chaparral. This vegetation community consists of remnant areas of marginally disturbed native vegetation dominated entirely with monotypic stands of chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum). 21 4.2.2 Chamise Chaparral/Coastal Sage Scrub Approximately 1.42 acres of the Project site located within the central -western portion is vegetated with an ecotone of chamise chaparral and coastal sage scrub communities. This ecotone consists of remnant areas of marginally disturbed native vegetation comprised by areas dominated entirely with monotypic stands of chamise interspersed with coastal sage scrub dominated by California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), California sage brush (Artemisia californica), black sage (Salvia mellifera), purple sage (Salvia leucophylla), and Our Lord's candle (Hesperoyucca whipplei). 4.2.3 Coastal Sage Scrub Approximately 5.54 acres of the Project site distributed throughout is vegetated with coastal sage scrub primarily consisting of areas formerly disturbed during the construction of the existing alignment of Golden Valley Road, which have been revegetated with native coastal sage scrub species, dominated by California buckwheat and California sage brush. 4.2.4 Elderberry Scrub Approximately 0.03 acre of the Project site located within the central -western portion is vegetated with elderberry scrub. This vegetation community consists of remnant areas of marginally disturbed native vegetation dominated entirely with a monotypic stand of blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea). 4.2.5 Mute Fat Scrub Approximately 0.08 acre of the Project site located within the central -western portion is vegetated with mule fat scrub. This vegetation community consists of an area formerly disturbed during the construction of the existing alignment of Golden Valley Road, which has revegetated entirely with a monotypic stand of mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia). 4.2.6 Non-native Grassland Approximately 2.91 acres of the Project site located within the central -western portion is vegetated with non-native grassland. This vegetation community consists of an area subject to past disturbance, which is dominated by grasses and forbs such as common ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), slender wild -oat (Avera fatua), white sweet -clover (Melilotus albus), short -pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), Mediterranean grass (Schismus barbatus), and annual bur -clover (Medicago polymorphs). 4.2.7 Ornamental Approximately 0.52 acre of the Project site located within the southern portion is vegetated with ornamental species. This vegetation community consists of an area consisting of ornamental plantings of non-native cultivars, which includes desert carpet acacia (Acacia redolens), creeping myoporum (Myoporum parvifolium), creeping fig (Ficus pumila), English rose (Rosa cultivar), 22 sycamore (Platanus cultivar), golden rain tree (Koelreuteria cultivar), and ornamental oaks (Quercus cultivar). 4.2.8 DevelopedlDisturbed Approximately 21.33 acres located throughout the Project site consist of developed disturbed land. These areas consist of a temporary County of Los Angeles Fire Department facility, the graded pad adjacent to the fire department, the existing Golden Valley Road alignment, and several unnamed access roads [Exhibit 4]. 4.3 Wildlife Wildlife species observed consist of common species expected where an urban landscape interfaces with wildlands, consist primarily of common avian species, and include species such as American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), common raven (Corvus coral), Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna), Bewick's wren (Thryomanes bewickii), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), Say's phoebe (Sayornis saya), white -crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), lesser gold -finch (Spinus psaltria), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and coyote (Canis latrans). 4.4 Special -Status Vegetation Communities (Habitats) The CNDDB identifies the following twelve special -status vegetation communities for the Newhall, Green Valley, Mint Canyon, Oat Valley, San Fernando, Simi Valley East, Val Verde, Warm Springs Mountain, and Whitaker Peak, California quadrangle maps: California walnut woodland, cismontane alkali marsh, mainland cherry forest, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, Southern California threespine stickleback stream, southern coast live oak riparian forest, southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, southern mixed riparian forest, southern riparian scrub, southern sycamore alder riparian forest, and southern willow scrub. The Project site does not contain any special -status vegetation types identified by the CNDDB; however, the mule fat scrub located in the central western portion of the project site is regulated as a riparian community under Section 1600 et. Seq. of the California Fish and Game Code 4.5 Special -Status Plants No special -status plants were detected at the Project site. Table 4-2 provides a list of special - status plants evaluated for the Project site through general biological surveys, habitat assessments, and focused surveys. Species were evaluated based on the following factors: 1) species identified by the CNDDB and CNPS as occurring (either currently or historically) on or in the vicinity of the Project site, and 2) any other special -status plants that are known to occur within the vicinity of the Project site, or for which potentially suitable habitat occurs within the site. 23 Table 4-2. Special -Status Plants Evaluated for the Project Site Status Federal State FE — Federally Endangered SE — State Endangered FT — Federally Threatened ST — State Threatened FPT — Federally Proposed Threatened FC — Federal Candidate CNPS Rank lA — Plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere. Rank 113 — Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. Rank 2A — Plants presumed extirpated in California, but common elsewhere. Rank 2B — Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere. Rank 3 — Plants about which more information is needed (a review list). Rank 4 — Plants of limited distribution (a watch list). CNPS Threat Code extension .1 — Seriously endangered in California (over 80% occurrences threatened) .2 — Fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened) .3 —Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known) Occurrence • Does not occur —The site does not contain habitat for the species and/or the site does not occur within the geographic range of the species. • Absent—The site contains suitable habitat for the species, but the species has been confirmed absent through focused surveys. • Not expected to occur —The species is not expected to occur onsite due to low habitat quality, however absence cannot be ruled out. • Potential to occur —The species has a potential to occur onsite based on suitable habitat, however its presence/absence could not be confirmed. • Present—The species was detected onsite incidentally or through focused surveys. Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence Kevin's barberry Federal: FE This perennial evergreen shrub Does not occur. Berberis nevinii State: SE prefers sandy or gravelly soils in CNPS: 113.1 chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and riparian scrub at elevations ranging from 70- 825 m. The blooming period is from February -June. round -leaved filaree Federal: - This annual herb prefers clay Does not occur. California macrophylla State: - soils in cismontane woodland CNPS: 113.2 and valley and foothill grassland at elevations ranging from 15- 1,200 m. The blooming period is from March -May. 24 Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence Catalina mariposa -lily Federal: - This perennial bulbiferous herb Low potential to Calochortus catalinae State: - prefers chaparral, cismontane occur. CNPS: 4.2 woodland, coastal sage scrub, and valley and foothill grassland at elevations ranging from 15- 700 m. The blooming period is from February -June. club -haired mariposa -lily Federal: - This perennial bulbiferous herb Does not occur. Calochortus clavatus var. State: - prefers chaparral, cismontane clavatus CNPS: 4.3 woodland, coastal sage scrub, and valley and foothill grassland, usually occurring on serpentinite, clay, and rocky soils at elevations ranging from 75-1,300 m. The blooming period is from March -June. slender mariposa -lily Federal: - This perennial bulbiferous herb Low potential to Calochortus clavatus var. State: - prefers chaparral and coastal occur. gracilis CNPS: 113.2 sage scrub at elevations ranging from 320-1,000 m. The blooming period is from March - November. late -flowered mariposa -lily Federal: - This perennial bulbiferous herb Does not occur. Calochortus fimbriatus State: - prefers chaparral, cismontane CNPS: 113.3 woodland, and riparian woodland, often associated with serpentinite at elevations ranging from 275-1,905 m. The blooming period is from June -August. Plummer's mariposa -lily Federal: - This perennial bulbiferous herb Does not occur. Calochortus plummerae State: - prefers granitic, rock soils within CNPS: 4.2 chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal sage scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, and valley and foothill grassland at elevations ranging from 100- 1,700 m. The blooming period is from May -July. Peirson's morning-glory Federal: - This perennial rhizomatous herb Absent. Calystegia peirsonii State: - prefers chaparral, chenopod CNPS: 4.2 scrub, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, and valley and foothill grassland at elevations ranging from 30-1,500 m. The blooming period is from April - June. 25 Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence white pygmy -poppy Federal: - This annual herb prefers Does not occur. Canbya candida State: - gravelly, sandy, and granitic CNPS: 4.2 soils in Joshua tree woodland, Moj avean desert scrub, and pinyon and juniper woodland at elevations ranging from 600- 1,460 m. The blooming period is from March -June. Island mountain -mahogany Federal: - This perennial evergreen shrub Absent. Cercocarpus betuloides var. State: - prefers closed -cone coniferous blancheae CNPS: 4.3 forest and chaparral at elevations ranging from 30-600 m. The blooming period is from February -May. San Fernando Valley Federal: FPT This annual herb prefers coastal Does not occur. spineflower State: SE sage scrub, occurring on sandy Chorizanthe parryi var. CNPS: 113.1 soils at elevations ranging from ernandina 150-1,220 m. The blooming period is from April -July. Parry's spineflower Federal: - This annual herb prefers sandy Does not occur. Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi State: - or rocky soils in open habitats of CNPS: 113.1: chaparral and coastal sage scrub at elevations ranging from 275- 1,220 m. The blooming period is from April -June. Santa Susana tarplant Federal: - This perennial deciduous shrub Does not occur. Deinandra minthornii State: - prefers chaparral and coastal CNPS: 113.2 sage scrub, occurring on rocky soils at elevations ranging from 280-760 m. The blooming period is from July -November. paniculate tarplant Federal: - This annual herb prefers vernally Low potential to Deinandra paniculata State: - mesic, sometimes sandy soils in occur. CNPS: 4.2 coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools at elevations ranging from 25-940 m. The blooming period is from April -November. Mt. Pinos larkspur Federal: - This perennial herb prefers Does not occur. Delphinium parryi ssp. State:- chaparral, Mojavean desert purpureum CNPS: 4.3 scrub, pinyon and juniper woodland at elevations ranging from 1,000-2,600 m. The blooming period is from May - June. slender -homed spineflower Federal: FE This annual herb prefers sandy Does not occur. Dodecahema leptoceras State: SE soils in alluvial scrub, chaparral, CNPS: 113.1 cismontane woodland at elevations ranging from 200-760 m. The blooming period is from April -June. 26 Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence Palmer's grapplinghook Federal: - This annual herb prefers Does not occur. Harpagonella palmeri State: - chaparral, coastal sage scrub, CNPS: 4.2 and valley and foothill grassland, occurring in clay soils at elevations ranging from 20-955 m. The blooming period is from March -May. Newhall sunflower Federal: - This perennial rhizomatous herb Does not occur. Helianthus inexpectatus State: - is known from a single CNPS: 113.1 occurrence of less than 10 individuals and prefers freshwater seeps, marshes, swamps, and riparian woodland. The blooming period is from August -October. vernal barley Federal: - This annual herb prefers coastal Does not occur. Hordeum intercedens State: - dunes, saline flats and CNPS: 3.2 depressions in coastal sage scrub and valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools at elevations ranging from 5-1,000 m. The blooming period is from March - June. mesa horkelia Federal: - This annual perennial herb Does not occur. Horkelia cuneata var. puberula State: - prefers sandy or gravelly soils in CNPS: 113.1 maritime chaparral, cismontane woodland, and coastal scrub at elevations ranging from 70-810 m. The blooming period is from February -September. southern California black Federal: - This perennial deciduous tree Absent. walnut State: - prefers alluvial surfaces within Jugluns califomica CNPS: 4.2 chaparral, cismontane woodland, and coastal sage scrub at elevations ranging from 50-900 m. The blooming period is from March -August. southwestern spiny rush Federal: - This perennial rhizomatous herb Does not occur. Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii State: - prefers coastal dunes (mesic), CNPS: 4.2 meadows and seeps (alkaline), and coastal salt marshes and swamps at elevations ranging from 3-900 m. The blooming period is from March -June. fragrant pitcher sage Federal: - This perennial shrub prefers Absent. Lepechinia fragrans State: - chaparral at elevations ranging CNPS: 4.2 from 20-1,310 m. The blooming period is from March -October. Ross's pitcher sage Federal: - This perennial shrub prefers Absent. Lepechinia rossii State: - chaparral at elevations ranging CNPS: 113.2 from 305-790 m. The blooming period is from May -September. 27 Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence Robinson's pepper -grass Federal: - This annual herb prefers Moderate potential Lepidium virginicum var. State: - chaparral and coastal scrub at to occur. robinsonii CNPS: 4.3 elevations ranging from 1-885 m. The blooming period is from January -July. ocellated humboldt lily Federal: - This perennial bulbiferous herb Low potential to Lilium humboldti sap. ocellatumState: - prefers openings in chaparral, occur. CNPS: 4.2 cismontane woodland, coastal sage scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, and riparian woodland at elevations ranging from 30-1,800 m. The blooming period is from March -August. Davidson's bush -mallow Federal: - This perennial deciduous shrub Absent. Malacotham nus davidsonii State: - prefers chaparral, cismontane CNPS: 113.2 woodland, coastal sage scrub, and riparian woodland at elevations ranging from 185-855 m. The blooming period is from June-Janua spreading navarretia Federal: FT This annual herb prefers vernal Does not occur. Navarretia fossalis State: - pools, playas, chenopod scrub, CNPS: 113.1 and shallow freshwater marshes and swamps at elevations ranging from 30-655 m. The blooming period is from April - June. Ojai navarretia Federal: - This annual herb prefers Moderate potential Navarretia ojaiensis State: - openings in chaparral, coastal to occur. CNPS: 113.1 scrub, and valley and foothill grassland at elevations ranging from 275-620 m. The blooming period is from May -July. Piute Mountains navarretia Federal: - This annual herb prefers clay or Does not occur. Navarretiasetiloba State: - gravelly loam in cismontane CNPS: 113.1 woodland, pinyon and juniper woodland, and valley and foothill grassland at elevations ranging from 285-2,100m. The blooming period is from April - July. short -joint beavertail Federal: - This perennial stem succulent Absent. Opuntia basilaris var. State: - prefers chaparral, Joshua tree brachyclada CNPS: 113.2 woodland, Mojavean desert scrub, and pinyon and juniper woodland at elevations ranging from 425-1,800 m. The blooming period is from April - August. California Orcutt grass Federal: FE This annual herb prefers vernal Does not occur. Orcuttia califomica State: SE pools at elevations ranging from CNPS: 113.1 15-660 m. The blooming period is from April -August. 28 Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence Mojave phacelia Federal: - This annual herb prefers sandy Does not occur. Phacelia mohavensis State: - or gravelly soils in cismontane CNPS: 4.3 woodland, lower montane coniferous forests, meadows and seeps, and pinyon and juniper woodland at elevations ranging from 1,400-2,500 m. The blooming period is from April - August. white rabbit -tobacco Federal: - This perennial herb prefers Does not occur. Pseudogmphalium State: - sandy or gravelly soils in leucocephalum CNPS: 213.2 chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and riparian scrub at elevations ranging from 0- 2,100m. The blooming period is from July -December. chaparral ragwort Federal: - This annual herb is sometimes Not expected. Senecio aphanactis State: - associated with alkaline soils and CNPS: 213.2 prefers chaparral, cismontane woodland, and coastal scrub at elevations ranging from 15-800 m. The blooming period is from January -April. Greats's aster Federal: - This perennial rhizomatous herb Does not occur. Symphyotrichium greatae State: - prefers mesic soils in broadleaf CNPS: 113.3 upland forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest, and riparian woodland at elevations ranging from 70-825 m. The blooming period is from June - October. 4.5.1 Special -Status Plants Detected at the Project Site No special -status plant species have been detected at the Project site to date. A late -season season survey visit will be conducted in late June 2017 with the results provided as an Addendum to this report. 4.6 Special -Status Animals No special -status animals were detected at the Project site during general biological surveys or focused species surveys. Table 4-3 provides a list of special -status animals evaluated for the Project site through general biological surveys, habitat assessments, and focused surveys. Species were evaluated based on the following factors, including: 1) species identified by the CNDDB as occurring (either currently or historically) on or in the vicinity of the Project site, and 2) any other special -status animals that are known to occur within the vicinity of the Project site, for which potentially suitable habitat occurs on the site. 29 Table 4-3. Special Status Animals Evaluated for the Project Site — Federally Endangered — Federally Threatened F — Federally Proposed Threatened — Federal Candidate EPA— Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 'estern Bat Working Group (WBWG) — High Priority 0 — Low -Medium Priority — Medium Priority H — Medium -High Priority State SE — State Endangered ST — State Threatened SC— State Candidate CFP — California Fully -Protected Species SSC — Species of Special Concern • Absent —The species is absent from the site, either because the site lacks suitable habitat for the species, the site is located outside of the known range of the species, or focused surveys has confirmed the absence of the species. • Not expected to occur —The species is not expected to occur onsite due to low habitat quality, however absence cannot be ruled out. • Potential to occur —The species has a potential to occur onsite based on suitable habitat, however its presence/absence could not be confirmed. • Present—The species was detected onsite incidentally or through focused surveys. • Foraging —The species has the potential to forage on site, but live-in and breeding habitat are not present at the site. Species Name Status Habitat Occurrence Requirements Invertebrates vernal pool fairy shrimp Federal: FT Seasonal vernal pools. Absent. Habitat for this Branchinecta lynchi State: - species is not present on site. quino checkerspot Federal: FE Larval and adult phases Absent. Habitat, butterfly State: - each have distinct habitat specifically host plants, for Euphydryas editha quino requirements tied to host this species is not present plant species and on site. topography. Larval host plants include Plantago erecta and Castilleja exserta. Adults occur on sparsely vegetated rounded hilltops and ridgelines, and are known to disperse through disturbed habitats to reach suitable nectar plants. 30 Species Name Status Habitat Occurrence Requirements Fish Santa Ana sucker Federal: FT Small, shallow streams, Absent. Habitat for this Catostomus santaanae State: - less than 7 meters in species is not present on width, with currents site. ranging from swift in the canyons to sluggish in the bottom lands. Preferred substrates are generally coarse and consist of gravel, rubble, and boulders with growths of filamentous algae, but occasionally they are found on sand/mud substrates. unarmored threespine Federal: FE Slow-moving reaches or Absent. Habitat for this stickleback State: SE, CFP quiet-water microhabitats species is not present on Gasterosteus aculeates in streams and rivers, site. williamsoni usually shaded by dense and abundant vegetation. arroyo chub Federal: - Slow-moving or backwater Absent. Habitat for this Gila orcuttii State: SSC sections of warm to cool species is not present on streams with substrates of site. sand or mud. Santa Ana speckled dace Federal: - Occurs in the headwaters Absent. Habitat for this Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 3 State: SSC of the Santa Ana and San species is not present on Gabriel Rivers. May be site. extirpated from the Los Angeles River system. Requires permanent flowing streams with summer water temperatures of 17-20 C. Usually inhabits shallow cobble and gravel riffles. Amphibians arroyo toad Federal: FE Breed, forage, and/or Absent. Habitat for this Anaxyrus califomicus State: SSC aestivate in aquatic species is not present on habitats, riparian, coastal site. sage scrub, oak, and chaparral habitats. Breeding pools must be open and shallow with minimal current, and with a sand or pea gravel substrate overlain with sand or flocculent silt. Adjacent banks with sandy 31 Species Name Status Habitat Occurrence Requirements or gravely terraces and very little herbaceous cover for adult and juvenile foraging areas, within a moderate riparian canopy of cottonwood, willow, or oak. California red -legged frog Federal: FT Lowlands and foothills in Absent. Habitat for this Rana draytonii State: SSC or near permanent sources species is not present on of deep water with dense, site. shrubby, or emergent riparian vegetation. southern mountain yellow- Federal: FE Streams and small pools in Absent. Habitat for this legged frog State: SE ponderosa pine, montane species is not present on Rana muscosa hardwood -conifer, and site. montane riparian habitat types. western spadefoot Federal: - Seasonal pools in coastal Moderate potential to Spea hammondii State: SSC sage scrub, chaparral, and occur as an adult; no grassland habitats. breeding potential on site. Coast Range newt Federal: - Found in wet forests, oak Not expected. Taricha torosa State: SSC forests, chaparral, and rolling grasslands. In southern California, drier chaparral, oak woodland, and grasslands near stream features are used. Reptiles Silvery legless lizard Federal: - Occurs primarily in areas Absent. Habitat for this Anniella pulchra pulchra State: SSC with sandy or loose species is not present on organic soil, or where site. there is plenty of leaf litter. Associated with coastal sage scrub, chaparral, coastal dunes, valley/foothill grasslands, oak woodlands, and pine forests. California glossy snake Federal: - Inhabits and scrub, rocky Moderate potential to Arizona elegams State: SSC washes, grasslands, occur. occidentalis chaparral. coastal whiptail Federal: - Open, often rocky areas Moderate potential to Aspidoscelis tigris State: SSC with little vegetation, or occur. stejnegeri sunny microhabitats within shrub or grassland associations. 32 Species Name Status Habitat Occurrence Requirements southern rubber boa Federal: - Restricted to the San Absent. Habitat for this Charina umbratica State: ST Bernardino and San species is not present on Jacinto Mountain, in a site. variety of montane forest habitats. Found in vicinity of streams or wet meadows. Requires loose, moist soil for burrowing. Seeks cover in rotting logs. Western pond turtle Federal: - Slow-moving permanent Absent. Habitat for this Emys mamorata State: SSC or intermittent streams, species is not present on small ponds and lakes, site. reservoirs, abandoned gravel pits, permanent and ephemeral shallow wetlands, stock ponds, and treatment lagoons. Abundant basking sites and cover necessary, including logs, rocks, submerged vegetation, and undercut banks. Coast horned lizard Federal: - Occurs in a variety of Moderate potential to Phrynosoma blainvillii State: SSC vegetation types including occur. coastal sage scrub, chaparral, annual grassland, oak woodland, and riparian woodlands. coast patch -nosed snake Federal: - Occurs in coastal Low potential to occur. Salvadora hexalepis State: SSC chaparral, desert scrub, virgultea washes, sandy flats, and rocky areas. two -striped garter snake Federal: - Aquatic snake typically Not expected. Thamnophis hammondii State: SSC associated with wetland habitats such as streams, creeks, and pools. south coast garter snake Federal: - Utilizes a wide variety of Not expected. Thamnophissirtalis State: SSC habitats- forests, mixed woodlands, grassland, chaparral, farmlands, often near ponds, marshes, or streams. Birds 33 Species Name Status Habitat Occurrence Requirements grasshopper sparrow Federal: - Open grassland and Low potential to occur. Ammodramus savannarum State: SSC prairies with patches of bare ground. golden eagle Federal: BGEPA In southern California, Foraging role only; no Aquila chrysaetos State: CFP occupies grasslands, potential for nesting. brushlands, deserts, oak savannas, open coniferous forests, and montane valleys. Nests on rock outcrops and ledges. burrowing owl Federal: - Shortgrass prairies, Moderate potential to Athene cunicularia State: SSC grasslands, lowland scrub, occur. agricultural lands (particularly rangelands), coastal dunes, desert floors, and some artificial, open areas as a year-long resident. Occupies abandoned ground squirrel burrows as well as artificial structures such as culverts and underpasses. Swainson's hawk Federal: - Summer in wide open Foraging role only; no Buteo swainsoni State: ST spaces of the American potential for nesting. West. Nest in grasslands, but can use sage flats and agricultural lands. Nests are placed in lone trees. V aux's swift Federal: - Nests in coniferous or Absent. Habitat for this Chaetura vauxi State: CFP mixed forest. Forages in species is not present on forest openings, especially site. above streams. Clark's marsh wren Federal: - Freshwater and brackish Absent. Habitat for this Cistothorus palustris State: SSC marshes dominated by species is not present on clarkae bulrushes or cattails. site. western yellow -billed Federal: FT Dense, wide riparian Absent. Habitat for this cuckoo State: SE woodlands with well- species is not present on Coccyzus americanus developed understories. site. occidentalis Olive -sided flycatcher Federal: - Breeds in montane and Absent. Habitat for this Contopus cooperi State: SSC northern coniferous species is not present on forests, at forest edges and site. openings, such as meadows and ponds. Winters at forest edges and clearings where tall trees or snags are present. 34 Species Name Status Habitat Occurrence Requirements white-tailed kite Federal: - Low elevation open Moderate potential for Elanus leucurus State: CFP grasslands, savannah-like foraging. habitats, agricultural areas, wetlands, and oak woodlands. Dense canopies used for nesting and cover. southwestern willow Federal: FE Riparian woodlands along Absent. Habitat for this flycatcher State: SE streams and rivers with species is not present on Empidonax traillii e times mature dense thickets of site. trees and shrubs. American peregrine falcon Federal: - Although part of its Low potential for foraging. Falco peregrinus arunum State: CFP historic breeding range, this species does not breed in southern California. In the west, breeding habitat consists of high cliffs along the coast. California condor Federal: FE Scavenge in habitats Absent. Habitat for this Gymnogyps californianus State: SE, CFP ranging from Pacific species is not present on beaches to mountain site. forests and meadows. bald eagle Federal: BGEPA Primarily in or near Absent. Habitat for this Haliaeetus leucocephalus State: SE, CFP seacoasts, rivers, swamps, species is not present on and large lakes. Perching site. sites consist of large trees or snags with heavy limbs or broken tops. yellow-breasted chat Federal: - Dense, relatively wide Absent. Habitat for this Icteria virens State: SSC riparian woodlands and species is not present on thickets of willows, vine site. tangles, and dense brush with well-developed understories. loggerhead shrike Federal: - Forages over open ground Moderate potential to Lanus ludovicianus State: SSC within areas of short occur. vegetation, pastures with fence rows, old orchards, mowed roadsides, cemeteries, golf courses, riparian areas, open woodland, agricultural fields, desert washes, desert scrub, grassland, broken chaparral and 35 Species Name Status Habitat Occurrence Requirements beach with scattered shrubs. American white pelican Federal: - Breeds on islands in Absent. Habitat for this Pelicanus erythrorhynchos State: SSC shallow wetlands. Winter species is not present on on coastal waters, bays, site. and estuaries. coastal California Federal: FT Low elevation coastal sage Absent. This species was gnatcatcher State: SSC scrub and coastal bluff not detected during Polioptila califomica scrub. focused surveys; therefore, calf omica has been confirmed absent. bank swallow Federal: - Low areas along rivers, Absent. Habitat for this Riparia riparia State: ST streams, ocean coasts or species is not present on reservoirs. Often use site. human -made sites. yellow warbler Federal: - Breed in lowland and Moderate potential in a Setophaga petechia State: SSC foothill riparian woodlands foraging role during fall dominated by and spring migration. cottonwoods, alders, or willows and other small trees and shrubs typical of low, open -canopy riparian woodland. During migration, forages in woodland, forest, and shrub habitats. California spotted owl Federal: - Prefers mature forests. Absent. Habitat for this Strix occidentalis State: SSC Can utilize rocky canyons. species is not present on site. least Bell's vireo Federal: FE Dense riparian habitats Absent. Habitat for this Vireo bellii pusillus State: SE with a stratified canopy, species is not present on including southern willow site. scrub, mule fat scrub, and riparian forest. gray vireo Federal: - Desert scrub, mixed Low potential to occur. Vireo vicinior State: SSC juniper or pinyon pine and oak scrub associations, and chaparral, in hot, and mountains and high plains scrubland. Mammals Pallid bat Federal: - Deserts, grasslands, Low potential in a Antrozous pallidus State: SSC shrublands, woodlands, foraging role. No roosting and forests. Most habitat. common in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting. 36 Species Name Status Habitat Occurrence Requirements Townsend's big -eared bat Federal: - Coniferous forests and Not expected. Corynorhinus townsendii State: SSC woodlands, deciduous riparian woodland, semi - desert and montane shrublands. Avoids areas high levels of human activity. Spotted bat Federal: - Arid or ponderosa pine Absent. Habitat for this Euderma maculatum State: SSC forests and marshlands. species is not present on Roost in small cracks in site. cliffs and stony outcrops. western mastiff bat Federal: - Occurs in many open. Low potential in a Eumops perotis State: SSC semi -arid to and habitats, foraging role, no potential californicus including conifer and for roosting. deciduous woodlands, coastal scrub, grasslands, and chaparral. Roosts in crevices in cliff faces, high buildings, trees, and tunnels. San Diego black -tailed Federal: - Occupies a variety of Moderate potential to jackrabbit State: SSC habitats, but is most occur. Lepus californicus common among shortgrass bennettii habitats. Also occurs in sage scrub, but needs open habitats. California leaf -nosed bat Federal: - Roosts in caves, mines, Low potential in a Macrotus californicus State: SSC and buildings. foraging role, no potential for roosting. cave myotis Federal: - Evergreen or pine -oak Absent. Habitat for this Myotis velifer State: SSC forest and pine forest at species is not present on mid and high elevations; site. also at lower elevations in riparian habitats near desert scrub. Roosts in caves, tunnels, buildings, and under bridges. San Diego desert woodrat Federal: - Occurs in a variety of Foraging potential only. Neotoma lepida State: SSC shrub and desert habitats, Woodrat homes were not intemedia primarily associated with detected during general rock outcrops, boulders, biological surveys or cacti, or areas of dense incidentally during undergrowth. focused species surveys. southern grasshopper Federal: - Desert areas, especially Moderate potential to mouse State: SSC scrub habitats with friable occur. Onychomys torridus soils for digging. Prefers ramona 37 Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence low to moderate shrub cover. American badger Federal: - Most abundant in drier Foraging. Badger burrows Ta idea =us State: SSC open stages of most scrub, were not detected during forest, and herbaceous general biological surveys habitats, with friable soils. or incidentally during focused species surveys. 4.6.1 Burrowing Owl The Project site contains habitat suitable to support burrowing owls, a SSC. Focused burrowing owl surveys were conducted on March 15, April 19, and May 17, 2017. No burrowing owls have been observed within or adjacent to the project site to date; however, an additional survey visit is required, and is scheduled to be conducted during the week of June 19, 2017. The results of the remaining visit/survey will be provided in a Memorandum. 4.6.2 Coastal California Gnatcatcher The Project site contains habitat suitable to support federally listed as Threatened coastal California gnatcatchers, which are also a SSC. Focused coastal California gnatcatcher surveys were conducted during March and April 2017. No coastal California gnatcatchers were observed within or adjacent to the Project site; therefore, coastal California gnatcatchers are considered absent from the Project site. 4.6.3 Special -Status Wildlife Species Observed within the Project Site No special -status animal species have been detected at the Project site to date. The last burrowing owl breeding season survey visit will be conducted in June 2017. 4.6.4 Special -Status Wildlife Species Not Observed but with a Potential to Occur at the Project Site Although no special -status animals have been observed during general or focused surveys to date, the Project site contains habitat suitable for several non -listed special -status animals to reside or breed, which include amphibians: western spadefoot; reptiles: California glossy snake, coastal whiptail, coast horned lizard, and coast patch -nosed snake; birds: grasshopper sparrow, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and gray vireo; and mammals: San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit and southern grasshopper mouse. In addition, the Project site contains habitat with the potential to support foraging by the state listed as Threatened Swainson's hawk, as well as non -listed special -status species. Special -status animals that are not expected to reside or breed within the Project site, yet hold the potential for foraging include birds: golden eagle, American peregrine falcon, white-tailed kite, and yellow 38 warbler; and mammals: pallid bat, western mastiff bat, California leaf -nose bat, San Diego desert woodrat, American badger. 4.6.5 Critical Habitat There is no federally designated Critical Habitat mapped within or adjacent to the Project site. The nearest Critical Habitat is located approximately one mile southeast of the Project site. 4.7 Raptor Use The Project site provides suitable foraging and breeding habitat for a number of commonly occurring raptor species, such as red-tailed hawk and Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii). 4.8 Nesting Birds The Project site contains trees, shrubs, and ground cover that provide suitable habitat for nesting migratory birds. Impacts to nesting birds are prohibited under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and similar provisions under California Fish and Game Code.9 4.9 Soils The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) identifies the following soil types (series) as occurring (currently or historically) within the Project site [Exhibit 3]: Ojai Loam, 30 to 50 Percent Slopes; Saugus Loam, 30 to 50 Percent Slopes, Eroded; Yolo Loam, 2 to 9 Percent Slopes. None of these soil units are identified as hydric in the SCS's publication, Hydric Soils of the United States10 4.10 Jurisdictional Delineation A. Corps Jurisdiction Corps jurisdiction associated with the Project site totals approximately 0.15 acre of waters of the United States (WoUS), none of which consists of jurisdictional wetlands. The locations of the waters of the United States are depicted on the enclosed map [Exhibit 6A — Corps Jurisdictional Delineation Map]. A summary of Corps jurisdiction within the Site is provided below in Table 4-4. v The MBTA makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in 50 C.F.R. Part 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50 C.F.R.21). In addition, sections 3505, 3503.5, and 3800 of the California Department of Fish and Game Code prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs. 10 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States, 3rd Edition, Miscellaneous Publication Number 1491. (In cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils.) 39 B. Regional Water Ouality Control Board Jurisdiction All waters within the Project site that were determined to be potential WoUS pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act potentially fall within Regional Board jurisdiction pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and/or the Porter Cologne Water Quality Act. None of the features at the Site were determined to be non-federal waters that would require separate analysis. A summary of Regional Board jurisdiction within the Project Site is provided below in Table 4-4. C. CDFW Jurisdiction CDFW jurisdiction associated with the Project site totals approximately 0.32 acre, of which 0.10 acre consists of jurisdictional riparian habitat and 0.22 acre consists of non -riparian streambed. The locations of CDFW jurisdictional areas are depicted on the enclosed map [Exhibit 6B — CDFW Jurisdictional Delineation Map]. A summary of CDFW jurisdiction within the Site is provided below in Table 4-4. Table 4-4. Summary of Corps, Regional Board, and CDFW Jurisdiction for the Project site 5.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS The following discussion examines the potential impacts to plant and wildlife resources that would occur as a result of the proposed project. Impacts (or effects) can occur in two forms, direct and indirect. Direct impacts are considered to be those that involve the loss, modification or disturbance of plant communities, which in turn, directly affect the flora and fauna of those habitats. Direct impacts also include the destruction of individual plants or animals, which may also directly affect regional population numbers of a species or result in the physical isolation of populations thereby reducing genetic diversity and population stability. Indirect impacts pertain to those impacts that result in a change to the physical environment, but which is not immediately related to a project. Indirect (or secondary) impacts are those that are reasonably foreseeable and caused by a project, but occur at a different time or place. Indirect impacts can occur at the urban/wildland interface of projects, to biological resources located downstream from projects, and other off site areas where the effects of the project may be 40 Corps/Regional Board CDFW Drainage Feature Resource Type Wetland (acres) Non- wetland Waters (acres) Total (acres) Riparian (acres) Non - riparian Streambed Total (acres) (acres) Length (linear feet) Feature 1 Ephemeral 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.10 0.00 0.10 82 Feature Ephemeral 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.22 0.22 798 TOTAL 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.22 0.32 880 5.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS The following discussion examines the potential impacts to plant and wildlife resources that would occur as a result of the proposed project. Impacts (or effects) can occur in two forms, direct and indirect. Direct impacts are considered to be those that involve the loss, modification or disturbance of plant communities, which in turn, directly affect the flora and fauna of those habitats. Direct impacts also include the destruction of individual plants or animals, which may also directly affect regional population numbers of a species or result in the physical isolation of populations thereby reducing genetic diversity and population stability. Indirect impacts pertain to those impacts that result in a change to the physical environment, but which is not immediately related to a project. Indirect (or secondary) impacts are those that are reasonably foreseeable and caused by a project, but occur at a different time or place. Indirect impacts can occur at the urban/wildland interface of projects, to biological resources located downstream from projects, and other off site areas where the effects of the project may be 40 experienced by plants and wildlife. Examples of indirect impacts include the effects of increases in ambient levels of noise or light; predation by domestic pets; competition with exotic plants and animals; introduction of toxics, including pesticides; and other human disturbances such as hiking, off-road vehicle use, unauthorized dumping, etc. Indirect impacts are often attributed to the subsequent day-to-day activities associated with project build -out, such as increased noise, the use of artificial light sources, and invasive ornamental plantings that may encroach into native areas. Indirect effects may be both short-term and long-term in their duration. These impacts are commonly referred to as "edge effects" and may result in a slow replacement of native plants by non-native invasives, as well as changes in the behavioral patterns of wildlife and reduced wildlife diversity and abundance in habitats adjacent to project sites. Cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. A cumulative impact can occur from multiple individual effects from the same project, or from several projects. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment resulting from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. 5.1 California Environmental Ouality Act (CEOA) 5.1.1 Thresholds of Significance Environmental impacts to biological resources are assessed using impact significance threshold criteria, which reflect the policy statement contained in CEQA, Section 21001(c) of the California Public Resources Code. Accordingly, the State Legislature has established it to be the policy of the State of California: "Prevent the elimination offish or wildlife species due to man's activities, ensure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below self-perpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal communities... " Determining whether a project may have a significant effect, or impact, plays a critical role in the CEQA process. According to CEQA, Section 15064.7 ('Thresholds of Significance), each public agency is encouraged to develop and adopt (by ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulation) thresholds of significance that the agency uses in the determination of the significance of environmental effects. A threshold of significance is an identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect, non-compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant. In the development of thresholds of significance for impacts to biological resources CEQA provides guidance primarily in Section 15065, Mandatory Findings of Significance, and the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form. Section 15065(a) states that a project may have a significant effect where: 41 "The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or wildlife community, reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species, ... " Therefore, for the purpose of this analysis, impacts to biological resources are considered potentially significant (before considering offsetting mitigation measures) if one or more of the following criteria discussed below would result from implementation of the proposed project. 5.1.2 Criteria for Determining Significance Pursuant to CEQA Appendix G of the 2017 State CEQA guidelines indicate that a project may be deemed to have a significant effect on the environment if the project is likely to: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. ) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. 5.2 Impacts to Vegetation Communities The proposed Project would permanently impact approximately 0.91 acre of native vegetation communities, including: 0.05 acre of chamise chaparral/coastal sage scrub ecotone, 0.85 acre of coastal sage scrub, and 0.01 acre of mule fat scrub (refer to Table 4-1 in Section 4.2). In 42 addition, the Project would impact permanently 1.00 acre of non-native grassland and 6.45 acres of disturbed/developed areas. The project would temporarily impact 0.14 acre of chamise chaparral, 0.73 acre of chamise chaparral/coastal sage scrub ecotone, 1.54 acres of coastal sage scrub, 0.03 acre of elderberry scrub, and 0.09 acre of mule fat scrub (refer to Table 4-1 in Section 4.2). Additional temporary impacts are proposed for 1.56 acres of non-native grassland and 1.40 acres of developed/disturbed. The chamise chaparral/coastal sage scrub ecotone and coastal sage scrub communities proposed for impact, potentially support special status plants and animals, but given the limited amount of potential habitat proposed for removal, impacts are not potentially significant under CEQA. The proposed impacts to non-native grassland, chamise chaparral, elderberry scrub, mule fat scrub, and disturbed/developed land would not represent a significant impact, as these habitat/land cover types are present in only a very small quantity and/or are subject a large amount of ongoing human disturbance; therefore, are not expected to support special status plant and animal species. 5.3 Impacts to Special -Status Plants No special -status plants have been detected on site during general and focused surveys to date; however, there is a potential for special -status plants to be detected during the late -season survey visit that is scheduled to be completed in late June, 2017. Although not expected, if special - status plants are detected during the late -season survey visit, impacts to these species could occur from the development of the Project. Dependent on the regulatory status of these species, and the size of the population located on site, impacts to these species could be potentially significant under CEQA prior to mitigation. A project -specific mitigation measure is identified in Section 6.0 of this report to reduce impacts to below a level of significance. 5.4 Impacts to Coastal California Gnatcatcher Coastal California gnatcatchers were determined to be absent within and adjacent to the Project site during focused surveys conducted during March and April, 2017; therefore, no impacts to coastal California gnatcatchers would not result from the Project. 5.5 Impacts to Burrowing Owl No burrowing owls have been detected within or adjacent to the Project during general and focused surveys to date; however, there is a potential for burrowing owls to be detected during the last remaining required survey visit, which is scheduled to occur during the week of June 19, 2017. In addition, pre -construction burrowing owl surveys will be required for the Project. If burrowing owls are detected during the remaining focused survey visits or during the pre - construction survey, impacts to burrowing owls could occur from the development of the Project and may be potentially significant under CEQA prior to mitigation. A project -specific mitigation 43 measure is identified in Section 6.0 of this report to reduce impacts to below a level of significance. If burrowing owls are not detected during the remaining focused survey visits or during the pre - construction survey, impacts to burrowing owls would not result from the Project and burrowing owls do not represent a level of significance to the Project. 5.6 Impacts to Other Special -Status Animals The proposed Project will not remove habitat occupied by Federal or State listed species, as CAGN has been determined to be absent from the Project site, but will remove habitat with the potential to support non -listed, special -status species. Potential impacts to special -status animals include amphibians: western spadefoot reptiles: California glossy snake, coastal whiptail, coast horned lizard, and coast patch -nosed snake; birds: grasshopper sparrow, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and gray vireo; and mammals: San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit and southern grasshopper mouse. Although, the Project could potentially impact these species, the expected number of impacted individuals will not reach a level of significance. The Project will remove habitat with the potential to support foraging by the state listed as Threatened Swainson's hawk, as well as non -listed, special -status species. Actual or potential impacts to foraging special -status animals include birds: golden eagle, American peregrine falcon, white-tailed kite, and yellow warbler; and mammals: pallid bat, western mastiff bat, California leaf -nose bat, San Diego desert woodrat, American badger. As the Project site is adjacent to a large amount of undeveloped open space that offers similar foraging opportunities for these species, the removal of foraging habitat resulting from the project will not reach a level of significance. 5.7 Impacts to Critical Habitat The proposed Project will not impact lands designated as Critical Habitat by the USFWS; therefore, the Project would have no impact to Critical Habitat. 5.8 Impacts to Nesting Birds The Project has the potential to impact active native bird nests if vegetation is removed during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31). Impacts to native nesting birds are prohibited by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code, and are potentially significant under CEQA prior to mitigation. A project -specific mitigation measure is identified in Section 6.0 of this report to avoid impacts to nesting birds and reduce impacts to below a level of significance. 5.9 Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters An estimated 0.003 acre (5 linear feet) of potential Corps and Regional Board jurisdiction would be removed permanently by the proposed Project, with another 0.02 acre (77 linear feet) proposed for temporary impact, both in the form of ephemeral, nonwedand waters (Exhibit 6A). An estimated 0.008 acre (5 linear feet) of potential CDFW jurisdiction (riparian vegetated) would be permanently impacted by the proposed project, with an additional 0.09 acre (77 linear feet) proposed for temporary impact (Exhibit 613). Table 5-1. Proposed Impacts to Corps, Regional Board, and CDFW Jurisdiction Impacts to these federal and state jurisdictional areas are potentially significant under CEQA prior to mitigation. Section 6.0 of this report identifies measures to reduce impacts to below a level of significance. 5.10 Indirect Impacts to Biological Resources In the context of biological resources, indirect effects are those effects associated with developing areas adjacent to native open space. Potential indirect effects associated with development include water quality impacts associated with drainage into adjacent open space/downstream aquatic resources; lighting effects; noise effects; invasive plant species from landscaping; and effects from human access into adjacent open space, such as recreational activities (including off-road vehicles and hiking), pets, dumping, etc. Temporary, indirect effects may also occur as a result of construction -related activities. The Project has the potential for both temporary and permanent indirect effects. These impacts consist of temporary impacts such as increased noise and dust during construction, and permanent impacts such as increased lighting adjacent to undeveloped lands and an increase in vehicular traffic at the Project site. Section 6.0 of this report identifies measures to reduce indirect effects to below a level of significance under CEQA. Gf CORPS/REGIONAL BOARD Impact Type Drainage Feature Resource Type Wetland (acres) Non -wetland Waters (acres) Total (acres) Length (linear feet) Permanent Feature 1 Ephemeral 0.00 0.003 0.003 5 Feature Ephemeral 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Temporary Feature 1 Ephemeral 0.00 0.02 0.02 77 Feature Ephemeral 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 CDFW Impact Type Drainage Feature Resource T pe Riparian (acres) Unvegetated Streambed (acres) Total (acres) Length (linear feet) Permanent Feature 1 Ephemeral 0.008 0.00 0.008 5 Feature Ephemeral 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Temporary Feature 1 Ephemeral 0.09 0.00 0.09 77 Feature Ephemeral 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Impacts to these federal and state jurisdictional areas are potentially significant under CEQA prior to mitigation. Section 6.0 of this report identifies measures to reduce impacts to below a level of significance. 5.10 Indirect Impacts to Biological Resources In the context of biological resources, indirect effects are those effects associated with developing areas adjacent to native open space. Potential indirect effects associated with development include water quality impacts associated with drainage into adjacent open space/downstream aquatic resources; lighting effects; noise effects; invasive plant species from landscaping; and effects from human access into adjacent open space, such as recreational activities (including off-road vehicles and hiking), pets, dumping, etc. Temporary, indirect effects may also occur as a result of construction -related activities. The Project has the potential for both temporary and permanent indirect effects. These impacts consist of temporary impacts such as increased noise and dust during construction, and permanent impacts such as increased lighting adjacent to undeveloped lands and an increase in vehicular traffic at the Project site. Section 6.0 of this report identifies measures to reduce indirect effects to below a level of significance under CEQA. Gf 5.11 Cumulative Impacts to Biological Resources Cumulative impacts are defined as the direct and indirect effects of a proposed project which, when considered alone, would not be deemed a substantial impact, but when considered in addition to the impacts of related projects in the area, would be considered potentially significant. "Related projects" refers to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects, which would have similar impacts to the proposed project. No special -status plant or animal species have been detected within or adjacent to the Project site during general or focused surveys to date. Although not expected, there is the potential for special -status species to be detected during the remaining two focused burrowing owl visits and remaining late -season special -status plant survey visit. Given the low-level of use (if any) of the Project site by special -status plant and animal species, along with the implementation the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures outlined in Section 6, below, the Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts. 6.0 MITIGATION/AVOIDANCE MEASURES The following discussion provides project -specific mitigation/avoidance measures for actual or potential impacts to special -status resources. 6.1 Vegetation Communities Lands vegetated with chamise chaparral/coastal sage scrub ecotone and coastal sage scrub and temporarily impacted during construction of the project will be restored to original or better condition at a ratio of 1:1. 6.2 Special -Status Plants If any special -status plant species are discovered on the proposed project site during the late - season survey visit scheduled to occur during late June 2017 (or during any other on-site assessments), a Native Plant Mitigation Plan (NPMP) shall be developed that identifies suitable locations for planting (or transplanting) the impacted special -status plants at a 1:1 ratio in coordination with the CDFW, or appropriate in -lieu fees that may be applicable, as determined by the CDFW. The NPMP shall include location, methods and timing of where, how and when the planting of the special -status species will be implemented. The NPMP shall also identify performance standards by which to measure the success of the mitigation and shall include adaptive management procedures to ensure a preservation or replacement, or a combination of the two, at a 1:1 ratio. The NPMP shall be reviewed and approved by the CDFW prior to impacting special -status plants. 46 6.3 Burrowing Owl If burrowing owls are detected during the last focused survey visit scheduled to occur during the week of June 19, 2017, the owls will be evicted from the site (when not nesting) following accepted CDFW protocols and as approved by the CDFW. Compensation for the loss of occupied burrowing owl habitat will occur at a 1:1 ratio such that the habitat acreage, number of burrows and burrowing owls impacted are replaced. As required by CDFW (2012) a mitigation management plan will be drafted and approved by CDFW, and will ensure lands used to compensate for the loss of habitat, burrows, and burrowing owls are conserved and managed in perpetuity. If the species is not found during the remaining focused survey visit scheduled to occur during the week of June 19, 2017, a pre -construction presence/absence survey for burrowing owls will occur within 14 days prior to site disturbance to ensure no mortality to the species occurs (CDFW 2012). If burrowing owls are detected on site during the pre -construction survey, the eviction and compensation described above will be implemented to avoid direct take of burrowing owl and compensate for the loss of habitat. 6.4 Nesting Birds Vegetation clearing should be conducted outside of the nesting season (nesting season is February 1 through August 31). If avoidance of the nesting season is not feasible, then a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey within three days prior any disturbance of the site, including disking, demolition activities, and grading. If active nests are identified, the biologist shall establish suitable buffers (a minimum of 50 feet for passerines, 250 feet for raptors [including burrowing owls], and 500 feet for listed species [although not expected]) around the nests, and the buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests. 6.5 Jurisdictional Waters The Project will permanently impact 0.0003 acre of non -wetland WoUS and 0.008 acre of CDFW riparian jurisdictional area. The following mitigation measure is recommended: • To mitigate the loss of Corps, Regional Board, and CDFW jurisdiction, the Project will purchase credits from an approved mitigation bank/in-lieu fee program at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio, for a minimum of 0.008 acre of mitigation credits. • If an approved mitigation bank/in-lieu fee program cannot be identified to mitigate the loss of Corps, Regional Board, and CDFW jurisdiction, the Project will enhance, re- establish, or establish Corps, Regional Board, and CDFW jurisdictional areas on off-site conserved lands at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio, for a minimum of 0.008 acre of enhancement, re-establishment, or establishment, which will include at a minimum 0.008 acre of riparian habitat. 47 Compensatory mitigation should be coordinated with CWA 401 and 404 permitting and CDFW 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement acquisition to ensure efficiencies with the mitigation effort. 6.6 Indirect Impacts to Biological Resources The Project is not expected to result in significant indirect impacts to special -status biological resources, with the implementation of the measures below. To minimize potential edge effects, the Project will implement these measures to address the following: • Drainage; • Toxics; • Lighting; • Noise; • Invasives; • Barriers; and • Grading/Land Development. 6.6.1 Drainage The Project shall incorporate low impact development measures, including measures required through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, to ensure that the quantity and quality of runoff discharged to off-site undeveloped lands is not altered in an adverse way when compared with existing conditions. In particular, measures shall be put in place to avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into adjacent undeveloped lands. Stormwater systems shall be designed to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials or other elements that might degrade or harm biological resources or ecosystem processes within these areas. This can be accomplished using a variety of methods including natural detention basins, grass swales or mechanical trapping devices. Regular maintenance shall occur to ensure effective operations of runoff control systems. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (S WPPP) will be developed to address runoff and potential water quality degradation during construction. 6.6.2 Toxics Chemicals (such as gasoline) that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species, habitat or water quality shall be contained in such a way to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge to adjacent undeveloped lands. The Project will implement BMPs that will address runoff during construction and operations. 6.6.3 Lighting Night lighting shall be directed away from adjacent undeveloped lands to protect species within these areas from direct night lighting. If night lighting is required during construction or operations, shielding shall be incorporated to ensure ambient lighting in the adjacent 48 undeveloped lands is not increased. A block wall is proposed around the perimeter of the Sheriff Station facility. This would buffer the adjacent undeveloped lands from potential night lighting effects. 6.6.4 Noise A block wall is proposed around the perimeter of the Sheriff Station facility. This would buffer the adjacent undeveloped lands from potential noise effects. 6.6.5 Invasives The Project shall avoid the use of invasive plant species in landscaping, including invasive, non- native plant species listed in California Invasive Plant Council (Cal -IPC) Invasive Plant Inventory. The Project's contractor will be required to use only clean equipment to address the spread of invasives during construction. 6.6.6 Barriers The Project will have a block wall between the Sheriff Station facility and the existing undeveloped lands adjacent to the Project site. This will prevent potential effects from operations entering the adjacent undeveloped lands. 7.0 REFERENCES American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1998. Checklist of North American Birds, (7th Edition; 1998 and supplements through 2016). Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California. University of California Press. 1,568 pp. [CDFG] California Department of Fish and Game. 2009. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. State of California, California Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. Dated November 24, 2009. [CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. March 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. State of California Natural Resources Agency. Sacramento, California. [CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. September 2016. Complete List of Amphibian, Reptile, Bird and Mammal Species in California. State of California Natural Resources Agency, Sacramento, California. 49 [CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2017. Special Animals. State of California Natural Resources Agency, Sacramento, California. [CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2017. State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California. State of California Natural Resources Agency. Sacramento, California. [CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2017. California Natural Diversity Database: RareFind 5. Records of occurrence for U.S.G.S. 7.5- minute Quadrangle maps: Newhall, Green Valley, Mint Canyon, Oat Valley, San Fernando, Simi Valley East, Val Verde, Warm Springs Mountain, and Whitaker Peak, California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, State of California Natural Resources Agency. Sacramento, California. [CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (sixth edition). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, David P. Tibor, Convening Editor. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. x + 388pp. [CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2017. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-02). Rare Plant Program. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed December 2016 and April 20171 Collins, Joseph T. and Travis W. Taggart. 2009. Standard Common and Current Scientific Names for North American Amphibians, Turtles, Reptiles, and Crocodilians. Sixth Edition. Publication of The Center for North American Herpetology, Lawrence. iv+44p. Garrett, K. and J. Dunn. 1981. Birds of Southern California: Status and Distribution. Los Angeles Audubon Society. 407 pp. Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Nongame-Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Munz, P.A. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press. 1,086 pp. Nelson, J. 1984. Rare plant survey guidelines. In: Inventory of rare and endangered vascular plants of California. J. Smith and R. York (eds.). Special Publication No. 1. California Native Plant Society. Stebbins, R. C. 1954. Amphibians and reptiles of western North America. McGraw-Hill, New York. 536pp. Stebbins, R.C. 1985. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians, 2nd ed. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, Massachusetts. [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants. Sacramento, CA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Unpublished memorandum, dated January 2000. 50 8.0 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present data and information required for this biological evaluation, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. p:1265-1b.ipt bio to h.docx 51 Date: This page left intentionally blank. 52 EXHIBITS •4b to M CO 2 410 4 G) + loop �O 2JO JO Cm 16. U 4 1 U O ,/4 � V I I -Ow 00 r r 01 C T 10 LD fa U- Q z Cni w A � b w 0 n CU CL CU' CD w Z- 491 491 U Z. CU � U Q CO E7 � O i O N E O C� E �. w CU No j I � i OIL 4 0 E u RI V- x LU Source: ESRI World Street Map Z...0 2 4 8 Miles s 0- 410 4 + loop y C/) E -w 4 O ,/4 � 43 JP IC -5 IL #� �= O { V C E x W $O? ` O IRr # _ r I A A IWOCU QINIS ' gICE C� U t V x - C 0 r; z CD �LL C J Q V CL CC _ 2 0= r C p J V > H Cn W O a -01 41W .,.40-40 No j I � i OIL 4 0 E u RI V- x LU Source: ESRI World Street Map Z...0 2 4 8 Miles Nt�l 11 1 • • 1 W • J • O 0 0 0 • ` • J LL LL• • ' ' Z W IM It f `'�ie f � � � n VJ lip IIM 1hik 0 1 IM cu all it 10 Ift 19 cu IF 76 �. r I - 0 Oil t,, { / `r t 1] litN rT IPA � f't i �_'- •� f t 4 r 1 eo ell AN f II dip 16All` of A Nil rte• '�`" ��.- 1 ��j`� O _ t N p l I — 3 ■ N MSLO kk N LLIL ,. N irk '� r - • VM_ - e r, 7 -• + JKAIL 1 -r �, tip' I+ 4 •r "_ • ! 06 low I tr, ..lr10 Aff 44 k k ILI tAl 1 j ' i 1 f r - � r f s ML �,� _• ;s, y' tf • + �Fiif� �.,�;•a.. .y LIP �-y,��4. ` � _ •� ��• � �+ � ' r� '� Y J � . - �'�, �, may' �•� - T 4 y .�• + .• � 11 . war. - ILI. Z r 1 QJ ' V 40 AtL,l � � '• ' f +i 1, A r w 4 - ow Vr r - � Alty ��'y i } R .� N•iYf f i #r AW y4 � rr 7ti 1 _ L S+' %4 L IVA ON 0 225 450 900 • fie' Mf%A Feet 1 inch = 450 feet } + +f •Z � �aY�~syr Imagery ©2017 , 0igi aTGTobe, J.S. Ge , USDA Farm $•rAw AqwW Goo,SIC .: • Study Area Boundary Developed/Disturbed Permanent Impact Elderberry Scrub SANTA CLARITA VALLEY Goo,SIC7 _ { Ilotw ' N + 4410 s; ALI Ile AW jw r , � e r .w A � °f• f � • � � ,t4 l �• -, L4 y F ' 4r ' l%46 P4. y �� �- `' Y ti ;'� ` ' ,. a W -tow _ .-•�,���' ' � 1� 4 imp, 1 4. oaMf } _ 41 Imagery 02017, DigiaTGTobe, J.S. Ge0,11ey, USDA Farm $elTViOS AQ01'1`y ' 4 SANTA CLARITA VALLEY SHERIFF STATION • I LU • • • 1 ' J • J • ► _ .. Q ► / > Z ► • • O ' ► • • w0 0_ Q 1 1 • r J U) U L • LL o Z W _ - � Vii• � - _• \ � 1•_ ; , ' ' , ' ' • T ' + �_ ' ' � � � � � - � �f ;t aim 4w s f s s yk f V .4 ' 1 4p-J + � r ROW r Oft loom- i - r'�'� 5 e 1 ,' .� f r !rr D o '11%- :k I 7' r t - _ o6 k Co Ile" F « � �,� -,.1 1 •� � ,� �Jr. � �_ ��+ �r ■7 i � �• + -` , �• `' �.��L'� Ilii ar • }� fwd,., - — f� . • . ! • • �' F ! 1 • ; *•i Wdd / 1 41 Ik • / �� / I 1 Q 5. 't r - , W- C4 uj 44, LU lip to 10 r • Mow ✓ do ii � i r• I � 1 _ vt Al O _ 1 N C`! * r LO MIV - - '� _ . � - c � � fir � , ' •, �-� � -,' , ' �/ +i _- BMW MIT IF UA t + , 1 • — _fir _ _ 1 --� .[ r , AteA,, 11 �J -- - ��•, F Jr Ilk 010 Ik JK0 411 low #• Ams-,� • • 4 * ` ' A t� 44 • ► ► ► 1 W • • • ► J JCD co • ► _ .. Q •1 = i Z • 1 • ► .. Q0 ► •— E - T_ Q U— LL C) 0 NE _�e - 1 M CO Q F­N� • •J � ' U LL Q LL .- 0 Z Z W 70t E Lu ••'C) 0- cl''tntn clPON O N AL 074 !. y 4 11 40 ir • j r a ! !iROW 1 � - " �.�r+�! � • 1 •'mow .+ �� �� • • � '+ � � �jr r • .. ,• !',- , 1 rip i pr Am 4r am �' � •'� � •� �'• /� �� iii �f � . �r f � >� . •'- � � y, ; OF LL m r � � W J ol� 4t 1 we_ t Lu 40 41 41 ♦ ♦ ' - J40P 40' j lw • r , 40'r r Wjakda Ao s id } ` 44. OPPO L 16 1 J' JUN mm mp Photograph 1: View to the west of coastal sage, chamise chaparral/coastal sage scrub ecotone, and non-native grassland vegetation communities, along with disturbed/developed areas. Photograph 2: View to the southwest of mule fat scrub, coastal sage scrub, and non-native grassland vegetation communities. U) LU 0 Q 0 Y J Z z W ,Jn V r x W Photograph 3: View to the southwest of disturbed/developed areas consisting of the graded pad. Photograph 4: View to the west of coastal sage scrub and chamise chaparral/coastal sage scrub ecotone vegetation communities, along with disturbed/developed areas. U) LU 0 Q 0 Y J Z z W ,Jn V r x W Photograph 5: View to the north of coastal sage scrub and disturbed/developed areas consisting of the graded pad. Photograph 6: View to the east of disturbed/developed areas consisting of the graded pad and the temporary Los Angeles County Fire Department fire station facility. U) LU 0 Q 0 Y J Z z W ,Jn V r x W APPENDICES Appendix A FLORAL COMPENDIUM The floral compendium lists all species identified during floristic level/focused plant surveys conducted for the Project site. Taxonomy typically follows the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (APG), which in some cases differs from The Jepson Manual 2" Edition (2012). Common plant names are taken from Baldwin et al (2012), Munz (1974), and Roberts et al (2004) and Roberts (2008). An asterisk (*) denotes a non-native species. SCIENTIFIC NAME CONIFEROPHYTA PINACEAE * Pinus sp. MAGNOLIOPHYTA MONOCOTYLEDONS AGAVACEAE Hesperoyucca whipplei LILIACEAE Calochortus splendens COMMON NAME GYMNOSPERMS POACEAE * Avena fatua * Bromus diandrus * Bromus madritensis * Festuca myuros * Hordeum murinum subsp. leporinum * Schismus barbatus THEMIDACEAE Dichelostemma capitatum CONE -BEARING PLANTS Pine Family pine FLOWERING PLANTS MONOCOTS Agave Family Our Lord's candle Lily Family splendid mariposa lily Grass Family common wild oat ripgut grass foxtail chess rattail sixweeks grass bare barley Mediterranean grass Brodiaea Family blue dicks EUDICOTYLEDONS EUDICOTS ADOXACEAE Elderberry Family Sambucus nigra subsp. caerulea blue elderberry ANACARDIACEAE Sumac Family * Schinus molle Peruvian pepper tree APOCYNACEAE Dogbane Family * Nerium oleander oleander ASTERACEAE Sunflower Family Acourtia microcephaly sacapellote Artemisia tridentata Great Basin sagebrush Baccharis salicifolia mule fat * Centaurea melitensis tocalote Corethrogyne filaginifolia var. virgata virgate sand aster Deinandra fasciculata fascicled tarweed * Dimorphotheca fruticosa trailing African daisy Ericameria nauseosa rubber rabbitbrush * Filago gallica narrow -leaved filago Heterotheca grandii lora telegraph weed * Hypochaeris glabra smooth cat's -ear * Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce Raffnesquia californica California chicory * Sonchus asper prickly sow -thistle BORAGINACEAE Borage Family Amsinckia intermedia common fiddleneck Cryptantha sp. cryptantha Eucrypta chrysanthemifolia common eucrypta var. chrysanthemifolia Phacelia ramosissima branching phacelia BRASSICACEAE Mustard Family * Brassica nigra black mustard * Hirschfeldia incana short -pod mustard CACTACEAE Cactus Family Opuntia basilaris var. basilaris common beavertail cactus CHENOPODEACEAE Goosefoot Family * Atriplex semibaccata Australian saltbush * Salsola tragus Russian thistle CUCURBITACEAE Gourd Family Marah macrocarpus wild cucumber EUPHORBIACEAE Spurge Family Euphorbia albomarginata rattlesnake spurge FABACEAE Legume Family * Acacia redolens desert carpet acacia Acmispon glaber deerweed Astragalus lentiginosus freckled milk -vetch Lotus sp. lotus Lotus strigosus strigose lotus Lupinus bicolor miniature lupine Lupinus hirsutissimus stinging lupine Lupinus succulentus arroyo lupine * Medicago polymorpha California burclover * Melilotus alba white sweetclover * Melilotus indica yellow sweetclover * Trifolium fucatum bull clover FAGACEAE Beech Family * Quercus cultivar ornamental oak GERANIACEAE Geranium Family * Erodium cicutarium red -stemmed filaree LAMIACEAE Mint Family * Marrubium vulgare horehound Salvia columbariae chia Salvia leucophylla purple sage Salvia mellifera black sage MALVACEAE Mallow Family Malacothamnus fasciculatus chaparral bush mallow * Malva parviflora cheeseweed MORACEAE Mulberry Family * Ficus pumila creeping fig MYOPORACEAE Myoporum Family * Myoporum parvifolium creeping myoporum NYCTAGINACEAE Four O'Clock Family * Bougainvillea sp. bougainvillea Mirabilis laevis var. crassifolia California wishbone bush PLATANACEAE * Platanus cultivar POLYGONACEAE Eriogonum fasciculatum ROSACEAE Adenostoma fasciculatum * Photinia cultivar * Rosa cultivar SAPINDACEAE * Koelreuteria cultivar SOLANACEAE * Nicotiana glauca TAMARICACEAE * Tamarix ramosissima Sycamore Family ornamental sycamore Buckwheat Family California buckwheat Rose Family chamise photinia English rose Soapberry/Maple Family golden rain tree Nightshade Family tree tobacco Tamarisk Family saltcedar Appendix B FAUNAL COMPENDIUM The faunal compendium lists all species identified during general/focused wildlife surveys conducted for the Project site. Scientific nomenclature and common names for vertebrate species referred to in this compendium follow the Complete List of Amphibian, Reptile, Bird, and Mammal Species in California (CDFG 2016), Standard Common and Scientific Names for North American Amphibians, Turtles, Reptiles, and Crocodilians 6th Edition, Collins and Taggert (2009) for amphibians and reptiles, and the American Ornithologists' Union Checklist 7th Edition (2015) for birds. An asterisk (*) denotes a non-native species. SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME LEPIDOPTERA BUTTERFLIES LYCAENIDAE Gossamer -Wing Butterflies Plebejus acmon acmon blue AVES BIRDS ACCIPITRIDAE Hawks And Old World Vultures Accipiter cooperii Cooper's hawk Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk AEGITHALIDAE Long -Tailed Tits And Bushtits Psaltriparus minimus bushtit ALAUDIDAE Larks Eremophila alpestris actia California horned lark APODIDAE Swifts Aeronautes saxatilis white -throated swift COLUMBIDAE Pigeons And doves * Columba livia rock pigeon Zenaida macroura mourning dove CORVIDAE Crows And Jays Aphelocoma californica California scrub -jay Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow Corvus corax common raven EMBERIZIDAE Emberizids Aimophila ruficeps canescens Southern California rufous -crowned Sparrow Chondestes grammacus Lark sparrow Melozone crissalis California towhee Passerculus sandwichensis savannah sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys white -crowned sparrow FRINGILLIDAE Fringilline And Cardueline Finches and Allies Haemorhous mexicanus house finch Haemorhous purpureus purple finch Spinus psaltria lesser goldfinch MIMIDAE Mockingbirds And Thrashers Mimus polyglottos northern mockingbird ODONTOPHORIDAE New World Quails Callipepla californica California quail TIMALIIDAE Babblers Chamaea fasciata wrentit TROCHILIDAE Hummingbirds Calypte anna Anna's hummingbird TROGLODYTIDAE Wrens Thryomanes bewickii Bewick's wren TYRANNIDAE Tyrant Flycatchers Sayornis saya Say's phoebe TYTONIDAE Barn Owls Tyto alba barn owl VIREONIDAE Vireos Vireo cassinii Cassin's vireo Vireo gilvus warbling vireo Vireo huttoni Hutton's vireo MAMMALIA MAMMALS CANIDAE Foxes, Wolves And Allies Canis latrans coyote Appendix C RESUMES OF CONTRIBUTORS Zack West Tricia Campbell David Moskovitz Jeff Ahrens ZACRRY WEST GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES© Senior Biologist�����►JJ Regulatory Specialist YEARS OF EXPERIENCE PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY Professional start dale:2002 Zackry West has Pootleenyears of extensive biological and Years atGLA :>1 regulatory experience In both the public and private sectors. He has played a keyrole In coordinating and performing biological EDUCATION mels, preparing technical document, and obtaining permit for project requiring federal Endangered Species Act IFESAI, BA, Environmental Studies, California California Endangered Species Act ICESAL andfederal Clean State UnlaersNy, San Bernardlno,20W WaterAct CWAlcompliance. Zackry addltlonallyhas broad e perlencewlth regulatory agency coordination ranging from conducting Section ] consultations to acquiring aquatic permits. PERM ITS/CERTI FICATIONS Zackry has performed the role of Lead Biologist on myriad California Rapid Assessment transportation project throughout Orange, Doerslde, and San Methodology CRANI Pradllloner- Bernardino Counties involving biological and regulabryaspect Devine and Recessional Wetlands from Initial projectscoping through project construction phases. Modules, 20122013 He has extensive experience In preparing technical documents, including juridktional delineation reports, Natural Environment Study (NES) and NES Minimal Impact (NES of reports, Western TRAIN INGS ATTENDED Riverside and Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan consistency reports, California Rapid Advanced Hydric Solt, Wetland Assessment Method CRAM) reports, and focused survey reports. Training Institute, 2015 He routinely coordinates and conduct general biological and aquatic resource constraint survey, and focused protocol surveys 3 Day Field Tour of Desert Washes for specialetatus species such as desert tortoise, arroyo toad and Waters In Coachella Valley, burrowing owl, and rare/narrow endemic plants. Zackry regularly California, James W. Tedford, 2013 coordinates with state and federal agencies, Including the U.S. Fish and WId1fe Service IDSFWSI, U.S. Army Cors of Engineers (Corps), Regulatory IV Wetland Delineation, California Department of Fish and Maine CDCg, various Corp,20AS Regional Water Quality Control Board RWQCBs) /State Water Resources Control Board R WRCBI, U.S. Rarest Service, and U.S. Bureau of Land Management to obtain CWA permits, 401 water Bak and Tram podatlon, Caltrans, quality certifications, sfreambed alteration ag reemenk,as well as 20AS FAA and CESA incidental take permit and authorizations. Introduction to the ESA, Federal SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE Highway Administration, FOPS TRANSPORTATION Participant In Nelson Bighorn Sheep Census, CDFW,200] WATEMUM 74SARETSHOULDERWIDMING Pf01 ST F/S!C£IRIIXIp PAfMWAYMPATAAVQIUEIOWESTOFP.f'I KPIANTENI CE - Introduction toMaine Crossings, CEPNRMENTOFTRANSICRATION (D/1TMNG)DBIRICT]3; OFMNGE Caltrans, 2007 COU Nj GWFCRNN Served as Lead Biologist. The project involves widening the ems time Introduction to Desert Tortoise shoulders associated with State Route 74. Conducted mapping of Surveying, Monitoring, and Handling suitable arroyo toad habitat within the study area. Coordinated Techniques, Desert Tortoise Council, Identification of the location of off site arroyo toad upland habitat 2035 compensatory mitigation restoration area with Caltrans and IISFWS. Identified appropriate species and developed seeding/planting lists In coordination with Caltrans ZACKRY WEST I GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES landscape architects for revegetation associated with both the on-site arroyo toad upland habitat restoration area and off-site arroyo toad upland habitat compensatory mitigation restoration area. Authored and conducted senior technical review of various sections of the arroyo toad habitat mitigation and monitoring plan. Lead focused arroyo toad surveys and participated in invasive predator eradication efforts, both as a portion of project mitigation as coordinated with USFWS. CAJALCO ROAD WIDENING PROJECT - RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT; CORONA, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Delineator/Senior Biologist. The project involves widening Cajalco Road from two to four lanes of travel. Coordinated and managed three teams of delineators and conducted the jurisdictional delineation of an approximately 34 -mile project alignment including multiple alternatives. Led 2015/2016 narrow endemic plant surveys. GRAPEFRUIT BOULEVARD (SR-111)/4TH STREET PEDESTRIAN ACCESS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT; MECCA, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Delineator/Senior Biologist. The project entailed constructing improved pedestrian access. Coordinated and conducted the jurisdictional delineation. Conducted a technical review of the NES MI and biological assessment. SANTA ANA RIVER TRAIL - RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT; RIVERSIDE AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Delineator/Regulatory Specialist. The project entailed converting the existing eight to 27 -foot wide dirt roadway into a bike lane and multi-purpose trail. Coordinated and conducted the jurisdictional delineation for the proposed mitigation site and served as lead technical reviewer of the jurisdictional delineation report. VISTA CHINO BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT - CITY OF PALM SPRINGS; PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Biologist. The project involves constructing a new bridge crossing in place of the existing Vista Chino low water crossing of the Whitewater River. Coordinated and conducted focused surveys including focused rare plant surveys, protocol Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard surveys, and the jurisdictional delineation. Coordinated with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians to ensure that concerns regarding the tribal habitat conservation plan were addressed in support of obtaining a conditional use permit. Served as lead author of the jurisdictional delineation report and senior technical reviewer of the NES and biological assessment. Coordinated with Caltrans and USFWS in support of a formal Section 7 consultation for the Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard and Coachella Valley milkvetch. REPAIR OF LENWOOD ROAD AT THE MOJAVE RIVER PROJECT - COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS; COMMUNITY OF LENWOOD, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Delineator/Regulatory Specialist. The project entailed reconstructing the previously existing Lenwood Road crossing over the Mojave River, which suffered catastrophic failure due to winter storms in 2010/2011. Coordinated and conducted the jurisdictional delineation at the previously existing crossing location. Prepared and submitted permit applications for a 404 nationwide permit, 401 water quality certification, and 1602 streambed alteration agreement. Coordinated closely with the resource agencies to obtain permits in an expedited timeframe to successfully meet funding deadlines. ESCONDIDO AVENUE CULVERT PERMITTING PROJECT - COUNTY OFSAN BERNARDINO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS; HESPERIA, CALIFORNIA Served as Regulatory Specialist. The proposed project involved constructing a culvert beneath the existing Escondido Avenue for flood protection purposes. Worked closely with county planners and engineers to quantify revised project impacts based on several revisions to project designs. Prepared applications for a 404 Nationwide Permit, 401 water quality certification, and 1602 streambed alteration agreement and obtained the authorizations. Page 2 ZACKRY WEST I GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES SR 210/PEPPER AVENUE INTERCHANGE PROJECT - SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS; RIALTO, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Biologist. The project involved constructing a new interchange between SR 210 and Pepper Avenue. Coordinated right -of -entry permits for the project, conducted focused surveys including protocol burrowing owl surveys and rare plant surveys, and performed the jurisdictional delineation. Provided support to Caltrans District 8, the Section 7 consultation lead agency, for Section 7 consultation for project impacts to designated critical habitat for San Bernardino kangaroo rat and occupied habitat for Santa Ana River woollystar. NCCP/HCP EIR/EIS JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION AND REGULATORY PERMITTING FOR 13 FREEWAY PROJECTS (M2 PROGRAM) - ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Served as Regulatory Specialist/Lead Technical Reviewer. Conducted wetland delineation work on the Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) as part of Orange County Transportation Authority's (OCTA's) M2 Program. Coordinated with the Corps and SWRCB for issuance of a programmatic CWA 404 permit and CWA 401 water quality certification. ALSO CREEK PROPOSED MITIGATION SITE - LAGUNA CANYON FOUNDATION/ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; ALSO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Delineator/Lead Technical Reviewer. The proposed mitigation site was one of several locations proposed for OCTA's M2 Program. Coordinated and conducted the jurisdictional delineation for the proposed mitigation site and performed a technical review of the jurisdictional delineation report. WEST LOMA PROPOSED MITIGATION SITE - IRVINE RANCH CONSERVANCY/ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Delineator/CRAM Practitioner. The proposed mitigation site was one of several locations proposed for OCTA's M2 Program. Coordinated and conducted the jurisdictional delineation for the proposed mitigation site and served as lead preparer of the jurisdictional delineation report. I-5 HOV LANE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS - ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Biologist. The project entailed converting a controlled access high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane to a full-time access HOV lane. Conducted a general biological constraints survey, coordinated preparation of a NES MI, and provided technical review of the NES MI. LOS ANGELES/SAN DIEGO/SAN LUIS OBISPO RAILROAD CORRIDOR GRADE SEPARATION AT 17TH STREET - ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Biologist. The project involved a grade separation between 17th Street and the Metrolink Railroad to improve traffic flow. Conducted a preliminary biological constraints survey and provided recommendations for inclusion in the preliminary environmental study. Evaluated the project area for potential occurrence of listed/sensitive plant and wildlife species and associated habitats as well as potential presence of aquatic resources under Corps, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdictions. I-405 HOV LANE IMPROVEMENTS - ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Biologist. The project involved conversion of a controlled access high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane to a full-time access HOV lane and replacement of damaged signs. Conducted a general biological constraints survey and evaluated potential project impacts to aquatic resources under Corps, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdictions. Prepared the NES MI for the project. I-5/EL TORO ROAD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS - ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; LAKE FOREST, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Biologist. The project entailed improvements to the existing interchange to improve traffic flow. Conducted a preliminary biological constraints survey and provided recommendations for inclusion in the preliminary environmental study. Evaluated the project area for potential occurrence of listed/sensitive plant and wildlife species and associated habitats as well as potential presence of aquatic resources under Corps, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdictions. Page 3 ZACKRY WEST I GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES SR -91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT FROM STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD TO LAKEVIEW AVENUE -ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Biologist. The project involved the addition of general purpose lanes eastbound and westbound, interchange modification and reconfiguration, and SR -91 /SR -57 freeway connector widening. Conducted a preliminary biological constraints survey and provided recommendations for inclusion in the preliminary environmental study. Evaluated the project area for potential occurrence of listed/sensitive plant and wildlife species and associated habitats as well as potential presence of aquatic resources under Corps, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdictions. SANTA ANA BOULEVARD GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT - CITY OF SANTA ANA; SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Biologist. The project entailed a grade separation between Santa Ana Boulevard and the Metrolink Railroad to improve traffic flow. Conducted a biological constraints survey and evaluated the project area for potential occurrence of listed/sensitive plant and wildlife species and associated habitats as well as potential presence of aquatic resources under Corps, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdictions. Prepared the NES MI for the project. MONTE VISTAAVENUE GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT - CITY OF MONTCLAIR; MONTCLAIR, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Biologist. The project entailed a grade separation between Monte Vista Avenue and the Union Pacific Railroad to improve traffic flow. Conducted a biological constraints survey and evaluated the project area for potential occurrence of listed/sensitive plant and wildlife species and associated habitats. Performed the jurisdictional delineation and prepared the NES MI for the project. 1-215 FOUR- TO SIX -LANE WIDENING FROM SCOTT ROAD TO NUEVO ROAD - RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION; RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Served as Regulatory Specialist. The project involved constructing an additional mixed flow lane on northbound and southbound 1-215 between Scott Road and Nuevo Road. Reviewed the 404 (b) (1) alternatives analysis and provided regulatory support. THE FLUME TRAIL PROJECT - COUNTY OFSAN DIEGO DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION; LAKESIDE, CALIFORNIA Served as Senior Technical Reviewer. The project involved constructing the Flume Trail to connect with the existing EI Monte Park Trail at EI Monte Park. Conducted a technical review of the jurisdictional delineation report. 1-15 CORRIDOR WIDENING FROM 1-215 TO SR -60 - RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION; RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Served as Senior Biologist. The project entails widening the 1-15 between 1-215 and SR -60 in Riverside County. Conducted a senior technical review of the NES. US ROUTE 395 SAFETY WIDENING PROJECT - CALTRANS DISTRICT 8; NEAR ADELANTO, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Biologist. This safety improvement project proposed widening of US Route 395 to install a four - foot median rumble strip and eight -foot standardized shoulders with rumble strips and shoulder backing to improve safety for the traveling public. Conducted a formal Section 7 consultation resulting in issuance of a biological opinion for desert tortoise. Obtained a 2081 incidental take permit for desert tortoise and Mojave ground squirrel, CWA nationwide permit 14, 401 water quality certification, and 1602 streambed alteration agreement. Also played an active role within the project development team, coordinating design aspects consistent with CDFW and USFWS requirements for permanent desert tortoise exclusionary fencing. SR 58 SAFETY WIDENING PROJECT - CALTRANS DISTRICTS; NEAR KRAMER JUNCTION, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Biologist. This safety improvement project proposed widening of SR 58 to install a four -foot median rumble strip and eight -foot standardized shoulders with rumble strips and shoulder backing in San Bernardino County. Coordinated with CDFW and obtained a 2081 incidental take permit for desert tortoise and Mojave ground squirrel. Worked closely with CDFW to develop species protection specifications for inclusion in the contractor's bid package. Page 4 ZACKRY WEST I GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES SR 138 TWO- TO FOUR -LANE WIDENING PROJECT - CALTRANS DISTRICT 8; SAN BERNARDINO AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Biologist. The project involved constructing one additional lane of travel on eastbound and westbound SR 138 from 1-15 to SR 18. Served as task order manager for focused least Bell's vireo surveys and the jurisdictional delineation. Coordinated and conducted focused arroyo toad and rare plant surveys. Conducted an informal Section 7 consultation for desert tortoise, least Bell's vireo, and arroyo toad. Coordinated with Caltrans landscape architects and CDFW to develop measures to transplant Joshua trees within Caltrans right of way outside of the project footprint. Coordinated with the U.S. Forest Service, using guidance developed by the U.S. Geological Survey Western Ecological Research Center, to develop suitable locations for two wildlife undercrossings. Also conducted early coordination efforts with the Corps to potentially reduce project impacts to qualify for coverage under a CWA 404 nationwide permit 14. SR 138 LITTLE HORSETHIEF CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT - CALTRANS DISTRICT 8; SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY NEAR SILVERWOOD, CALIFORNIA Served as Project Biologist. The project entailed removing the existing bridge structure at the SR 138 Little Horsethief Creek crossing and constructing a new bridge designed to meet current seismic standards. Conducted protocol arroyo toad surveys, rare plant surveys, and a jurisdictional delineation in support of the Section 7 consultation process and obtaining aquatic permits. SR 330 CULVERT LINING PROJECT - CALTRANS DISTRICT 8; NEAR RUNNING SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Biologist. The project involved lining existing culverts to maintain an adequate service level and extend functional life and installing inlet structures in San Bernardino County. Conducted rare plant surveys, a general biological constraints survey, vegetation mapping, and a jurisdictional delineation. Prepared a NES MI. Worked closely with USFWS to develop appropriate avoidance and minimization measures for proposal during the Section 7 consultation process. SR 38 PAVEMENT OVERLAY PROJECT - CALTRANS DISTRICT 8; SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Biologist. The project is to cold -plane, overlay, and replace existing three -beam guardrail from Valley of the Falls to Big Bear City. Conducted habitat assessments for southwestern willow flycatcher, Sierra Madre mountain yellow -legged frog, western spotted owl, southern rubber boa, and rare plant species. Prepared a NESMI, and conducted informal Section 7 consultation for potential noise and vibration impacts to known southwestern willow flycatcher nesting habitat. 1-10 TAMARISK REMOVAL PROJECT - CALTRANS DISTRICT 8; CATHEDRAL CITY, CALIFORNIA Served as lead biologist. The proposed project is to trim/remove Athel tamarisk trees within the clear recovery zone, and to replace fire -damaged above -ground irrigation systems, along westbound 1-10. Conducted rare plant surveys, along with a general biological constraints survey, and prepared a NESMI. Conducted informal Section 7 consultation for Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard, Coachella Valley milk -vetch, and obtained a Conference Opinion for flat -tailed horned lizard. SR 78 PALO VERDE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT - CALTRANS DISTRICT 8; PALO VERDE, CALIFORNIA Served as Project Biologist. The project involved replacing the existing bridge over the Palo Verde Ditch to meet seismic safety standards. Conducted focused nesting season burrowing owl surveys and qualitative and quantitative monitoring of restoration area. SR 247 SHOULDER WIDENING PROJECT - CALTRANS DISTRICT 8; NEAR LANDERS, CALIFORNIA Served as lead biologist. The proposed project is the installation of eight -foot standardized shoulders and associated shoulder backing, along each direction of travel on SR 247 in San Bernardino County. Coordinated the approved jurisdictional determination process with the USACE, and conducted informal Section 7 consultation for the desert tortoise. Page 5 ZACKRY WEST I GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES SR 62 LEFT TURN POCKET INSTALLATION PROJECT - CALTRANS DISTRICT 8; TWENTY NINE PALMS, CALIFORNIA Served as lead biologist. The proposed project is to install median left -turn pockets and eight -foot standard shoulders on SR 62 in San Bernardino County. Conducted a general biological constraints survey, performed the jurisdictional delineation, and prepared a NES. Coordinated with the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW, to determine that CWA and CDFW permits were not needed for the proposed project. Developed species protection specifications for inclusion in the contractor's bid package. 1-10 WHITEWATER RIVER BRIDGE CHECK DAM PROJECT - CALTRANS DISTRICT 8; WHITEWATER, CALIFORNIA Served as lead biologist. The proposed project is to construct a check dam for the prevention of future scour, to extend the serviceable life of existing bridge abutments on the I-10/Whitewater River Bridge. Coordinated and conducted focused arroyo toad surveys, rare plant surveys, and the jurisdictional delineation. Also coordinated and participated in desert tortoise presence/absence surveys. Conducted the Joint Project Review process with the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, to ensure compliance with the Coachella Valley MSHCP. 1-15 MOUNTAIN PASS TRUCK DESCENDING LANE INSTALLATION PROJECT - CALTRANS DISTRICTS; MOUNTAIN PASS, CALIFORNIA Served as project biologist. The proposed project is to construct a truck descending lane on 1-15, from Bailey Road to Nipton Road. Participated in desert tortoise presence/absence surveys and played a large role in identifying potential mitigation land to offset impacts to desert riparian habitat. 1-10 WESTBOUND FROM YUCAIPA TO REDLANDS AUXILIARY LANE INSTALLATION PROJECT - CALTRANS DISTRICT 8; YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA Served as lead biologist. The proposed project is to construct a mixed -flow auxiliary lane on 1-10 westbound, from Yucaipa Boulevard to Ford Street. Conducted the jurisdictional delineation and coordinated with the USACE. 1-215 4 TO 6 LANE WIDENING FROM MURRIETA HOTSPRINGS ROAD TO SCOTT ROAD - RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION; MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA Served as lead biologist. The proposed project is to construct an additional mixed flow lane on northbound and southbound 1-215 between Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Scott Road, Murrieta, California. Reviewed preliminary environmental analysis report. 1-15 DUNCAN CANYON ROAD NEW INTERCHANGE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT - CITY OF FONTANA; FONTANA, CALIFORNIA Served as lead biologist. The proposed project is to construct a new interchange on 1-15 at Duncan Canyon Road, Fontana, California. Reviewed Project Report, NES, Burrowing Owl Survey Report, and Jurisdictional Delineation Report. Coordinated CWA jurisdiction of aquatic features with the USACE immediately following the 2007 Rapanos/Carabell decision. UPPER SANTA ANA RIVER HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN - SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT; RIVERSIDE AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA Served as senior biologist. The Upper Santa Ana River Habitat Conservation Plan will specify how species and their habitats will be protected and managed in the future and will provide the incidental take permits needed by the water resource agencies under the federal and State endangered species acts to maintain, operate, and improve their water resource infrastructure. Conducted senior technical review of species accounts for covered species including arroyo toad, South Coast garter snake, California glossy snake, and western spadefoot toad. Page 6 ZACKRY WEST I GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES WHITEWATER RIVER STORMWATER CHANNEL AND COACHELLA VALLEY STORMWATER CHANNEL JD - COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT; COACHELLA VALLEY, CAUFORNIA Served as field delineation manager/ regulatory specialist/interim project manager. The proposed project is to identify areas under the USACE, EPA, State Water Board, and CDFW jurisdiction, for the purpose of obtaining a CWA 404 Regional General Permit, 401 water quality certification, and streambed alteration agreement for routine O&M activities within the Whitewater River Stormwater Channel and Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel. Coordinated and managed four teams of delineators to complete the jurisdictional delineation of approximately 55 river -miles, on an aggressive schedule. Developed a standardized data collection format, developed approaches for problematic areas, and coordinated site access and crew safety. To deal with the large scale of the effort, met with each team upon the conclusion of each field day and discussed the resources encountered and reviewed data collected by each team to ensure that all data collected was clear and complete. In addition, delineated one of the four reaches involved in the project area. Contributed technical sections and conducted senior technical review of the Jurisdictional Delineation Report. Conducted on-going coordination with the regulatory agencies to obtain permits. SAND/UPPER WARM CREEK CONFLUENCE PROJECT - COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS; HIGHLAND, CALIFORNIA Served as lead delineator. The proposed project is to reconfigure the existing Sand/Upper Warm Creek confluence for flood protection purposes. Coordinated and conducted the jurisdictional delineation. Provided technical review of the memorandum update to the existing Jurisdictional Delineation Report and coordinated project design/permitting details with County personnel. LEMON CREST DRIVE DRAINAGE PROJECT - COUNTY OFSAN DIEGO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS; LAKESIDE, CALIFORNIA Served as lead delineator/regulatory specialist/project manager. The proposed project is to conduct maintenance within a channel located between Rockcrest Road and Lemon Crest Drive, in Lakeside, California. Coordinated and conducted the jurisdictional delineation and prepared a Jurisdictional Delineation Report. WINTER GARDENS BOULEVARD CHANNEL PROJECT - COUNTY OFSAN DIEGO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS; LAKESIDE, CALIFORNIA Served as lead delineator/regulatory specialist/project manager. The proposed project is to conduct maintenance within a channel located adjacent to Winter Gardens Boulevard, in Lakeside, California. Coordinated and conducted the jurisdictional delineation. Prepared a Jurisdictional Delineation Report in support of an approved jurisdictional delineation. SAN PASQUALACADEMY FLOOD CONTROL MAINTENANCE PROJECT - COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS; SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Served as lead delineator/regulatory specialist. The proposed project is to conduct maintenance within a channel and in -channel basin complex located within the San Pascual Academy Campus, near Escondido, California. Coordinated and conducted the jurisdictional delineation. Prepared a Jurisdictional Delineation Report in support of an approved jurisdictional delineation. CHERLY CREEK-ANDREAS CANYON LEVEE REHABILITATION - RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROLAND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT; PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA Served as lead delineator. Conducted a jurisdictional delineation to further define the limits of the USACE and CDFW jurisdictional areas, as they pertain to current site conditions. Coordinated and conducted an updated jurisdictional delineation and augmented an existing Jurisdictional Delineation Report with additional findings. VERBENA CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS AND CONSTRUCT NEW BASIN - RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROLAND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT; DESERT HOTSPRINGS, CALIFORNIA Served as lead biologist. The proposed project is to widen the existing Verbena Channel and construct a new in-line detention basin for flood protection. Coordinated and conducted focused surveys for rare plants, burrowing owl, and the jurisdictional delineation. Upon determining presence of Coachella Valley milk vetch, coordinated and conducted population mapping surveys, and developed applicable mitigation measures. Page 7 ZACKRY WEST I GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES Also assessed the project area and completed a Coachella Valley MSHCP Compliance Report, as the plan was in final stages of development and nearing adoption. LAKE MATTHEWS TAMARISK REMOVAL PROJECT - METROPOLITAN; LAKE MATTHEWS, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Served as project biologist. The proposed project is to remove tamarisk from the lake shore and proximal tributaries to minimize water loss due to evapotranspiration. Performed biological monitoring to ensure compliance with FESA/CESA/CWA permits. COLORADO RIVER AQUEDUCT SIPHON WHITEWATER RIVER DISCHARGE POINT BANK STABILIZATION PROJECT - METROPOLITAN; WHITEWATER, CALIFORNIA Served as project biologist. The proposed project is to use native material for the installation of several earthen berms to direct flow and stabilize failing banks immediately downstream of the Colorado River Aqueduct Siphon Whitewater River Discharge facility. Conducted focused arroyo toad surveys and performed biologica monitoring to ensure compliance with FESA/CESA/CWA permits. COLORADO RIVER AQUEDUCT SIPHON WHITEWATER RIVER DISCHARGE POINT MINING PIT RECLAMATION PROJECT - METROPOLITAN; WHITEWATER, CALIFORNIA Served as project biologist. The proposed project is to use stockpiled material generated from the installation of the Colorado River Aqueduct Siphon to fill an open sand and gravel mining pit in order to improve public safety. Conducted focused arroyo toad, rare plant, winter/nesting season burrowing owl surveys. Conducted the jurisdictional delineation. ENERGY TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT FREMONT VALLEY ECOLOGICAL RESERVE POTENTIAL MITIGATION AREA - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON: FREMONT VALLEY. CALIFORNIA Served as lead delineator/lead CRAM practitioner. The proposed mitigation site is one of several locations that are proposed for Southern California Edison's Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project. Coordinated and conducted the jurisdictional delineation of the proposed mitigation site and served as lead preparer of the Jurisdictional Delineation Report. Coordinated and conducted California Rapid Assessment Method analysis of three Assessment Areas within the proposed mitigation site and served as lead preparer of the CRAM Report. TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON; LOS ANGELES, SAN BERNARDINO, AND KERN COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA Served as lead delineator. Coordinated and conducted the jurisdictional delineation of areas identified for additional impacts on Segments 3, 6, and Chino Hills Underground. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRIBAL HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN - RINCON BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS; RINCON RESERVATION Serves as lead arroyo toad biologist. Developed a methodology for mapping arroyo toad breeding habitat utilizing hydrologic indicators of the 10 -year storm event and a methodology to qualitatively map arroyo toad upland habitat based on soil types, stressors, land use, and potential restoration and management practices, through coordination in the field with USFWS. Conducted mapping of arroyo toad breeding habitat and qualitative mapping of arroyo toad upland habitat for inclusion in the Tribal HCP. Page 8 ZACKRY WEST I GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES TRANCAS LAGOON RESTORATION PROJECT -RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT OF THE SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS; MALIBU, CALIFORNIA Served as CRAM Practitioner. The project involves the restoration of Trancas Lagoon to facilitate movement of southern steelhead to potential spawning habitat upstream. Conducted CRAM following the bar -built estuarine and riverine modules. AGUA CHINON PROPOSED MITIGATION SITE - IRVINE RANCH CONSERVANCY/ORANGE COUNTY WASTE AND RECYCLING; ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Served as lead delineator; CRAM practitioner. The proposed project is a mitigation site for Orange County Waste and Recycling. Coordinated and conducted the jurisdictional delineation of the proposed mitigation site and served as lead preparer of the Jurisdictional Delineation Report. Served as CRAM practitioner. DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS EUCALYPTUS INDUSTRIAL PARK - PROLOGIS; MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA Served as project manager. The proposed project is to construct 2,244,638 square feet of industrial space within 6 buildings. Coordinated the completion of a Western Riverside MSHCP Determination of Biologically Superior or Equivalent Preservation and the aquatic permitting process. Provided technical documents for inclusion in the Project Environmental Impact Report. SUMMERWIND DEVELOPMENT - CITY OF BEAUMONT; BEAUMONT, CALIFORNIA Served as lead biologist. The proposed project is to construct single-family residential, multi -family residential, fire protection infrastructure, parks, green belts, and open space/preserve land on approximately 7,000 acres Beaumont. Coordinated and conducted focused rare plant surveys, nesting season burrowing owl surveys, and a jurisdictional delineation. Coordinated directly with Summerwind Partners, LLC, to establish access to restricted areas of the project site and acquire additional project information materials. Also accompanied land -survey crews during their activities within the project site to ensure avoidance of potentially sensitive biological/aquatic resources. WINCHESTER 700 DEVELOPMENT - WINCHESTER 700 PARTNERS, LLC; RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Served as project biologist. The proposed project is to construct 700 single-family residential units, with associated conservation land, in the unincorporated community of Winchester. Conducted vegetation mapping and focused burrowing owl surveys, as well as participating in focused surveys for rare plants, least Bell's vireo, coastal California gnatcatcher, and Quino checkerspot butterfly, including conservation lands dedicated through the criteria refinement process of the Western Riverside MSHCP. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS California Native Plant Society Society of Wetland Scientists EMPLOYMENT HISTORY Glenn Lukas Associates. Senior Biologist/Regulatory Specialist. Lake Forest, California. 2016 - Present. ICF International. Southern California Transportation Biology Manager. Corona, California. 2011 - 2016. Page 9 ZACKRY WEST I GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES Caltrans District 8. Associate Environmental Planner (Natural Science)/Biologist. San Bernardino, California. 2007-2011. Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. Biologist. Riverside, California. 2004-2007. Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Basin Planning Student. Riverside, California. 2002 - 2004. Page 10 TRICIA CAMPBELL GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATESPr in cip all© Senior Biologist YEARS OF EXPERIENCE PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY Professional start date: 1993 irlcla Campbell has 26 years of experience as an active Field Biologist, providing consulting for andspeclahang lnspeclatstatus Years at GLA:2 species biology and sensitive biological resource issues with regional emphasis lnsouthern California. Her expertise EDUCATION management of project that are complex due to a combination offactors including types offederally anNorstataltted resources BA, Biology, California present, regulatory and legal framework, multiple agency State University, Long Beach, l9® ants, and/or large sized projects. She is experienced with private development, transportation, government (local and PERMIT state), and utility projects. Ul 10(a)(1)(A) Re covery irlcla has conducte of biological fAd lnvestlg atlorx and reporting Permit, YTE18926610 for Callffornla Environmental QTony Act (CEGA) and N atlonal (re initiating) Por Southwestern Environmental Q Tony Act (NEPA) document including Initial Whow Flycatcher and Coastal studies, mitigated negative declarations, environmental impact CallPornla Gnatcatcher reports (El RL environmental impact sNtlies (EIS), and California Department of Transportation natural environment studies TEACHING EXPERIENCE requiring detailed Impact anapees. She is experienced with Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section ] consultations and Guest Speaker at CEQA Extension biological assessments. She conduct Pocwedsurvey, and/or Course,NCLA,20d habitat evaluations for listed spedalebtus species including California least tern, western snowy plover, Beldiing's savannah Assistant Instructor for Land Bird sparrow, arroyo toad Chino checkerspot, burrowing owl, coastal Bantling and Micro ageing Extension California gnatcatcher, southwestern willow flycatcher, least Bell's Course, LC DoersItle,20d vireo, and California yellow- billed cuckoo. Tricia has extensive knowledge and experience with southern California flora and COJnstmcbrPor Hummingbird ummingbird fauna and excels at working on difficult, complex project. Banding Workshop, UC Riverside, 195E SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE TRAIN INGS ATTENDED ANAHEIM REDION&TRUNSPORFAIgN INIFAMEALCENTERPROJECT- OIECT- ORANGE COUNIYIIMNSPO TATXX1 AJTHORXRg MAHDM, CAl1FGFd11A Endan dS ActU date, gene pedes p Endangered CIE International, 2014 Served as Lead Biologist. Authored the biological resources technical report as well as biological resources baseline and California YellowbilledCuckoo Impact analyses for the EWES. Resource issues Included potential Workshop at the Kern River Preserve, federal jurktlictional waters and wetlands as well as state Audubon Society, 2035 sfreambece and nesting bird protected under Deal nal and state Taws. The project was located In a highly developed landscape. Wetland Dehneatbn Course, Wetland Training Institute, 2035 CAl1FGRNM HgHBPEED(PVN,ANAHDMAOIIE ANGELES - CALIFORNIA HIGHSPEED RAILAUT10RRIBI INCCflidNIED ORANGE AND Lib U.S. Ar my Cc pe of Engineers ANGELS 0011111188, CALIFORNIA Wetland Delineation Training, Served as Lead Biologist. Conducted spedalebtw species habitat Richard Chinn Environmental evoluatio he and veg etatlon mapping. A coationally served as Training, 20M primary author of the biological resources technical report as well as for biological resource baseline and Impacts analyses In the Southwestern Wow Flycatcher Workshop at the Kern River Preserve, Audubon Society, 2001 TRICIA CAMPBELL I GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES EIR/EIS. The project required an in-depth understanding of both state and federal environmental laws and regulations related to biological resources. LOST CANYONS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT - HILLWOOD CAPITAL; SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA Serving as Lead Biologist. Coordinate a Section 7 consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for coastal California gnatcatcher and least Bell's vireo within the 1775 -acre development project. Author the biological assessment, a sensitive species protection plan for western spadefoot toad, and a native plant management plan for rare plants. MEADOWPASS ROAD EXTENSION EIR - CITY OF WALNUT; WALNUT, CALIFORNIA Served as Biological Resources Lead. The project was a highly controversial road improvement project. Studies included general biological resources evaluation; delineation of jurisdictional waters and wetlands; and focused studies of California gnatcatcher, least Bell's vireo, and southwestern willow flycatcher. Conducted a protected tree inventory. Prepared biological resource technical documents and sections of the EIR. EUCALYPTUS LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT - PROLOGIS; MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA Served as Advisory Biologist. Authored and received approval of the determination of biological equivalent or superior preservation (DBESP) report in demonstrating consistency with the Western Riverside County multiple species habitat conservation plan's (MSHCP's) riparian/riverine resources requirements. Coordinated with the client and engineering personnel in concert with the Regional Conservation Authority, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Regional Water Quality Control Board, and USFWS liaisons to negotiate mitigation acceptable to all entities, ensuring no duplication of mitigation requirements between the Western Riverside County MSHCP and aquatic permits. QUAIL HILL LOWER MITIGATION SITE MONITORING - THE IRVINE COMPANY; IRVINE, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Biologist. Ensured compliance with the approved U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) mitigation monitoring plan for the lower restoration site within Quail Hill supporting mulefat scrub and southern willow scrub. Coordinated and conducted monthly, quarterly, and annual monitoring events involving site checks, vegetation sampling, and assessment of wildlife functions and values. Provided recommendations to support development and success of the restoration effort. DIAMOND VIEW MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT - DIAMOND VIEW MOUNTAIN HOLDINGS; RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Served as Project Manager and Lead Biologist. Prepared a detailed impact analysis supporting the EIR for the 390 -acre site. Assessed general biological resources; mapped natural community vegetation; conducted focused surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher, burrowing owl, and birds of prey; coordinated jurisdictional waters and wetlands delineation; and performed rare plant botanical surveys. Reported existing site conditions and general and focused field survey results to provide a comprehensive impact analysis of special -status species and other biologically sensitive resources potentially affected by the proposed project within an appropriate regulatory framework considering CEQA, federal and California ESAs, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Additionally, provided avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation recommendations. The project was complex in terms of regulatory needs due to the take of state -listed Mojave tarplant. GALLERY HOMES DEVELOPMENT ISLAND WATER PERMITTING - GALLERY HOMES LLP; UNINCORPORATED RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Served as Project Manager and Lead Biologist. Performed biological resources studies including jurisdictional waters and wetlands delineation and focused surveys for least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, burrowing owl, and rare plants. Provided lead biologist support for water permitting. Prepared the biological resources constraints analysis document in support of the initial study as well as the habitat mitigation and monitoring plan in support of water permitting. Page 2 TRICIA CAMPBELL I GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES 1-15 CORRIDOR WIDENING FROM SAN BERNARDINO TO CAJALCO ROAD MND/EA - RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION/HDR ENGINEERING, CALIFORNIA Serving as Lead Biologist. The project is an interstate improvement project spanning approximately 25 miles of highway in Western Riverside County. Provide oversight of teams of biologists performing a general biological resource study as well as focused studies for rare plants, fairy shrimp, Delhi sands flower -loving fly, burrowing owl, least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, California yellow -billed cuckoo, wildlife linkage/corridor analysis, vernal pool analysis, and delineation of jurisdictional waters and wetlands. Working as the principal author of project documents including a natural environmental study addressing detailed mitigation as well as biological resources sections of the MND/environmental assessment, a Western Riverside County MSCP consistency review, and a determination of biologically equivalent or superior determination (DBESP). Coordinate extensively with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Riverside County Transportation Commission, Caltrans, and Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA). CAJALCO ROAD WIDENING PROJECT, HARVILL AVENUE TO TEMESCAL CANYON ROAD - RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT; CORONA, CALIFORNIA Serving as Senior Technical Manager. The project is a 16 -mile road project spanning three habitat conservation plan (HCP) reserve lands including the Western Riverside County multiple species habitat conservation plan (MSHCP), Stephen's kangaroo rat HCP, and Lake Mathews MSHCP. Work has included conducting a jurisdictional delineation; evaluating vernal pools; mapping watershed areas; conducting rare plant surveys for least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and burrowing owl; performing bat habitat assessments and acoustic studies; conducting Stephens' kangaroo rat habitat modeling and trapping studies; evaluating existing wildlife corridors; creating and implementing integrated wildlife corridors; and conducting mitigation equivalency analyses for all three HCPs. Currently playing a critical role in strategizing approach and coordination with the RCA, resource agencies, Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency, Metropolitan Water District, and environmental advocacy groups. The role requires in-depth knowledge of biological resources, Western Riverside County MSHCP for transportation projects, CEQA, NEPA, CWA Sections 401/404, state aquatic resources, strong working relationships with the resource agencies, and successful negotiating strategies. Reporting has included preparation of a natural environment study; EIR/EIS sections; amendment of the Lake Mathews MSHCP, DBESP, and mitigation equivalency analysis reports; consistency review; and ultimately a joint project review leading to an internal biological opinion. BALLONA WETLANDS RESTORATION PROJECT - CALIFORNIA COASTAL CONSERVANCY; LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Served as Senior Technical Support. Provided support in drafting the biological resources section of the administrative draft EIR/EIS. Provided an in-depth analysis of existing resources, temporal creation and loss of habitats, and rising sea levels. Performed work in partnership with ICF International, Santa Monica Bay Conservancy, CDFW, California Coastal Conservancy, and Wetlands Resources Associates. CALIFORNIA LEAST TERN AND SNOWY PLOVER MONITORING - CALIFORNIASTATE UNIVERSITY LONG BEACH; SAN DIEGO COUNTY. CALIFORNIA Served as Field Biologist. Performed foraging surveys and nest monitoring of numerous California least tern colonies in San Diego County. Monitored nesting and wintering snowy plovers at various naval bases on Coronado Island. Work included banding of young. PECK ROAD BRIDGE WIDENING OVER THE SAN GABRIEL RIVER - LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS; UNINCORPORATED LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Served as project Biologist. Authored the natural environment study for the proposed bridge improvement project. Analysis addressed proposed impacts and mitigation to biological resources including least Bell's vireo, western pond turtle, and riparian-riverine resources within a natural section of the San Gabriel River. Page 3 TRICIA CAMPBELL I GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES SAN PEDRO WATERFRONT PROJECT EIR/EIS - PORT OF LOS ANGELES; LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Biologist. Prepared the biological resources baseline and impacts analysis for the EIR/EIS. Fieldwork included conducting a constraints analysis and delineating federal and state jurisdictional waters and wetlands. Authored biological resources sections for the draft EIR/EIS. The project was placed on hold. SAN DIEGUITO LAGOON RESTORATION PROJECT - PORT OF LOS ANGELES; DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA Served as project Biologist. Inventoried benthic, fish, and avian communities as part of the existing baseline studies in support of the lagoon restoration program. Performed work in partnership with MEC Analytical Systems. SEAL BEACH WETLANDS RESTORATION PROGRAM - PORT OF LONG BEACH; LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Served as project Biologist. Inventoried benthic, fish, and avian communities as part of the subtidal and intertidal creation project in partnership with MEC Analytical Systems and the Port of Long Beach. CAMPUS MASTER PLAN EIR - CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, DOMINGUEZ HILLS, CARSON, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Biologist. Led biological resources studies including a general constraints analysis, delineation of jurisdictional waters and wetlands, and focused studies of burrowing owl and native nesting birds. Provided a detailed analysis of seasonal ponds occupied by Riverside fairy shrimp. Authored the draft biological resources section of the EIR. SANTA FE DAM SPORTS FIELDS BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES STUDIES - KARE YOUTH LEAGUE, IRWINDALE, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Biologist. Supervised and managed biological resources studies in support of the EIR. Studies included a constraints analysis and focused surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher and rare plants. Conducted a detailed analysis of federally designated critical habitat for California gnatcatcher on federal Corps' land. Authored the biological resources constraints analysis in support of the EIR. VICTORIAAVENUE BRIDGE RETROFIT - CITY OF RIVERSIDE, RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Biologist. Managed and conducted a constraints analysis field review and focused surveys for least Bell's vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher. Delineated jurisdictional waters and wetlands. Authored a biological resources constraints analysis report to support the City's CEQA documentation. ADDITIONAL TEACHING EXPERIENCE Campbell, Tricia. CEQA and Biology Speaker/California Environmental Quality Act Extension Course. University of California, Los Angeles. 2009. Campbell, Tricia. 38 -Hour U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation & Management Training Program. Richard Chinn Environmental Training, Inc. 2003. Campbell Tricia. Assistant Instructor/Land Bird Banding and Micro -Ageing. University California, Riverside. 2002. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS California Native Plant Society Society for Conservation Biology The Wildlife Society Western Bird Banding Association (Back Issues) Page 4 TRICIA CAMPBELL I GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES EMPLOYMENT HISTORY Glenn Lukas Associates. Principal/Senior Biologist. Lake Forest, California. 2014 - Present. ICF International. Biological Resources. Riverside, California. 2010-2014. Jones & Stokes (acquired by ICF International). Biological Resources. Temecula, California. 2003-2010. Campbell Biological Consulting. Biological Resources. 1997-2003. Page 5 DAVID MOSKOVITZ Principal/ GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES Senior Biologist/ Regulatory Specialist YEARS OF EXPERIENCE PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY Professional start date: 1997 David Moskovitz is a Field Biologist/Regulatory Specialist with an extensive background in field botany, plant ecology, and wildlife Years at GLA: 19 biology. David has investigated a diverse range of topics in plant EDUCATION ecology including wetlands and riparian systems, vernal pools, alluvial scrub plant communities, fire ecology of mixed conifer MS, Biology, California forests, and classification of desert plant communities. He has State University, Fullerton, 2003 participated in numerous biological investigations throughout Orange County. David's botanical experience has included BA, Biology, California State extensive focused surveys for special -status plants, vegetation University, Fullerton, 1996 mapping, tree inventories, and vernal pool surveys. In addition to his botanical background, his experience in wildlife biology includes performance of general habitat assessments, focused surveys for PERMITS sensitive plants and animals, nesting bird surveys, wildlife movement studies, and raptor foraging studies. CDFW Scientific Collecting Permit #SC -007888 SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE USFWS 10(a)(1)(A) Recovery Permit #TE -084606-3 for Coastal CORONA 720 PROJECT -VULCAN MATERIALS COMPANY; CORONA, California Gnatcatcher and CALIFORNIA listed fairy shrimp Serving as Lead Biologist. Conduct vegetation mapping within the 720 -acre property as well as presence/absence surveys for coastal TEACHING EXPERIENCE California gnatcatcher and focused plant surveys for various species including intermediate mariposa lily and many -stemmed General Biology Instructor, dudleya. Support an extensive wildlife movement study involving Mt. San Antonio College, emotely- surveying for scat and tracks as well as implementing remotely- 2007-2014 2007-2014 triggered cameras and scented track stations necessary to facilitate refinement of a proposed constrained linkage. Prepare a General Botany Instructor, biological technical report to meet California Environmental Quality Mt. San Antonio College, Act (CEQA) and multiple species habitat conservation plan 2011 -12013 (MSHCP) requirements. Botany Lab Instructor, HEACOCK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT -ALBERTA. WEBB California State University, ASSOCIATES; MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA Fullerton, 1996 - 1998 Serving as Project Manager/Lead Biologist. Conduct field studies including general biological surveys, habitat assessments for special - Field Botany Graduate Assistant, status species, and focused surveys for burrowing owl and least California State University, Bell's vireo. Prepare a vegetation map and produce a biological Fullerton, 1997 technical report for use in preparation of environmental documents pursuant to CEQA. Conduct a jurisdictional delineation of a 10,754- TRAININGS ATTENDED linear -foot section of the channel and prepare a jurisdictional delineation report. Prepare permit applications/notifications and Arid West Supplement, coordinate processing of Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 and Wetland Training Institute, 404 and Fish and Game Code (FGC) Section 1602 authorizations. 2007 and 2001 California Burrowing Owl Symposium, 2004 SAN JACINTO RIVER STAGE 4 LEVEE PROJECT—ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES; WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Serving as Project Manager/Biologist. Perform focused surveys for least Bell's vireo and southern willow flycatcher for the 585 -acre levee improvement project. Prepare an MSHCP consistency analysis and determination of biological equivalent or superior preservation (DBESP) analyses for impacts to riparian habitat including least Bell's vireo and Los Angeles pocket mouse habitat. Prepare a jurisdictional delineation report and coordinate processing of CWA Section 401 and 404 and FGC Section 1602 authorizations. INLAND EMPIRE BRINE LINE PROJECT—ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES; WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Serving as Project Manager/Biologist. Conduct general biological surveys and vegetation mapping, pre - construction burrowing owl surveys, focused surveys for rare plants and burrowing owl, and biological monitoring. Perform a jurisdictional delineation and prepare a jurisdictional delineation report. Prepare a biological technical report for use in preparation of environmental documents pursuant to CEQA to demonstrate MSHCP compliance, including with riparian/riverine DBESP requirements. Prepare permit applications and coordinate processing of CWA Section 401 and 404, and FGC Section 1602 authorizations. WILLIAM LYON PROPERTY—THE LYON FAMILY; COTO DE CAZA, CALIFORNIA Serving as Project Manager/Lead Biologist. Conduct a jurisdictional delineation and prepare a jurisdictional delineation report. Perform general biological surveys and focused coastal California gnatcatcher surveys. Conduct an oak tree inventory and prepared an inventory report of findings. Identify on-site mitigation opportunities and formulate a mitigation plan. FAST ORANGE GENERAL PLAN COMMUNITY—THE IRVINE COMPANY; ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Served as Project Biologist. Conducted a jurisdictional delineation for the 10,000 -acre study area and prepared a jurisdictional delineation report. Conducted extensive vegetation mapping of native habitats including coastal sage scrub, native grassland, chaparral, and riparian communities. Special -status plants included intermediate mariposa lily and many -stemmed dudleya. Performed focused surveys for least Bell's vireo, protocol surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher, and a habitat assessment for special -status bats. Performed surveys for fairy shrimp and western spadefoot toad. Prepared a biological technical report for use in preparation of environmental documents pursuant to CEQA. The environmental impact report was certified for the project. WHITEWOOD ROAD PROJECT—ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES; CITY OF MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA Served as Project Biologist. Conducted general biological surveys, vegetation mapping, and focused surveys for sensitive plants and least Bell's vireo. Implemented focused southwestern willow flycatcher surveys, burrowing owl surveys, and a jurisdictional delineation. Authored jurisdictional delineation and biological technical reports for use in preparation of environmental documents pursuant to CEQA. Prepared an MSHCP consistency analysis and riparian DBESP analysis. Prepared permit applications and coordinated processing of CWA Section 401 and 404 and FGC Section 1602 authorizations. SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN, SOUTEHRN SUB -REGION HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN AND MASTER STREAMBED ALTERATION AGREEMENT FOR VARIOUS PLANNING AREAS AND INFRASTRUCTURE—RANCHO MISSION VIEJO; SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA Served as Field Botanist. Performed rare plant surveys throughout the 23,000 -acre study area including for many - stemmed dudleya, intermediate mariposa lily, thread -leaved brodiaea, southern tarplant, and Coulter's saltbush. NEWPORT BANNING RANCH—NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC; NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Served as Field Biologist. Conducted general biological surveys; rare plant surveys; vegetation mapping; and focused surveys for least Bell's vireo, coastal California gnatcatcher, and cactus wren. ESPERANZA HILLS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT—YORBA LINDA ESTATES; LLC, CITY OF YORBA LINDA, CALIFORNIA Served as Field Biologist. Performed vegetation mapping, surveys for rare plants, and protocol surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher. DAVID MOSKOVITZ I GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES PUENTE HILLS PRESERVE MONITORING—PUENTE HILLS HABITAT PRESERVATION AUTHORITY; WHITTIER, CALIFORNIA Served as Ecologist/Preserve Monitor for Puente Hills Habitat Preservation Authority. Managed nearly 4,000 acres of land in the Puente Hills and Whittier Hills through monitoring trails, special -status species populations, and native habitat restoration sites; tracking wildlife movement data; and participating in public outreach. ADDITIONAL TRAININGS ATTENDED (not on Page 1) Fairy Shrimp Identification Course, Mary Belk - Santa Rosa Ecological Reserve, 2015 and 2004 SWWF Workshop at Kern River Preserve, Audubon Society, 2003 SWWF Workshop at Prado Basin, USFWS, 2003 EMPLOYMENT HISTORY Glenn Lukas Associates. Principal/Senior Biologist/Regulatory Specialist. Lake Forest, California. 1997 - Present. California State University, Fullerton. Graduate Research for Santa Ana River Wooly Star Demography Study. Fullerton, California. 1996-2003. USDA Forest Service. Volunteer Botanist. Fawnskin, California. 1997. California State University, Fullerton. Instructor of Ecology Laboratory, Botany Laboratory, and Field Botany. Fullerton, California. 1996- 1998. California State University, Fullerton. Undergraduate Research in the Ecology of the Santa Ana River Wooly Star, Fire Ecology of Mixed Conifer Forests, and Physiological Ecology of Coastal Sage Scrub. Fullerton, California. 1994 -1996. Page 3 JEFF A H R E N S GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES Senior Biologist YEARS OF EXPERIENCE PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY Professional start date: 1999 Years at GLA: 18 Jeff Ahrens is a Wildlife Biologist with an extensive background in wildlife ecology. He brings expertise in conducting biological EDUCATION investigations throughout Southern California including within Western Riverside County multiple species habitat conservation MS, Environmental Studies, plan and natural community conservation plan areas and California State University, Fullerton, specializes in performing nesting bird surveys and foraging studies, 2004 focused surveys for listed and sensitive wildlife species including but not limited to coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell's vireo, BS, Wildlife with Minor in Fisheries, southwestern willow flycatcher, western yellow -billed cuckoo, California State University, Humboldt, burrowing owl, Belding's savannah sparrow, desert tortoise, 1995 California red -legged frog, southwestern arroyo toad, western spadefoot toad, southwestern pond turtle, California legless lizard, CERTIFICATIONS arroyo chub, three -spine stickleback, orangethroat whiptail, and coast horned lizard; and preparation of biological constraints CDFW Letter Permit for Trapping analyses and biological technical reports. Brown -Headed Cowbird SCP#5820, CDFW Memorandum of Jeff additionally has conducted tree and sensitive plant surveys, Understanding for Southwestern vegetation mapping, heronry monitoring, and various wildlife Willow Flycatcher and Coastal movement studies using infrared cameras and track stations; California Gnatcatcher carried out burrowing owl passive relocation efforts, western spadefoot toad egg and tadpole relocation and monitoring, USFWS 10(a) (])(A) Recovery Permit herpetofauna array trapping, and small mammal trapping; #TE052159-5 for Southwestern Willow constructed more than 100 artificial owl burrows; and performed Flycatcher and Coastal California wetland delineations pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Gnatcatcher Act and Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code. TRAININGS ATTENDED As part of his Master's thesis, Jeff studied the effects of traffic noise on scrub bird diversity and richness in fragmented areas of coastal CNDDB/Rare Find/BIOS Workshop, sage scrub within southern California. Prior to working at GLA, Jeff CDFW, 2016 conducted various wildlife work for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Rare Pond Species Workshop, and National Park Service and consulted privately in California, Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation, Oregon, Wyoming, and Alaska. 2016 SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE Yellow -billed Cuckoo, Kern River Preserve, 2012 ANDALUCIA DEVELOPMENT - WATERMARKE PROPERTIES, INC.; MISSION VIEJO, CALIFORNIA Advanced Bird Banding, Served as Project Biologist. Performed focused surveys for least Starr Ranch Sanctuary, 2010 Bell's vireo, southwestern pond turtle, and southwestern willow flycatcher within the 7 -acre study area. Conducted trapping and Arid West Supplement, relocation of southwestern pond turtle. Wetland Training Institute, 2001/2007 Desert Tortoise, CIELO VISTA PROJECT - ZHANG GROUP; YORBA LINDA, CALIFORNIA Desert Tortoise Council, 2005 Served as Project Biologist. Performed focused surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell's vireo, and southwestern willow Fairy Shrimp Identification, flycatcher within the 14 -acre site. Santa Rosa Ecological Reserve, 2004 JEFF AHRENS I GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES LAKE FOREST DRIVE/BAKE PARKWAY EXTENSION PROJECT -THE IRVINE COMPANY; IRVINE, CALIFORNIA Served as Project Biologist. Conducted pre -construction protocol surveys for least Bell's vireo and southwestern pond turtles as well as seasonal monitoring of least Bell's vireo activity and sound monitoring during active construction. SAN JUAN CREEK ROAD WIDENING PROJECT - KEETON KREITZER CONSULTING; SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA Served as Project Biologist. Conducted focused protocol surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher and pre - construction surveys for roosting bats. CROSSING OF SAN JUAN CREEK PROJECT - CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO; SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA Served as Project Biologist. Conducted focused surveys for least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow -billed cuckoo. Performed qualitative surveys for arroyo toad, arroyo chub, and southwestern pond turtle. Relocated arroyo toad. ANTONIO PARKWAY BRIDGE WIDENING PROJECT - CALTRANS AND RANCHO MISSION VIEJO; SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA Served as Project Biologist. Conducted presence/absence surveys for arroyo toad, least Bell's vireo, nesting raptors, general nesting birds, roosting bats, as well as aquatic surveys including trapping of arroyo chub and partially -armored three-spined stickleback. 1-5 IMPROVEMENTS OVER SAN JUAN CREEK - KEETON KREITZER CONSULTING; SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA Served as Project Biologist. Performed surveys for arroyo toad, least Bell's vireo, southwestern pond turtle, southwestern willow flycatcher, and two -striped garter snake. UPPER NEWPORT BAY BLOWOFF STRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT - METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT; NEWPORT BEACH, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Served as Project Biologist. Performed focused surveys for least Bell's vireo, light-footed clapper rail, coastal California gnatcatcher, and southwestern willow flycatcher. NEWPORT BANNING RANCH - NEWPORT BANNING RANCH, LLC; NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Serving as Project Biologist. Conduct focused coastal California gnatcatcher, cactus wren, least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, raptor, and burrowing owl surveys. ALSO CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - LAGUNA CANYON FOUNDATION; ALSO VIEJO, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Served as Project Biologist. Performed baseline monitoring for least Bell's vireo, southwestern pond turtle, southwestern willow flycatcher, and yellow -breasted chat within the 55 -acre site. MILLS LANDING PROJECT - JOHN LAING HOMES; HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA Served as Project Biologist. Conducted surveys and monitoring of Belding's savannah sparrow during construction within the 24 -acre property. CORONA 720 PROJECT - VULCAN MATERIALS COMPANY; CORONA, CALIFORNIA Served as Project Biologist. Designed and conducted detailed wildlife movement studies using remotely - triggered trail cameras, scented track stations, global positioning system (GPS) equipment and by identifying wildlife species from tracks and scat in order to establish wildlife movement corridors and species diversity within the 720 --acre property. Detected coast -horned lizard within the site. MARBLEHEAD COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT - RJ.MEADE CONSULTING; SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA Served as Project Biologist. Performed wildlife movement studies using scented track stations, GPS equipment and by identifying wildlife species from tracks and scat in order to establish wildlife movement corridors and species diversity. Conducted burrowing owl surveys. Page 2 JEFF AHRENS I GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES FERBER RANCH PRESERVE INTERIM BIOLOGICAL MONITORING SUPPORT SERVICES PROJECT—ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; TRABUCO CANYON, CALIFORNIA Serving as Lead for Focused Wildlife Surveys. Providing support to Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) with biological resources monitoring for the 399 -acre Ferber Ranch Preserve to determine threats and stressors that may impact Covered Species and natural communities; conducting overall assessments (e.g., invasive species, erosion, unauthorized trail cutting, and trail condition) to help determine areas of highest management priority; and documenting unauthorized activities and related effects to biological resources (e.g., encroachments and unauthorized trail cutting). Providing ongoing site visits, photo monitoring, and reporting, including annually, to address results of research and monitoring activities, recommend appropriate adaptive management actions, and discuss anticipated activities for the upcoming year. Focused species surveys will be conducted on an as - needed basis. Work includes Invasive species mapping and preparation of an invasive species treatment plan to be approved by USFWS and California Department of Fish and Wildlife as well as statistical vegetation sampling. LOST CANYONS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT - HILLWOOD CAPITAL; SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Coastal California Gnatcatcher Biologist. Performed focused surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher within the 1,775 -acre site. Surveys were conducted in both 2013-2014 and 2016. The purpose of the 2013-2014 survey was to determine presence/absence and consisted of protocol surveys within three survey areas. Three coastal California gnatcatcher family groups, three potential pairs, and five individuals were detected within the survey area. The purpose of the 2016 survey was to determine presence only (i.e. not to confirm absence) in conservation lands and areas avoided by the project. As such, a deviation from the six - visit breeding season survey protocol was been approved by the USFWS with a total of three visits being conducted per survey area unless the status (e.g., paired, unmated male) of CAGN was determined in an area, in which case no further visits occurred for that area. GLA detected a total of two gnatcatcher family groups, two gnatcatcher pairs, one single adult male gnatcatcher (likely paired), and one single adult gnatcatcher. LOST CANYONS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT - HILLWOOD CAPITAL; SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA Serving as Project Biologist. Performed focused surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher within the 1,775 -acre site. Surveys were conducted in both 2013-2014 and 2016. The purpose of the 2013-2014 survey was to determine presence/absence and consisted of protocol surveys within three survey areas. The purpose of the 2016 survey was to determine presence only (i.e. not to confirm absence) in conservation lands and areas avoided by the project. As such, a deviation from the six -visit breeding season survey protocol was been approved by the USFWS with a total of three visits being conducted per survey area unless the status (e.g., paired, unmated male) of CAGN was determined in an area, in which case no further visits occurred for that area. Also conducted focused surveys for western spadefoot toad. Page 3 GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES Regulatory Services May 1, 2017 [revised June 14, 2017] Susan Tebo, President Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. 300 East Esplanade Drive, Suite 1660 Oxnard, California 93036 SUBJECT: Jurisdictional Delineation for the 32.1 -Acre Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff Station in City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California Dear Ms. Tebo: This letter report summarizes our preliminary findings of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) jurisdiction for the above -referenced property.1 The Santa Clarita Valley Sherriff Station Project in the City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California [Exhibit 11, comprises approximately 32.1 acres and is depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map Newhall, California quadrangle [dated 1952 and photorevised in 1988]) [Exhibit 2]. On January 13, 2017, regulatory specialists of Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc. (GLA) examined the project site to determine the limits of (1) Corps jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, (2) Regional Board jurisdiction pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and Section 13260 of the California Water Code (CWC) [the Porter -Cologne Act], and (3) CDFW jurisdiction pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code. Enclosed is a 200 -scale map [Exhibit 3] that depicts the areas of Corps and CDFW jurisdiction. A Soils Map is attached as Exhibit 4. Photographs to document the topography, vegetative communities, and general widths of each of the features are provided as Exhibit 5. Potential Corps jurisdiction at the site totals approximately 0.13 acre, none of which consists of jurisdictional wetlands. 1 This report presents our best effort at estimating the subject jurisdictional boundaries using the most up-to-date regulations and written policy and guidance from the regulatory agencies. Only the regulatory agencies can make a final determination of jurisdictional boundaries. If a final jurisdictional determination is required, GLA can assist in getting written confirmation of jurisdictional boundaries from the agencies. 29 Orchard Lake Forest California 92630-8300 Telephone: (949) 837-0404 Facsimile: (949) 837-5834 Ms. Tebo Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. May 1, 2017 [revised June 14, 2017] Page 2 Potential Regional Board jurisdiction is identical to potential Corps jurisdiction, 0.13 acre of nonwedands. Potential CDFW jurisdiction at the site totals approximately 0.32 acre, of which approximately 0.10 acre consists of vegetated riparian habitat. I. METHODOLOGY Prior to beginning the field delineation a color aerial photograph, a topographic base map of the property, and the previously cited USGS topographic map were examined to determine the locations of potential areas of Corps/CDFW jurisdiction. Suspected jurisdictional areas were field checked for the presence of definable channels and/or wetland vegetation, soils and hydrology. Suspected wetland habitats on the site were evaluated using the methodology set forth in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manuah (Wetland Manual) and the 2006 Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Supplement (Arid West Supplement)'. While in the field the limits of Corps and CDFW jurisdiction were recorded onto a color aerial photograph using visible landmarks and collected with sub -meter accuracy Global Positioning Satellite unit (Trimble Geo 7X handheld). Other data were recorded onto a wetland determination data form (Exhibit 6). The Soil Conservation Service (SCS)' has mapped the following soil types as occurring in the general vicinity of the project site: Saugus Loam and Yolo Loam. Saugus Loam, 30 to 50 Percent Slopes, Eroded The Saugus series consists of deep, well -drained soils. These soils formed on weakly - consolidated sediments, and are found on dissected terraces and foothills. z Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. s U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0), ed. L S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR -08-28. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. ° SCS is now known as the National Resource Conservation Service or NRCS. Ms. Tebo Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. May 1, 2017 [revised June 14, 2017] Page 3 Yolo Loam, 2 to 9 Percent Slopes The Yolo series consists of mixed, non -acidic, thermic, grayish -brown to pale -brown silt loams. These soils range from neutral to mildly alkaline. None of these soil units are identified as hydric in the SCS's publication, Hydric Soils of the United States. II. JURISDICTION A. Army Corps of Engineers Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Corps regulates the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States. The term "waters of the United States" is defined in Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 328.3(a)6 as: (I) All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; (2) All interstate waters including interstate wetlands; (3) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect foreign commerce including any such waters: (i) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or s United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States, 3rd Edition, Miscellaneous Publication Number 1491. (In cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils.) e On October 9, 2015, the U.S. 61' District Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a nationwide stay on the Corps and EPA's definition of waters of the United States under the Clean Water Rule ("Clean Water Rule: Definition of `Waters of the United States"; Final Rule," 80 Federal Register 124 (29 June, 2015), pp. 37054-37127). As a result, the Corps' regulations that were in effect prior to the August 28, 2015 Clean Water Rule is again in effect until such a time as the Court order is satisfied, if this occurs. In addition, President Trump signed an Executive Order on February 28, 2017 that instructs the EPA and Corps to formally reconsider the Rule, which could lead to a re -write of the law or a complete repeal. Ms. Tebo Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. May 1, 2017 [revised June 14, 2017] Page 4 (ii) From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or (iii) Which are used or could be used for industrial purpose by industries in interstate commerce... (4) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition; (5) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a) (I)-(4) of this section; (6) The territorial seas; (7) Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (a) (I)-(6) of this section. (8) Waters of the United States do not include prior converted cropland .7 Notwithstanding the determination of an areas status as prior converted cropland by any other federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with the EPA. Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 123.11(m) which also meet the criteria of this definition) are not waters of the United States. In the absence of wetlands, the limits of Corps jurisdiction in non -tidal waters, such as intermittent streams, extend to the OHWM which is defined at 33 CFR 328.3(e) as: ...that line on the shore established by the fluctuation of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impressed on the bank shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas. 1. Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, et al. Pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, federal regulatory authority extends only to activities that affect interstate commerce. In the early 1980s the Corps interpreted the interstate commerce requirement in a manner that restricted Corps jurisdiction on isolated (intrastate) waters. On September 12, 1985, EPA asserted that Corps jurisdiction extended to 9 The term "prior converted cropland" is defined in the Corps' Regulatory Guidance Letter 90-7 (dated September 26, 1990) as "wetlands which were both manipulated (drained or otherwise physically altered to remove excess water from the land) and cropped before 23 December 1985, to the extent that they no longer exhibit important wetland values. Specifically, prior converted cropland is inundated for no more than 14 consecutive days during the growing season...." [Emphasis added.] Ms. Tebo Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. May 1, 2017 [revised June 14, 2017] Page 5 isolated waters that are used or could be used by migratory birds or endangered species, and the definition of "waters of the United States" in Corps regulations was modified as quoted above from 33 CFR 328.3(a). On January 9, 2001, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling on Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Array Corps of Engineers, et al. (SWANCC). In this case the Court was asked whether use of an isolated, intrastate pond by migratory birds is a sufficient interstate commerce connection to bring the pond into federal jurisdiction of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The written opinion notes that the court's previous support of the Corps' expansion of jurisdiction beyond navigable waters (United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc.) was for a wetland that abutted a navigable water and that the court did not express any opinion on the question of the authority of the Corps to regulate wetlands that are not adjacent to bodies of open water. The current opinion goes on to state: In order to rule for the respondents here, we would have to hold that the jurisdiction of the Corps extends to ponds that are not adjacent to open water. We conclude that the text of the statute will not allow this. Therefore, we believe that the court's opinion goes beyond the migratory bird issue and says that no isolated, intrastate water is subject to the provisions of Section 404(a) of the Clean Water Act (regardless of any interstate commerce connection). However, the Corps and EPA have issued a joint memorandum which states that they are interpreting the ruling to address only the migratory bird issue and leaving the other interstate commerce clause nexuses intact. 2. Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States On June 5, 2007, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Corps issued joint guidance that addresses the scope of jurisdiction pursuant to the Clean Water Act in light of the Supreme Court's decision in the consolidated cases Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States ("Rapanos"). The chart below was provided in the joint EPA/Corps guidance. For project sites that include waters other than Traditional Navigable Waters (TNWs) and/or their adjacent wetlands or Relatively Permanent Waters (RPMs) tributary to TNWs and/or their adjacent wetlands as set forth in the chart below, the Corps must apply the significant nexus standard. For "isolated" waters or wetlands, the joint guidance also requires an evaluation by the Corps and EPA to determine whether other interstate commerce clause nexuses, not addressed in the Ms. Tebo Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. May 1, 2017 [revised June 14, 2017] Page 6 SWANCC decision are associated with isolated features on project sites for which a jurisdictional determination is being sought from the Corps. The agencies will assert jurisdiction over the following waters: • Traditional navigable waters • Wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters • Non -navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent where the tributaries typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically three months) • Wetlands that directly abut such tributaries The agencies will decide jurisdiction over the following waters based on a fact -specific analysis to determine whether they have a significant nexus with a traditional navigable water: • Non -navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent • Wetlands adjacent to non -navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent • Wetlands adjacent to but that do not directly abut a relatively permanent non -navigable tributary The agencies generally will not assert jurisdiction over the following features: • Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent or short duration flow) • Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only uplands and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water The agencies will apply the significant nexus standard as follows: • A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by all wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical and biological integrity of downstream traditional navigable waters • Significant nexus includes consideration of hydrologic and ecologic factors 3. Wetland Definition Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act The term "wetlands" (a subset of "waters of the United States") is defined at 33 CFR 328.3(b) as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support ... a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." In 1987 the Corps published a manual to guide its field personnel in determining jurisdictional wetland boundaries. The methodology set forth in the 1987 Wetland Ms. Tebo Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. May 1, 2017 [revised June 14, 2017] Page 7 Delineation Manual and the Arid West Supplement generally require that, in order to be considered a wetland, the vegetation, soils, and hydrology of an area exhibit at least minimal hydric characteristics. While the manual and Supplement provide great detail in methodology and allow for varying special conditions, a wetland should normally meet each of the following three criteria: • more than 50 percent of the dominant plant species at the site must be typical of wetlands (i.e., rated as facultative or wetter in the Arid West 2016 Regional Wetland Plant Lists 9; • soils must exhibit physical and/or chemical characteristics indicative of permanent or periodic saturation (e.g., a gleyed color, or mottles with a matrix of low chroma indicating a relatively consistent fluctuation between aerobic and anaerobic conditions); and Whereas the 1987 Manual requires that hydrologic characteristics indicate that the ground is saturated to within 12 inches of the surface for at least five percent of the growing season during a normal rainfall year, the Arid West Supplement does not include a quantitative criteria with the exception for areas with "problematic hydrophytic vegetation", which require a minimum of 14 days of ponding to be considered a wetland. B. Regional Water Ouality Control Board Regional Board jurisdiction includes all areas that are determined to be WoUS, as well as isolated features that are not subject to Corps jurisdiction (e.g., isolated vernal pools, wetlands, or other aquatic habitats). In addition, areas that are determined to not have a significant nexus to WoUS, as determined through the Corps' Approved JD process, would be included in Regional Board jurisdiction. The lateral extent of Regional Board jurisdiction is determined using the Corps' definition of OHWM. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires any applicant for a Section 404 permit to obtain certification from the State that the discharge (and the operation of the facility being constructed) will comply with the applicable effluent limitation and water quality standards. In California this 401 certification is obtained from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Corps, by law, cannot issue a Section 404 permit until a 401 certification is issued or waived. s Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. Arid West 2016 Regional Wetland Plant List. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. 9 Note the Corps also publishes a National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands (Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016- 30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016.); however, the Regional Wetland Plant List should be used for wetland delineations within the Arid West Region. Ms. Tebo Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. May 1, 2017 [revised June 14, 2017] Page 8 Subsequent to the SWANCC decision, the Chief Counsel for the State Water Resources Control Board issued a memorandum10 that addressed the effects of the SWANCC decision on the Section 401 Water Quality Certification Program. The memorandum states: California's right and duty to evaluate certification requests under section 401 is pendant to (or dependent upon) a valid application for a section 404 permit from the Corps, or another application for a federal license or permit. Thus if the Corps determines that the water body in question is not subject to regulation under the COE's 404 program, for instance, no application for 401 certification will be required... The SWANCC decision does not affect the Porter Cologne authorities to regulate discharges to isolated, non -navigable waters of the states.... Water Code section 13260 requires "any person discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that could affect the waters of the state to file a report of discharge (an application for waste discharge requirements). " (Water Code § 13260(a)(1) (emphasis added).) The term "waters of the state" is defined as "any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state." (Water Code § 13050(e).) The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in SWANCC has no bearing on the Porter -Cologne definition. While all waters of the United States that are within the borders of California are also waters of the state, the converse is not true waters of the United States is a subset of waters of the state. Thus, since Porter -Cologne was enacted California always had and retains authority to regulate discharges of waste into any waters of the state, regardless of whether the COE has concurrent jurisdiction under section 404. The fact that often Regional Boards opted to regulate discharges to, e.g., vernal pools, through the 401 program in lieu of or in addition to issuing waste discharge requirements (or waivers thereof) does not preclude the regions from issuing WDRs (or waivers of WDRs) in the absence of a request for 401 certification.... In this memorandum the SWRCB's Chief Counsel has made the clear assumption that fill material to be discharged into isolated waters of the United States is to be considered equivalent to "waste" and therefore subject to the authority of the Porter Cologne Water Quality Act. 10 Wilson, Craig M. January 25, 2001. Memorandum addressed to State Board Members and Regional Board Executive Officers. Ms. Tebo Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. May 1, 2017 [revised June 14, 2017] Page 9 C. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Sections 1600-1603 of the California Fish and Game Code, the CDFW regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake, which supports fish or wildlife. CDFW defines a stream (including creeks and rivers) as "a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation." CDFW's definition of "lake" includes "natural lakes or man- made reservoirs." CDFW also defines a stream as "a body of water that flows, or has flowed, over a given course during the historic hydrologic regime, and where the width of its course can reasonably be identified by physical or biological indicators." It is important to note that the Fish and Game Code defines fish and wildlife to include: all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, invertebrates, reptiles, and related ecological communities including the habitat upon which they depend for continued viability (FGC Division 5, Chapter 1, section 45 and Division 2, Chapter 1 section 711.2(a) respectively). Furthermore, Division 2, Chapter 5, Article 6, Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code does not limit jurisdiction to areas defined by specific flow events, seasonal changes in water flow, or presence/absence of vegetation types or communities. III. RESULTS A. Corps Jurisdiction Corps jurisdiction associated with the study area totals approximately 0.15 acre of waters of the United States, none of which consists of jurisdictional wetlands. The locations of the waters of the United States are depicted on the enclosed map [Exhibit 3A — Corps Jurisdictional Delineation Map]. A summary of Corps jurisdiction within the Site is provided below in Table 1. Two drainage features are associated with the study area and are described herein as Features 1 and 2. The Project site does not contain any isolated non-federal waters; however, Feature 1 appears to have been constructed in uplands as a result of the Golden Valley Road Extension Project, and while this feature is potentially subject to Section 404 of the CWA under a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination, it could potentially be removed from CWA jurisdiction through obtaining an Approved Jurisdictional Determination through coordination with the Corps. Ms. Tebo Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. May 1, 2017 [revised June 14, 2017] Page 10 According to the Corps' Los Angeles District Office, the Santa Clara River is the closest TNW to the Site. 1. Feature 1 Feature 1 originates within the northern portion of the study area (south of where the Sheriffs Station facility is proposed) and flows in a northerly direction for approximately 80 linear feet, where it enters a constructed down drain and crosses beneath Golden Valley Road. Once it crosses beneath Golden Valley Road, Feature 1 flows into Feature 2 (described below), then flows via Feature 2 to a flood control basin located adjacent to the study area, and is ultimately discharged into the Santa Clara River via the municipal storm drain system, approximately 1 mile north of the study area. Feature 1 was created during the construction of Golden Valley Road as an impoundment generated by the constructed embankment associated with the road. It is vegetated with a monotypic stand of mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia; FAC) surrounded by upland areas consisting of coastal sage scrub and non-native grassland. OHWM indicators observed in association with Feature 1 include presence of surface water and sediment deposition. It is expected to hold surface water during and shortly after rainfall events, but long enough to support mule fat. For example, there was approximately six days of rainfall which delivered 2.21 inches of rain locally and which concluded at about 1:00 am the morning of the delineation. Feature 1 supports an OHWM of approximately 25 feet (wide) within the study area and is expected to be dry most of the year (Exhibit 3A — Corps Jurisdictional Delineation Map). 2. Feature 2 Feature 2 enters the northern portion of the study area and flows in a northerly direction for approximately 800 linear feet, where it crosses beneath Golden Valley Road via a reinforced concrete box culvert (RCB). Once it crosses beneath Golden Valley Road, Feature 2 flows to a flood control basin located adjacent to the study area, and is ultimately discharged into the Santa Clara River via the municipal storm drain system, approximately 1 mile north of the study area. Feature 2 is an ephemeral concrete -lined trapezoidal flood conveyance channel, and is entirely unvegetated. OHWM indicators observed in association with Feature 2 within the study area include water staining, drift deposits, and an engineered trapezoidal bank slope. Feature 2 supports an OHWM of approximately 7 feet within the study area (Exhibit 3A — Corps Jurisdictional Delineation Map). Ms. Tebo Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. May 1, 2017 [revised June 14, 2017] Page 11 B. Regional Water Ouality Control Board Jurisdiction All waters within the Project Site that were determined to be potential waters of the United States pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Features 1 and 2) potentially fall within Regional Board jurisdiction pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and/or the Porter Cologne Water Quality Act. None of the features at the Site were determined to be non-federal waters that would require separate analysis. A summary of Regional Board jurisdiction within the Project Site is provided below in Table 1. C. CDFW Jurisdiction 1. Feature 1 Feature 1 originates within the northern portion of the study area (south of where the Sheriffs Station facility is proposed) and flows in a northerly direction for approximately 80 linear feet, where it enters a constructed down drain and crosses beneath Golden Valley Road. Once it crosses beneath Golden Valley Road, Featurel flows into Feature 2 (described below), then flows via Feature 2 to a flood control basin located adjacent to the study area, and is ultimately discharged into the Santa Clara River via the municipal storm drain system, approximately 1 mile north of the study area. Feature 1 was created during the construction of Golden Valley Road as an impoundment generated by the constructed embankment associated with the road. It is vegetated with a monotypic stand of mule fat surrounded by upland areas consisting of coastal sage scrub and non-native grassland. It is expected to hold surface water during and shortly after rainfall events, but long enough to support mule fat. For example, there was approximately six days of rainfall which delivered 2.21 inches of rain locally and which concluded at about 1:00 am the morning of the delineation. Feature 1 exhibits an outer measurement of ponding area of approximately 56 feet (wide) within the study area and is expected to be dry most of the year (Exhibit 3B — CDFW Jurisdictional Delineation Map). 2. Feature 2 Feature 2 enters the northern portion of the study area and flows in a northerly direction for approximately 800 linear feet, where it crosses beneath Golden Valley Road via a RCB. Once it crosses beneath Golden Valley Road, Feature 2 flows to a flood control basin located adjacent to the study area, and is ultimately discharged into the Santa Clara River via the municipal storm drain system, approximately 1 mile north of the study area. Ms. Tebo Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. May 1, 2017 [revised June 14, 2017] Page 12 Feature 2 is an ephemeral concrete -lined trapezoidal flood conveyance channel, and is entirely unvegetated. Feature 2 exhibits a top -of -bank measurement of 12 feet within the study area (Exhibit 3B — CDFW Jurisdictional Delineation Map). Table 1. Corps, Regional Board, and CDFW Jurisdiction Santa Clarita Valley Sherriff Station Project Site CORPSIREGIONAL BOARD Impact Type Drainage Feature Resource Wetland Type (acres) Non -wetland Waters (acres) Total (acres) Length (linear feet) Permanent CorpRegional Board Ephemeral 0.00 CDFW 0.003 5 Non - Ephemeral 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 wetland Unvegetated Drainage Resource Wetland Waters Total Riparian Streambed Total Length Feature Type (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (linear feet) Feature 1 Ephemeral 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.10 0.00 0.10 82 Feature 2 Ephemeral 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.22 0.22 798 TOTAL 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.22 0.32 880 IV. DISCUSSION A. Impact Analysis The proposed permanent and temporary impact footprints are illustrated on Exhibits 3A and 3B. Table 2 provides a summary of proposed extent of impact by feature and type of jurisdiction. An estimated 0.003 acre (5 linear feet) of potential Corps and Regional Board jurisdiction would be removed permanently, with another 0.02 acre (77 linear feet) proposed for temporary impact, both in the form of ephemeral, nonwetland waters (Exhibit 3A). An estimated 0.008 acre (5 linear feet) of potential CDFW jurisdiction (riparian vegetated) would be permanently impacted by the proposed project, with an additional 0.09 acre (77 linear feet) proposed for temporary impact. Table 2. Proposed Impacts to Corps, Regional Board, and CDFW Jurisdiction Santa Clarita Valley Sherriff Station In CORPSIREGIONAL BOARD Impact Type Drainage Feature Resource Wetland Type (acres) Non -wetland Waters (acres) Total (acres) Length (linear feet) Permanent Feature 1 Ephemeral 0.00 0.003 0.003 5 Feature 2 Ephemeral 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Ms. Tebo Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. May 1, 2017 [revised June 14, 2017] Page 13 Temporary Feature 1 Ephemeral 0.00 0.02 0.02 77 Feature 2 Ephemeral 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 CDF W Impact Type Drainage Feature Resource Type Riparian (acres) Unvegetated Total Length Streambed (acres) (acres) (linear feet) Permanent Feature 1 Ephemeral 0.008 0.00 0.008 5 Feature 2 Ephemeral 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Temporary Feature 1 Ephemeral 0.09 0.00 0.09 77 Feature 2 Ephemeral 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 This report was authored by Zack West and reviewed by Tricia Campbell. If you have any questions about this letter report, please contact Zack West at (949) 837-0404, extension 22. Sincerely, GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES, INC. Zack West Senior Biologist/Regulatory Specialist Attachments: Exhibits, Resumes p:1265-1b.JD report_clean.doc EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 — Regional Map Exhibit 2 — Vicinity Map Exhibit 3A - Corps Jurisdictional Delineation Map Exhibit 3B - CDFW Jurisdictional Delineation Map Exhibit 4 — Soils Map Exhibit 5 — Site Photographs Exhibit 6 — Wetland Determination Data Form •4b to M CO 2 410 4 G) + loop �O 2JO JO Cm 16. U 4 1 U O ,/4 � V I I -Ow 00 r r 01 C T 10 LD fa U- Q z Cni w A � b w 0 n CU CL U C5 C. °' �° w 491 U Z. CU Q CO E7 � O i O N E O C� E �. w CU No j I � i OIL 4 0 E u RI V- x LU Source: ESRI World Street Map Z...0 2 4 8 Miles s 0- 410 4 + loop y C/) E -w 4 O ,/4 � 43 JP IC -5 IL #� �= O C { V E x W $O? ` O IRr # _ r I A A IWOCU QINIS ' gICE C� U t V x - C 0 r; z CD �LL C J Q V CL CC _ 2 0= r C p J V > H Cn W O a -01 41W .,.40-40 No j I � i OIL 4 0 E u RI V- x LU Source: ESRI World Street Map Z...0 2 4 8 Miles Nt�l • ►► 1 >- 1 W • • • • 1 ' J • J • ► _ .. Q 1 1 • > z ► • • O ' ► • • w0 0_ Q 1 1 • r J U) U L • LL o Z W _ - � Vii• � - _• \ � 1•_ ; , ' ' , ' ' • T ' + �_ ' ' � � � � � - � �f ;t aim 4w s f s s yk f V .4 ' 1 4p-J + � r ROW r Oft loom- i - r'�'� 5 e 1 ,' .� f r !rr D o '11%- :k I 7' r t - _ o6 k Co Ile" F « � �,� -,.1 1 •� � ,� �Jr. � �_ ��+ �r ■7 i � �• + -` , �• `' �.��L'� Ilii ar • }� fwd,., - — f� . • . ! • • �' F ! 1 • ; *•i Wdd / 1 41 Ik • / ►� / I 1 Q 5. 't r - , W- C4 uj 44, LU lip to 10 r • Mow ✓ do ii � i r• I � 1 _ vt Al O _ 1 N C`! * r LO MIV - - '� _ . � - c � � fir � , ' •, �-� � -,' , ' �/ +i _- BMW MIT IF UA t + , 1 • — _fir _ _ 1 --� .[ r , AteA,, 11 �J -- - ��•, F Jr Ilk 010 Ik JK0 411 low #• Ams-,� • • 4 * ` ' A t� 44 • ► ► ► (W • • • ► J JCD co • ► _ .. Q • = i Z • • ► 0 .. Q0 ► •— E - T_ Q U— LL C) 0 N E _�e - M CO Q F­N� • •J � ' U LL Q LL .- 0 Z Z W 70t E Lu ••'C) 0- cl''tntn clPON O N AL 074 !. y 4 11 40 ir • j r a ! !iROW 1 � - " �.�r+�! � • 1 •'mow .+ �� �� • • � '+ � � �jr r • .. ,• !',- , 1 rip i pr Am 4r am �' � •'� � •� �'• /� �� iii �f � . �r f � >� . •'- � � y, ; OF LL m r � � W J ol� 4t 1 we_ t Lu 40 41 41 ♦ ♦ ' - J40P 40' j lw • r , 40'r r Wjakda Ao s id } ` 44. OPPO L 16 1 J' JUN mm mp 11 • W • J • • Q0 ' F • ' ' 1' 1 1 • , • U) LL • •LL • • • ' 0 F • ' z LU VA 44 • L( law f� *� .i ., �• :s cu N VOL Al YT cu IF 0 • K` t ;� ` Jam, •.,, M C� AL �. r I - 0 t,, { / 1] 10, • y - OrT IPA � -9 � f't i �_'- •� f t �4 r 1eol,4 1 I r ell, 41k t AN op f II - y _z f ��• f L .. � � yam, -� �O y . of Alrte• � � � � '�`" ��.- 1 ��j`� - O _ t Np l ,i I — 3 ■ N MSN -; LLIL ,. N ON It 39 Jr. cn js J6, , rs • Ir -• JK 44 Al ILI tAl 1 -r �, tip' I+ 4 •r " _ • ! k k Photograph 1: View to the northeast of Feature 2. Photograph 2: View to the southwest of Feature 1. LO x LU N Photograph 3: View to the southwest of Feature 1. U) W a U O �i Q 0 Y J Z z W ,Jn V r r x W EXHIBIT 6 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Arid West Region Project/Site: Jtr ^ C Af 101N st.,q�a "kap City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: Ct, c, F ,� w C ` �^ State: Sampling Point:` Investigator(s): 7, \. Jt 'S Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Tp G C} �^^ % �'�d'Qt tocal relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): FL Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing samDlina point locatinnc trnncartc Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes K No within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: , v[ -i+ w �.�... - 11%ar. — ubt: scienimc names or plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 2.- 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (g) 4. Woody Vine Stratum (P t size: ) 1 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 2. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum C) % Cover of Biotic Crust 1 Present? Yes No Remarks: (_� t f 6 ,k A,) M Co Ar s y K;;: r Sur If t 1C US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West –Version 2.0 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species sapling/ShrubStratum (Plot size: ) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: - `k (p/g) 44 30 Ph, Prevalence Index worksheet: 3. c 11 F i.. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: A ��® r t .,._ E- r o. c (, € c c. 2.y _ _ U f L OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = - 5' FAC species` x 3 Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) _1 = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = ` p UPL species x 5 = S700 2. Column Totals: : (A) S90 (B) 3' Prevalence Index = B/A = 4,67-A 4' Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5' _ Dominance Test is >50% 6. — Prevalence Index is 553.0' 7. _ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) = Total Cover — Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) Woody Vine Stratum (P t size: ) 1 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 2. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum C) % Cover of Biotic Crust 1 Present? Yes No Remarks: (_� t f 6 ,k A,) M Co Ar s y K;;: r Sur If t 1C US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West –Version 2.0 cr)n Sampling Point:' Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix (inches) Color (moist) % Redox Features Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol (Al) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ Reduced Vertic (F18) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ _ Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions (F8) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, _ _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present):.S `- LG rG'�ot `"�S. Type: Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe) Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: R #� t 5 l 1 Y P HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) /4 Surface Water (Al) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) _ Biotic Crust (B12) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) _ Saturation (A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) _ Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ FAC -Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes r' No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): - Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West -Version 2.0 RESUMES Zack West Tricia Campbell ZACRRY WEST GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES© Senior Biologist�����►JJ Regulatory Specialist YEARS OF EXPERIENCE PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY Professional start dale:2002 Zackry West has Pootleenyears of extensive biological and Years atGLA :>1 regulatory experience In both the public and private sectors. He has played a keyrole In coordinating and performing biological EDUCATION mels, preparing technical document, and obtaining permit for project requiring federal Endangered Species Act IFESAI, BA, Environmental Studies, California California Endangered Species Act ICESAL andfederal Clean State UnlaersNy, San Bernardlno,20W WaterAct CWAlcompliance. Zackry addltlonallyhas broad e perlencewlth regulatory agency coordination ranging from conducting Section ] consultations to acquiring aquatic permits. PERM ITS/CERTI FICATIONS Zackry has performed the role of Lead Biologist on myriad California Rapid Assessment transportation project throughout Orange, Doerslde, and San Methodology CRANI Pradllloner- Bernardino Counties involving biological and regulabryaspect Devine and Recessional Wetlands from Initial projectscoping through project construction phases. Modules, 20122013 He has extensive experience In preparing technical documents, including juridktional delineation reports, Natural Environment Study (NES) and NES Minimal Impact (NES of reports, Western TRAIN INGS ATTENDED Riverside and Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan consistency reports, California Rapid Advanced Hydric Solt, Wetland Assessment Method CRAM) reports, and focused survey reports. Training Institute, 2015 He routinely coordinates and conduct general biological and aquatic resource constraint survey, and focused protocol surveys 3 Day Field Tour of Desert Washes for specialetatus species such as desert tortoise, arroyo toad and Waters In Coachella Valley, burrowing owl, and rare/narrow endemic plants. Zackry regularly California, James W. Tedford, 2013 coordinates with state and federal agencies, Including the U.S. Fish and WId1fe Service IDSFWSI, U.S. Army Cors of Engineers (Corps), Regulatory IV Wetland Delineation, California Department of Fish and Maine CDCg, various Corp,20AS Regional Water Quality Control Board RWQCBs) /State Water Resources Control Board R WRCBI, U.S. Rarest Service, and U.S. Bureau of Land Management to obtain CWA permits, 401 water Bak and Tram podatlon, Caltrans, quality certifications, sfreambed alteration ag reemenk,as well as 20AS FAA and CESA incidental take permit and authorizations. Introduction to the ESA, Federal SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE Highway Administration, FOPS TRANSPORTATION Participant In Nelson Bighorn Sheep Census, CDFW,200] WATEMUM 74SARETSHOULDERWIDMING Pf01 ST F/S!C£IRIIXIp PAfMWAYMPATAAVQIUEIOWESTOFP.f'I KPIANTENI CE - Introduction toMaine Crossings, CEPNRMENTOFTRANSICRATION (D/1TMNG)DBIRICT]3; OFMNGE Caltrans, 2007 COU Nj GWFCRNN Served as Lead Biologist. The project involves widening the ems time Introduction to Desert Tortoise shoulders associated with State Route 74. Conducted mapping of Surveying, Monitoring, and Handling suitable arroyo toad habitat within the study area. Coordinated Techniques, Desert Tortoise Council, Identification of the location of off site arroyo toad upland habitat 2035 compensatory mitigation restoration area with Caltrans and IISFWS. Identified appropriate species and developed seeding/planting lists In coordination with Caltrans ZACKRY WEST I GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES landscape architects for revegetation associated with both the on-site arroyo toad upland habitat restoration area and off-site arroyo toad upland habitat compensatory mitigation restoration area. Authored and conducted senior technical review of various sections of the arroyo toad habitat mitigation and monitoring plan. Lead focused arroyo toad surveys and participated in invasive predator eradication efforts, both as a portion of project mitigation as coordinated with USFWS. CAJALCO ROAD WIDENING PROJECT - RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT; CORONA, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Delineator/Senior Biologist. The project involves widening Cajalco Road from two to four lanes of travel. Coordinated and managed three teams of delineators and conducted the jurisdictional delineation of an approximately 34 -mile project alignment including multiple alternatives. Led 2015/2016 narrow endemic plant surveys. GRAPEFRUIT BOULEVARD (SR-111)/4TH STREET PEDESTRIAN ACCESS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT; MECCA, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Delineator/Senior Biologist. The project entailed constructing improved pedestrian access. Coordinated and conducted the jurisdictional delineation. Conducted a technical review of the NES MI and biological assessment. SANTA ANA RIVER TRAIL - RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT; RIVERSIDE AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Delineator/Regulatory Specialist. The project entailed converting the existing eight to 27 -foot wide dirt roadway into a bike lane and multi-purpose trail. Coordinated and conducted the jurisdictional delineation for the proposed mitigation site and served as lead technical reviewer of the jurisdictional delineation report. VISTA CHINO BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT - CITY OF PALM SPRINGS; PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Biologist. The project involves constructing a new bridge crossing in place of the existing Vista Chino low water crossing of the Whitewater River. Coordinated and conducted focused surveys including focused rare plant surveys, protocol Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard surveys, and the jurisdictional delineation. Coordinated with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians to ensure that concerns regarding the tribal habitat conservation plan were addressed in support of obtaining a conditional use permit. Served as lead author of the jurisdictional delineation report and senior technical reviewer of the NES and biological assessment. Coordinated with Caltrans and USFWS in support of a formal Section 7 consultation for the Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard and Coachella Valley milkvetch. REPAIR OF LENWOOD ROAD AT THE MOJAVE RIVER PROJECT - COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS; COMMUNITY OF LENWOOD, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Delineator/Regulatory Specialist. The project entailed reconstructing the previously existing Lenwood Road crossing over the Mojave River, which suffered catastrophic failure due to winter storms in 2010/2011. Coordinated and conducted the jurisdictional delineation at the previously existing crossing location. Prepared and submitted permit applications for a 404 nationwide permit, 401 water quality certification, and 1602 streambed alteration agreement. Coordinated closely with the resource agencies to obtain permits in an expedited timeframe to successfully meet funding deadlines. ESCONDIDO AVENUE CULVERT PERMITTING PROJECT - COUNTY OFSAN BERNARDINO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS; HESPERIA, CALIFORNIA Served as Regulatory Specialist. The proposed project involved constructing a culvert beneath the existing Escondido Avenue for flood protection purposes. Worked closely with county planners and engineers to quantify revised project impacts based on several revisions to project designs. Prepared applications for a 404 Nationwide Permit, 401 water quality certification, and 1602 streambed alteration agreement and obtained the authorizations. Page 2 ZACKRY WEST I GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES SR 210/PEPPER AVENUE INTERCHANGE PROJECT - SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS; RIALTO, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Biologist. The project involved constructing a new interchange between SR 210 and Pepper Avenue. Coordinated right -of -entry permits for the project, conducted focused surveys including protocol burrowing owl surveys and rare plant surveys, and performed the jurisdictional delineation. Provided support to Caltrans District 8, the Section 7 consultation lead agency, for Section 7 consultation for project impacts to designated critical habitat for San Bernardino kangaroo rat and occupied habitat for Santa Ana River woollystar. NCCP/HCP EIR/EIS JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION AND REGULATORY PERMITTING FOR 13 FREEWAY PROJECTS (M2 PROGRAM) - ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Served as Regulatory Specialist/Lead Technical Reviewer. Conducted wetland delineation work on the Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) as part of Orange County Transportation Authority's (OCTA's) M2 Program. Coordinated with the Corps and SWRCB for issuance of a programmatic CWA 404 permit and CWA 401 water quality certification. ALSO CREEK PROPOSED MITIGATION SITE - LAGUNA CANYON FOUNDATION/ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; ALSO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Delineator/Lead Technical Reviewer. The proposed mitigation site was one of several locations proposed for OCTA's M2 Program. Coordinated and conducted the jurisdictional delineation for the proposed mitigation site and performed a technical review of the jurisdictional delineation report. WEST LOMA PROPOSED MITIGATION SITE - IRVINE RANCH CONSERVANCY/ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Delineator/CRAM Practitioner. The proposed mitigation site was one of several locations proposed for OCTA's M2 Program. Coordinated and conducted the jurisdictional delineation for the proposed mitigation site and served as lead preparer of the jurisdictional delineation report. I-5 HOV LANE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS - ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Biologist. The project entailed converting a controlled access high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane to a full-time access HOV lane. Conducted a general biological constraints survey, coordinated preparation of a NES MI, and provided technical review of the NES MI. LOS ANGELES/SAN DIEGO/SAN LUIS OBISPO RAILROAD CORRIDOR GRADE SEPARATION AT 17TH STREET - ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Biologist. The project involved a grade separation between 17th Street and the Metrolink Railroad to improve traffic flow. Conducted a preliminary biological constraints survey and provided recommendations for inclusion in the preliminary environmental study. Evaluated the project area for potential occurrence of listed/sensitive plant and wildlife species and associated habitats as well as potential presence of aquatic resources under Corps, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdictions. I-405 HOV LANE IMPROVEMENTS - ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Biologist. The project involved conversion of a controlled access high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane to a full-time access HOV lane and replacement of damaged signs. Conducted a general biological constraints survey and evaluated potential project impacts to aquatic resources under Corps, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdictions. Prepared the NES MI for the project. I-5/EL TORO ROAD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS - ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; LAKE FOREST, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Biologist. The project entailed improvements to the existing interchange to improve traffic flow. Conducted a preliminary biological constraints survey and provided recommendations for inclusion in the preliminary environmental study. Evaluated the project area for potential occurrence of listed/sensitive plant and wildlife species and associated habitats as well as potential presence of aquatic resources under Corps, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdictions. Page 3 ZACKRY WEST I GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES SR -91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT FROM STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD TO LAKEVIEW AVENUE -ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Biologist. The project involved the addition of general purpose lanes eastbound and westbound, interchange modification and reconfiguration, and SR -91 /SR -57 freeway connector widening. Conducted a preliminary biological constraints survey and provided recommendations for inclusion in the preliminary environmental study. Evaluated the project area for potential occurrence of listed/sensitive plant and wildlife species and associated habitats as well as potential presence of aquatic resources under Corps, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdictions. SANTA ANA BOULEVARD GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT - CITY OF SANTA ANA; SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Biologist. The project entailed a grade separation between Santa Ana Boulevard and the Metrolink Railroad to improve traffic flow. Conducted a biological constraints survey and evaluated the project area for potential occurrence of listed/sensitive plant and wildlife species and associated habitats as well as potential presence of aquatic resources under Corps, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdictions. Prepared the NES MI for the project. MONTE VISTAAVENUE GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT - CITY OF MONTCLAIR; MONTCLAIR, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Biologist. The project entailed a grade separation between Monte Vista Avenue and the Union Pacific Railroad to improve traffic flow. Conducted a biological constraints survey and evaluated the project area for potential occurrence of listed/sensitive plant and wildlife species and associated habitats. Performed the jurisdictional delineation and prepared the NES MI for the project. 1-215 FOUR- TO SIX -LANE WIDENING FROM SCOTT ROAD TO NUEVO ROAD - RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION; RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Served as Regulatory Specialist. The project involved constructing an additional mixed flow lane on northbound and southbound 1-215 between Scott Road and Nuevo Road. Reviewed the 404 (b) (1) alternatives analysis and provided regulatory support. THE FLUME TRAIL PROJECT - COUNTY OFSAN DIEGO DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION; LAKESIDE, CALIFORNIA Served as Senior Technical Reviewer. The project involved constructing the Flume Trail to connect with the existing EI Monte Park Trail at EI Monte Park. Conducted a technical review of the jurisdictional delineation report. 1-15 CORRIDOR WIDENING FROM 1-215 TO SR -60 - RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION; RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Served as Senior Biologist. The project entails widening the 1-15 between 1-215 and SR -60 in Riverside County. Conducted a senior technical review of the NES. US ROUTE 395 SAFETY WIDENING PROJECT - CALTRANS DISTRICT 8; NEAR ADELANTO, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Biologist. This safety improvement project proposed widening of US Route 395 to install a four - foot median rumble strip and eight -foot standardized shoulders with rumble strips and shoulder backing to improve safety for the traveling public. Conducted a formal Section 7 consultation resulting in issuance of a biological opinion for desert tortoise. Obtained a 2081 incidental take permit for desert tortoise and Mojave ground squirrel, CWA nationwide permit 14, 401 water quality certification, and 1602 streambed alteration agreement. Also played an active role within the project development team, coordinating design aspects consistent with CDFW and USFWS requirements for permanent desert tortoise exclusionary fencing. SR 58 SAFETY WIDENING PROJECT - CALTRANS DISTRICTS; NEAR KRAMER JUNCTION, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Biologist. This safety improvement project proposed widening of SR 58 to install a four -foot median rumble strip and eight -foot standardized shoulders with rumble strips and shoulder backing in San Bernardino County. Coordinated with CDFW and obtained a 2081 incidental take permit for desert tortoise and Mojave ground squirrel. Worked closely with CDFW to develop species protection specifications for inclusion in the contractor's bid package. Page 4 ZACKRY WEST I GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES SR 138 TWO- TO FOUR -LANE WIDENING PROJECT - CALTRANS DISTRICT 8; SAN BERNARDINO AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Biologist. The project involved constructing one additional lane of travel on eastbound and westbound SR 138 from 1-15 to SR 18. Served as task order manager for focused least Bell's vireo surveys and the jurisdictional delineation. Coordinated and conducted focused arroyo toad and rare plant surveys. Conducted an informal Section 7 consultation for desert tortoise, least Bell's vireo, and arroyo toad. Coordinated with Caltrans landscape architects and CDFW to develop measures to transplant Joshua trees within Caltrans right of way outside of the project footprint. Coordinated with the U.S. Forest Service, using guidance developed by the U.S. Geological Survey Western Ecological Research Center, to develop suitable locations for two wildlife undercrossings. Also conducted early coordination efforts with the Corps to potentially reduce project impacts to qualify for coverage under a CWA 404 nationwide permit 14. SR 138 LITTLE HORSETHIEF CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT - CALTRANS DISTRICT 8; SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY NEAR SILVERWOOD, CALIFORNIA Served as Project Biologist. The project entailed removing the existing bridge structure at the SR 138 Little Horsethief Creek crossing and constructing a new bridge designed to meet current seismic standards. Conducted protocol arroyo toad surveys, rare plant surveys, and a jurisdictional delineation in support of the Section 7 consultation process and obtaining aquatic permits. SR 330 CULVERT LINING PROJECT - CALTRANS DISTRICT 8; NEAR RUNNING SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Biologist. The project involved lining existing culverts to maintain an adequate service level and extend functional life and installing inlet structures in San Bernardino County. Conducted rare plant surveys, a general biological constraints survey, vegetation mapping, and a jurisdictional delineation. Prepared a NES MI. Worked closely with USFWS to develop appropriate avoidance and minimization measures for proposal during the Section 7 consultation process. SR 38 PAVEMENT OVERLAY PROJECT - CALTRANS DISTRICT 8; SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Biologist. The project is to cold -plane, overlay, and replace existing three -beam guardrail from Valley of the Falls to Big Bear City. Conducted habitat assessments for southwestern willow flycatcher, Sierra Madre mountain yellow -legged frog, western spotted owl, southern rubber boa, and rare plant species. Prepared a NESMI, and conducted informal Section 7 consultation for potential noise and vibration impacts to known southwestern willow flycatcher nesting habitat. 1-10 TAMARISK REMOVAL PROJECT - CALTRANS DISTRICT 8; CATHEDRAL CITY, CALIFORNIA Served as lead biologist. The proposed project is to trim/remove Athel tamarisk trees within the clear recovery zone, and to replace fire -damaged above -ground irrigation systems, along westbound 1-10. Conducted rare plant surveys, along with a general biological constraints survey, and prepared a NESMI. Conducted informal Section 7 consultation for Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard, Coachella Valley milk -vetch, and obtained a Conference Opinion for flat -tailed horned lizard. SR 78 PALO VERDE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT - CALTRANS DISTRICT 8; PALO VERDE, CALIFORNIA Served as Project Biologist. The project involved replacing the existing bridge over the Palo Verde Ditch to meet seismic safety standards. Conducted focused nesting season burrowing owl surveys and qualitative and quantitative monitoring of restoration area. SR 247 SHOULDER WIDENING PROJECT - CALTRANS DISTRICT 8; NEAR LANDERS, CALIFORNIA Served as lead biologist. The proposed project is the installation of eight -foot standardized shoulders and associated shoulder backing, along each direction of travel on SR 247 in San Bernardino County. Coordinated the approved jurisdictional determination process with the USACE, and conducted informal Section 7 consultation for the desert tortoise. Page 5 ZACKRY WEST I GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES SR 62 LEFT TURN POCKET INSTALLATION PROJECT - CALTRANS DISTRICT 8; TWENTY NINE PALMS, CALIFORNIA Served as lead biologist. The proposed project is to install median left -turn pockets and eight -foot standard shoulders on SR 62 in San Bernardino County. Conducted a general biological constraints survey, performed the jurisdictional delineation, and prepared a NES. Coordinated with the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW, to determine that CWA and CDFW permits were not needed for the proposed project. Developed species protection specifications for inclusion in the contractor's bid package. 1-10 WHITEWATER RIVER BRIDGE CHECK DAM PROJECT - CALTRANS DISTRICT 8; WHITEWATER, CALIFORNIA Served as lead biologist. The proposed project is to construct a check dam for the prevention of future scour, to extend the serviceable life of existing bridge abutments on the I-10/Whitewater River Bridge. Coordinated and conducted focused arroyo toad surveys, rare plant surveys, and the jurisdictional delineation. Also coordinated and participated in desert tortoise presence/absence surveys. Conducted the Joint Project Review process with the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, to ensure compliance with the Coachella Valley MSHCP. 1-15 MOUNTAIN PASS TRUCK DESCENDING LANE INSTALLATION PROJECT - CALTRANS DISTRICTS; MOUNTAIN PASS, CALIFORNIA Served as project biologist. The proposed project is to construct a truck descending lane on 1-15, from Bailey Road to Nipton Road. Participated in desert tortoise presence/absence surveys and played a large role in identifying potential mitigation land to offset impacts to desert riparian habitat. 1-10 WESTBOUND FROM YUCAIPA TO REDLANDS AUXILIARY LANE INSTALLATION PROJECT - CALTRANS DISTRICT 8; YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA Served as lead biologist. The proposed project is to construct a mixed -flow auxiliary lane on 1-10 westbound, from Yucaipa Boulevard to Ford Street. Conducted the jurisdictional delineation and coordinated with the USACE. 1-215 4 TO 6 LANE WIDENING FROM MURRIETA HOTSPRINGS ROAD TO SCOTT ROAD - RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION; MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA Served as lead biologist. The proposed project is to construct an additional mixed flow lane on northbound and southbound 1-215 between Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Scott Road, Murrieta, California. Reviewed preliminary environmental analysis report. 1-15 DUNCAN CANYON ROAD NEW INTERCHANGE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT - CITY OF FONTANA; FONTANA, CALIFORNIA Served as lead biologist. The proposed project is to construct a new interchange on 1-15 at Duncan Canyon Road, Fontana, California. Reviewed Project Report, NES, Burrowing Owl Survey Report, and Jurisdictional Delineation Report. Coordinated CWA jurisdiction of aquatic features with the USACE immediately following the 2007 Rapanos/Carabell decision. UPPER SANTA ANA RIVER HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN - SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT; RIVERSIDE AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA Served as senior biologist. The Upper Santa Ana River Habitat Conservation Plan will specify how species and their habitats will be protected and managed in the future and will provide the incidental take permits needed by the water resource agencies under the federal and State endangered species acts to maintain, operate, and improve their water resource infrastructure. Conducted senior technical review of species accounts for covered species including arroyo toad, South Coast garter snake, California glossy snake, and western spadefoot toad. Page 6 ZACKRY WEST I GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES WHITEWATER RIVER STORMWATER CHANNEL AND COACHELLA VALLEY STORMWATER CHANNEL JD - COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT; COACHELLA VALLEY, CAUFORNIA Served as field delineation manager/ regulatory specialist/interim project manager. The proposed project is to identify areas under the USACE, EPA, State Water Board, and CDFW jurisdiction, for the purpose of obtaining a CWA 404 Regional General Permit, 401 water quality certification, and streambed alteration agreement for routine O&M activities within the Whitewater River Stormwater Channel and Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel. Coordinated and managed four teams of delineators to complete the jurisdictional delineation of approximately 55 river -miles, on an aggressive schedule. Developed a standardized data collection format, developed approaches for problematic areas, and coordinated site access and crew safety. To deal with the large scale of the effort, met with each team upon the conclusion of each field day and discussed the resources encountered and reviewed data collected by each team to ensure that all data collected was clear and complete. In addition, delineated one of the four reaches involved in the project area. Contributed technical sections and conducted senior technical review of the Jurisdictional Delineation Report. Conducted on-going coordination with the regulatory agencies to obtain permits. SAND/UPPER WARM CREEK CONFLUENCE PROJECT - COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS; HIGHLAND, CALIFORNIA Served as lead delineator. The proposed project is to reconfigure the existing Sand/Upper Warm Creek confluence for flood protection purposes. Coordinated and conducted the jurisdictional delineation. Provided technical review of the memorandum update to the existing Jurisdictional Delineation Report and coordinated project design/permitting details with County personnel. LEMON CREST DRIVE DRAINAGE PROJECT - COUNTY OFSAN DIEGO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS; LAKESIDE, CALIFORNIA Served as lead delineator/regulatory specialist/project manager. The proposed project is to conduct maintenance within a channel located between Rockcrest Road and Lemon Crest Drive, in Lakeside, California. Coordinated and conducted the jurisdictional delineation and prepared a Jurisdictional Delineation Report. WINTER GARDENS BOULEVARD CHANNEL PROJECT - COUNTY OFSAN DIEGO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS; LAKESIDE, CALIFORNIA Served as lead delineator/regulatory specialist/project manager. The proposed project is to conduct maintenance within a channel located adjacent to Winter Gardens Boulevard, in Lakeside, California. Coordinated and conducted the jurisdictional delineation. Prepared a Jurisdictional Delineation Report in support of an approved jurisdictional delineation. SAN PASQUALACADEMY FLOOD CONTROL MAINTENANCE PROJECT - COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS; SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Served as lead delineator/regulatory specialist. The proposed project is to conduct maintenance within a channel and in -channel basin complex located within the San Pascual Academy Campus, near Escondido, California. Coordinated and conducted the jurisdictional delineation. Prepared a Jurisdictional Delineation Report in support of an approved jurisdictional delineation. CHERLY CREEK-ANDREAS CANYON LEVEE REHABILITATION - RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROLAND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT; PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA Served as lead delineator. Conducted a jurisdictional delineation to further define the limits of the USACE and CDFW jurisdictional areas, as they pertain to current site conditions. Coordinated and conducted an updated jurisdictional delineation and augmented an existing Jurisdictional Delineation Report with additional findings. VERBENA CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS AND CONSTRUCT NEW BASIN - RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROLAND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT; DESERT HOTSPRINGS, CALIFORNIA Served as lead biologist. The proposed project is to widen the existing Verbena Channel and construct a new in-line detention basin for flood protection. Coordinated and conducted focused surveys for rare plants, burrowing owl, and the jurisdictional delineation. Upon determining presence of Coachella Valley milk vetch, coordinated and conducted population mapping surveys, and developed applicable mitigation measures. Page 7 ZACKRY WEST I GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES Also assessed the project area and completed a Coachella Valley MSHCP Compliance Report, as the plan was in final stages of development and nearing adoption. LAKE MATTHEWS TAMARISK REMOVAL PROJECT - METROPOLITAN; LAKE MATTHEWS, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Served as project biologist. The proposed project is to remove tamarisk from the lake shore and proximal tributaries to minimize water loss due to evapotranspiration. Performed biological monitoring to ensure compliance with FESA/CESA/CWA permits. COLORADO RIVER AQUEDUCT SIPHON WHITEWATER RIVER DISCHARGE POINT BANK STABILIZATION PROJECT - METROPOLITAN; WHITEWATER, CALIFORNIA Served as project biologist. The proposed project is to use native material for the installation of several earthen berms to direct flow and stabilize failing banks immediately downstream of the Colorado River Aqueduct Siphon Whitewater River Discharge facility. Conducted focused arroyo toad surveys and performed biologica monitoring to ensure compliance with FESA/CESA/CWA permits. COLORADO RIVER AQUEDUCT SIPHON WHITEWATER RIVER DISCHARGE POINT MINING PIT RECLAMATION PROJECT - METROPOLITAN; WHITEWATER, CALIFORNIA Served as project biologist. The proposed project is to use stockpiled material generated from the installation of the Colorado River Aqueduct Siphon to fill an open sand and gravel mining pit in order to improve public safety. Conducted focused arroyo toad, rare plant, winter/nesting season burrowing owl surveys. Conducted the jurisdictional delineation. ENERGY TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT FREMONT VALLEY ECOLOGICAL RESERVE POTENTIAL MITIGATION AREA - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON: FREMONT VALLEY. CALIFORNIA Served as lead delineator/lead CRAM practitioner. The proposed mitigation site is one of several locations that are proposed for Southern California Edison's Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project. Coordinated and conducted the jurisdictional delineation of the proposed mitigation site and served as lead preparer of the Jurisdictional Delineation Report. Coordinated and conducted California Rapid Assessment Method analysis of three Assessment Areas within the proposed mitigation site and served as lead preparer of the CRAM Report. TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON; LOS ANGELES, SAN BERNARDINO, AND KERN COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA Served as lead delineator. Coordinated and conducted the jurisdictional delineation of areas identified for additional impacts on Segments 3, 6, and Chino Hills Underground. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRIBAL HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN - RINCON BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS; RINCON RESERVATION Serves as lead arroyo toad biologist. Developed a methodology for mapping arroyo toad breeding habitat utilizing hydrologic indicators of the 10 -year storm event and a methodology to qualitatively map arroyo toad upland habitat based on soil types, stressors, land use, and potential restoration and management practices, through coordination in the field with USFWS. Conducted mapping of arroyo toad breeding habitat and qualitative mapping of arroyo toad upland habitat for inclusion in the Tribal HCP. Page 8 ZACKRY WEST I GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES TRANCAS LAGOON RESTORATION PROJECT -RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT OF THE SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS; MALIBU, CALIFORNIA Served as CRAM Practitioner. The project involves the restoration of Trancas Lagoon to facilitate movement of southern steelhead to potential spawning habitat upstream. Conducted CRAM following the bar -built estuarine and riverine modules. AGUA CHINON PROPOSED MITIGATION SITE - IRVINE RANCH CONSERVANCY/ORANGE COUNTY WASTE AND RECYCLING; ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Served as lead delineator; CRAM practitioner. The proposed project is a mitigation site for Orange County Waste and Recycling. Coordinated and conducted the jurisdictional delineation of the proposed mitigation site and served as lead preparer of the Jurisdictional Delineation Report. Served as CRAM practitioner. DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS EUCALYPTUS INDUSTRIAL PARK - PROLOGIS; MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA Served as project manager. The proposed project is to construct 2,244,638 square feet of industrial space within 6 buildings. Coordinated the completion of a Western Riverside MSHCP Determination of Biologically Superior or Equivalent Preservation and the aquatic permitting process. Provided technical documents for inclusion in the Project Environmental Impact Report. SUMMERWIND DEVELOPMENT - CITY OF BEAUMONT; BEAUMONT, CALIFORNIA Served as lead biologist. The proposed project is to construct single-family residential, multi -family residential, fire protection infrastructure, parks, green belts, and open space/preserve land on approximately 7,000 acres Beaumont. Coordinated and conducted focused rare plant surveys, nesting season burrowing owl surveys, and a jurisdictional delineation. Coordinated directly with Summerwind Partners, LLC, to establish access to restricted areas of the project site and acquire additional project information materials. Also accompanied land -survey crews during their activities within the project site to ensure avoidance of potentially sensitive biological/aquatic resources. WINCHESTER 700 DEVELOPMENT - WINCHESTER 700 PARTNERS, LLC; RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Served as project biologist. The proposed project is to construct 700 single-family residential units, with associated conservation land, in the unincorporated community of Winchester. Conducted vegetation mapping and focused burrowing owl surveys, as well as participating in focused surveys for rare plants, least Bell's vireo, coastal California gnatcatcher, and Quino checkerspot butterfly, including conservation lands dedicated through the criteria refinement process of the Western Riverside MSHCP. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS California Native Plant Society Society of Wetland Scientists EMPLOYMENT HISTORY Glenn Lukas Associates. Senior Biologist/Regulatory Specialist. Lake Forest, California. 2016 - Present. ICF International. Southern California Transportation Biology Manager. Corona, California. 2011 - 2016. Page 9 ZACKRY WEST I GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES Caltrans District 8. Associate Environmental Planner (Natural Science)/Biologist. San Bernardino, California. 2007-2011. Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. Biologist. Riverside, California. 2004-2007. Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Basin Planning Student. Riverside, California. 2002 - 2004. Page 10 TRICIA CAMPBELL GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATESPr in cip all© Senior Biologist YEARS OF EXPERIENCE PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY Professional start date: 1993 irlcla Campbell has 26 years of experience as an active Field Biologist, providing consulting for andspeclahang lnspeclatstatus Years at GLA:2 species biology and sensitive biological resource issues with regional emphasis lnsouthern California. Her expertise EDUCATION management of project that are complex due to a combination offactors including types offederally anNorstataltted resources BA, Biology, California present, regulatory and legal framework, multiple agency State University, Long Beach, l9® ants, and/or large sized projects. She is experienced with private development, transportation, government (local and PERMIT state), and utility projects. Ul 10(a)(1)(A) Re covery irlcla has conducte of biological fAd lnvestlg atlorx and reporting Permit, YTE18926610 for Callffornla Environmental QTony Act (CEGA) and N atlonal (re initiating) Por Southwestern Environmental Q Tony Act (NEPA) document including Initial Whow Flycatcher and Coastal studies, mitigated negative declarations, environmental impact CallPornla Gnatcatcher reports (El RL environmental impact sNtlies (EIS), and California Department of Transportation natural environment studies TEACHING EXPERIENCE requiring detailed Impact anapees. She is experienced with Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section ] consultations and Guest Speaker at CEQA Extension biological assessments. She conduct Pocwedsurvey, and/or Course,NCLA,20d habitat evaluations for listed spedalebtus species including California least tern, western snowy plover, Beldiing's savannah Assistant Instructor for Land Bird sparrow, arroyo toad Chino checkerspot, burrowing owl, coastal Bantling and Micro ageing Extension California gnatcatcher, southwestern willow flycatcher, least Bell's Course, LC DoersItle,20d vireo, and California yellow- billed cuckoo. Tricia has extensive knowledge and experience with southern California flora and COJnstmcbrPor Hummingbird ummingbird fauna and excels at working on difficult, complex project. Banding Workshop, UC Riverside, 195E SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE TRAIN INGS ATTENDED ANAHEIM REDION&TRUNSPORFAIgN INIFAMEALCENTERPROJECT- OIECT- ORANGE COUNIYIIMNSPO TATXX1 AJTHORXRg MAHDM, CAl1FGFd11A Endan dS ActU date, gene pedes p Endangered CIE International, 2014 Served as Lead Biologist. Authored the biological resources technical report as well as biological resources baseline and California YellowbilledCuckoo Impact analyses for the EWES. Resource issues Included potential Workshop at the Kern River Preserve, federal jurktlictional waters and wetlands as well as state Audubon Society, 2035 sfreambece and nesting bird protected under Deal nal and state Taws. The project was located In a highly developed landscape. Wetland Dehneatbn Course, Wetland Training Institute, 2035 CAl1FGRNM HgHBPEED(PVN,ANAHDMAOIIE ANGELES - CALIFORNIA HIGHSPEED RAILAUT10RRIBI INCCflidNIED ORANGE AND Lib U.S. Ar my Cc pe of Engineers ANGELS 0011111188, CALIFORNIA Wetland Delineation Training, Served as Lead Biologist. Conducted spedalebtw species habitat Richard Chinn Environmental evoluatio he and veg etatlon mapping. A coationally served as Training, 20M primary author of the biological resources technical report as well as for biological resource baseline and Impacts analyses In the Southwestern Wow Flycatcher Workshop at the Kern River Preserve, Audubon Society, 2001 TRICIA CAMPBELL I GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES EIR/EIS. The project required an in-depth understanding of both state and federal environmental laws and regulations related to biological resources. LOST CANYONS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT - HILLWOOD CAPITAL; SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA Serving as Lead Biologist. Coordinate a Section 7 consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for coastal California gnatcatcher and least Bell's vireo within the 1775 -acre development project. Author the biological assessment, a sensitive species protection plan for western spadefoot toad, and a native plant management plan for rare plants. MEADOWPASS ROAD EXTENSION EIR - CITY OF WALNUT; WALNUT, CALIFORNIA Served as Biological Resources Lead. The project was a highly controversial road improvement project. Studies included general biological resources evaluation; delineation of jurisdictional waters and wetlands; and focused studies of California gnatcatcher, least Bell's vireo, and southwestern willow flycatcher. Conducted a protected tree inventory. Prepared biological resource technical documents and sections of the EIR. EUCALYPTUS LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT - PROLOGIS; MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA Served as Advisory Biologist. Authored and received approval of the determination of biological equivalent or superior preservation (DBESP) report in demonstrating consistency with the Western Riverside County multiple species habitat conservation plan's (MSHCP's) riparian/riverine resources requirements. Coordinated with the client and engineering personnel in concert with the Regional Conservation Authority, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Regional Water Quality Control Board, and USFWS liaisons to negotiate mitigation acceptable to all entities, ensuring no duplication of mitigation requirements between the Western Riverside County MSHCP and aquatic permits. QUAIL HILL LOWER MITIGATION SITE MONITORING - THE IRVINE COMPANY; IRVINE, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Biologist. Ensured compliance with the approved U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) mitigation monitoring plan for the lower restoration site within Quail Hill supporting mulefat scrub and southern willow scrub. Coordinated and conducted monthly, quarterly, and annual monitoring events involving site checks, vegetation sampling, and assessment of wildlife functions and values. Provided recommendations to support development and success of the restoration effort. DIAMOND VIEW MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT - DIAMOND VIEW MOUNTAIN HOLDINGS; RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Served as Project Manager and Lead Biologist. Prepared a detailed impact analysis supporting the EIR for the 390 -acre site. Assessed general biological resources; mapped natural community vegetation; conducted focused surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher, burrowing owl, and birds of prey; coordinated jurisdictional waters and wetlands delineation; and performed rare plant botanical surveys. Reported existing site conditions and general and focused field survey results to provide a comprehensive impact analysis of special -status species and other biologically sensitive resources potentially affected by the proposed project within an appropriate regulatory framework considering CEQA, federal and California ESAs, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Additionally, provided avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation recommendations. The project was complex in terms of regulatory needs due to the take of state -listed Mojave tarplant. GALLERY HOMES DEVELOPMENT ISLAND WATER PERMITTING - GALLERY HOMES LLP; UNINCORPORATED RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Served as Project Manager and Lead Biologist. Performed biological resources studies including jurisdictional waters and wetlands delineation and focused surveys for least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, burrowing owl, and rare plants. Provided lead biologist support for water permitting. Prepared the biological resources constraints analysis document in support of the initial study as well as the habitat mitigation and monitoring plan in support of water permitting. Page 2 TRICIA CAMPBELL I GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES 1-15 CORRIDOR WIDENING FROM SAN BERNARDINO TO CAJALCO ROAD MND/EA - RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION/HDR ENGINEERING, CALIFORNIA Serving as Lead Biologist. The project is an interstate improvement project spanning approximately 25 miles of highway in Western Riverside County. Provide oversight of teams of biologists performing a general biological resource study as well as focused studies for rare plants, fairy shrimp, Delhi sands flower -loving fly, burrowing owl, least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, California yellow -billed cuckoo, wildlife linkage/corridor analysis, vernal pool analysis, and delineation of jurisdictional waters and wetlands. Working as the principal author of project documents including a natural environmental study addressing detailed mitigation as well as biological resources sections of the MND/environmental assessment, a Western Riverside County MSCP consistency review, and a determination of biologically equivalent or superior determination (DBESP). Coordinate extensively with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Riverside County Transportation Commission, Caltrans, and Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA). CAJALCO ROAD WIDENING PROJECT, HARVILL AVENUE TO TEMESCAL CANYON ROAD - RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT; CORONA, CALIFORNIA Serving as Senior Technical Manager. The project is a 16 -mile road project spanning three habitat conservation plan (HCP) reserve lands including the Western Riverside County multiple species habitat conservation plan (MSHCP), Stephen's kangaroo rat HCP, and Lake Mathews MSHCP. Work has included conducting a jurisdictional delineation; evaluating vernal pools; mapping watershed areas; conducting rare plant surveys for least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and burrowing owl; performing bat habitat assessments and acoustic studies; conducting Stephens' kangaroo rat habitat modeling and trapping studies; evaluating existing wildlife corridors; creating and implementing integrated wildlife corridors; and conducting mitigation equivalency analyses for all three HCPs. Currently playing a critical role in strategizing approach and coordination with the RCA, resource agencies, Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency, Metropolitan Water District, and environmental advocacy groups. The role requires in-depth knowledge of biological resources, Western Riverside County MSHCP for transportation projects, CEQA, NEPA, CWA Sections 401/404, state aquatic resources, strong working relationships with the resource agencies, and successful negotiating strategies. Reporting has included preparation of a natural environment study; EIR/EIS sections; amendment of the Lake Mathews MSHCP, DBESP, and mitigation equivalency analysis reports; consistency review; and ultimately a joint project review leading to an internal biological opinion. BALLONA WETLANDS RESTORATION PROJECT - CALIFORNIA COASTAL CONSERVANCY; LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Served as Senior Technical Support. Provided support in drafting the biological resources section of the administrative draft EIR/EIS. Provided an in-depth analysis of existing resources, temporal creation and loss of habitats, and rising sea levels. Performed work in partnership with ICF International, Santa Monica Bay Conservancy, CDFW, California Coastal Conservancy, and Wetlands Resources Associates. CALIFORNIA LEAST TERN AND SNOWY PLOVER MONITORING - CALIFORNIASTATE UNIVERSITY LONG BEACH; SAN DIEGO COUNTY. CALIFORNIA Served as Field Biologist. Performed foraging surveys and nest monitoring of numerous California least tern colonies in San Diego County. Monitored nesting and wintering snowy plovers at various naval bases on Coronado Island. Work included banding of young. PECK ROAD BRIDGE WIDENING OVER THE SAN GABRIEL RIVER - LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS; UNINCORPORATED LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Served as project Biologist. Authored the natural environment study for the proposed bridge improvement project. Analysis addressed proposed impacts and mitigation to biological resources including least Bell's vireo, western pond turtle, and riparian-riverine resources within a natural section of the San Gabriel River. Page 3 TRICIA CAMPBELL I GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES SAN PEDRO WATERFRONT PROJECT EIR/EIS - PORT OF LOS ANGELES; LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Biologist. Prepared the biological resources baseline and impacts analysis for the EIR/EIS. Fieldwork included conducting a constraints analysis and delineating federal and state jurisdictional waters and wetlands. Authored biological resources sections for the draft EIR/EIS. The project was placed on hold. SAN DIEGUITO LAGOON RESTORATION PROJECT - PORT OF LOS ANGELES; DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA Served as project Biologist. Inventoried benthic, fish, and avian communities as part of the existing baseline studies in support of the lagoon restoration program. Performed work in partnership with MEC Analytical Systems. SEAL BEACH WETLANDS RESTORATION PROGRAM - PORT OF LONG BEACH; LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Served as project Biologist. Inventoried benthic, fish, and avian communities as part of the subtidal and intertidal creation project in partnership with MEC Analytical Systems and the Port of Long Beach. CAMPUS MASTER PLAN EIR - CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, DOMINGUEZ HILLS, CARSON, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Biologist. Led biological resources studies including a general constraints analysis, delineation of jurisdictional waters and wetlands, and focused studies of burrowing owl and native nesting birds. Provided a detailed analysis of seasonal ponds occupied by Riverside fairy shrimp. Authored the draft biological resources section of the EIR. SANTA FE DAM SPORTS FIELDS BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES STUDIES - KARE YOUTH LEAGUE, IRWINDALE, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Biologist. Supervised and managed biological resources studies in support of the EIR. Studies included a constraints analysis and focused surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher and rare plants. Conducted a detailed analysis of federally designated critical habitat for California gnatcatcher on federal Corps' land. Authored the biological resources constraints analysis in support of the EIR. VICTORIAAVENUE BRIDGE RETROFIT - CITY OF RIVERSIDE, RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA Served as Lead Biologist. Managed and conducted a constraints analysis field review and focused surveys for least Bell's vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher. Delineated jurisdictional waters and wetlands. Authored a biological resources constraints analysis report to support the City's CEQA documentation. ADDITIONAL TEACHING EXPERIENCE Campbell, Tricia. CEQA and Biology Speaker/California Environmental Quality Act Extension Course. University of California, Los Angeles. 2009. Campbell, Tricia. 38 -Hour U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation & Management Training Program. Richard Chinn Environmental Training, Inc. 2003. Campbell Tricia. Assistant Instructor/Land Bird Banding and Micro -Ageing. University California, Riverside. 2002. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS California Native Plant Society Society for Conservation Biology The Wildlife Society Western Bird Banding Association (Back Issues) Page 4 TRICIA CAMPBELL I GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES EMPLOYMENT HISTORY Glenn Lukas Associates. Principal/Senior Biologist. Lake Forest, California. 2014 - Present. ICF International. Biological Resources. Riverside, California. 2010-2014. Jones & Stokes (acquired by ICF International). Biological Resources. Temecula, California. 2003-2010. Campbell Biological Consulting. Biological Resources. 1997-2003. Page 5 Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station Appendix V Appendix V. Archaeological Inventory Prepared by Greenwood and Associates dated April 30, 2017 ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY And AB -52 Consultation, Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff Station Submitted to: Susan Tebo, President Tebo Environmental Consulting Inc. 300 E. Esplanade Dr., Suite 1660 Oxnard, CA 93036 John M. Foster, RPA Greenwood and Associates 725 Jacon Way Pacific Palisades, California 90272 (3 10) 4543091 April 30, 2017 Abstract The City of Santa Clarita (Lead Agency), has requested an archaeological record search, survey, and AB -52 consultation for the proposed construction of the Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff Station on the west side of Golden Valley Road and south of Centre Point Parkway, in the City of Santa Clarita. The area of potential adverse impact was subject to both archival research and physical survey to locate and identify any archaeological resources within the project area. No archaeological resources were recorded or observed. An AB -52 consultation was initiated and two Native American groups were contacted to obtain their input on the project. Their input is pending. Should potentially important cultural deposits be encountered during ground disturbing activities, work should be temporarily diverted from the vicinity of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist can identify and evaluate the importance of the find, conduct any appropriate assessment, and implement measures to mitigate impacts on significant resources. USGS Quadrangle: Newhall, 1995 Acreage: 7.9 acres Cultural Resources: None observed Type of Investigation: Archaeological Record Search and Inventory Cover Picture: Aerial view of the proposed Sheriff Station location. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................... 1 CURRENT SETTING.......................................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................. 1 LITERATURE AND ARCHIVAL REVIEW............................................................................................. 4 NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION............................................................................................... 6 SURVEY RESULTS............................................................................................................................. 6 IMPACTS...................................................................................................................................................... 7 RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................................................... 7 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................... 8 Figures 1. Vicinity Map and Project Location.............................................................................................. 2 2. Project Area, View to the South................................................................................................. 3 Appendix Appendix: AB -52 Notification Letters............................................................................................. 9 This report is not for public distribution 11 INTRODUCTION Greenwood and Associates has conducted an archaeological record search and field inventory of a parcel of 7.9 acres in advance of the proposed construction of new facilities that will include an approximately 44,000 square foot sheriff's station main building, and a 4,000 square foot vehicle maintenance building (Figure 1). The site was previously graded as part of the Golden Valley Road extension project. The study was prepared to identify any archaeological resources within the proposed impact areas and to consult with Native American groups who have applied for AB -52 consultation. The investigation provides the client with the necessary documentation to satisfy its obligations relative to city requirements. The effort included a review of available archaeological site archives, historical maps, documents describing the proposed project area, AB -52 consultation, and a survey of previously identified archaeological sites. This report describes the results of the background research, methods and results of the field investigation, and conclusions regarding the probability of impact to cultural resources due to project -related activities. CURRENT SETTING The proposed sheriff station and associated facilities are located on level ground in previously disturbed areas. The location has been subject to substantial previous disturbance including graded raised roads, terracing, extensive level pads, as demonstrated by the lack of contours, lack of vegetation, trees, or other objects (Figure 2). A temporary fire station currently occupies the site. The surface consists of dirt and visibility was excellent. BACKGROUND The following summary is based on the literature search conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center on January 30, 2017 by Dana Slawson, M.A., staff researcher at Greenwood and Associates. It is designed both to indicate the potential for the presence of cultural resources within the project area, and to provide a context for any cultural data that may exist within the study area. A. Ethnography The Native American people described as inhabiting the region surrounding the project area are known as the Tataviam (King and Blackburn 1978:535). These people were hunters and gatherers with permanent villages, specialized processing sites, formal cemeteries, and trade networks with local and non -local groups. It is believed that initially they practiced a seasonal strategy, moving from location to location exploiting various food resources, but with technological advances they were able to maintain permanent year-round villages with reliance on acorns and other terrestrial resources. 1 360000m E. 361000m E. 3 62000 E. WGG84 Zone 115 Som E. 361000mE 362...1E. WG584 Zone 115 NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC n. .n, Figure 1. Vicinity Map and Project Location, USGS Newhall Quadrangle (1995) At the time of European contact, the people occupied an area that included the upper reaches of the Santa Clara River east of Piru Creek, the southwestern area of Antelope Valley, and south towards Newhall (King and Blackburn 1975:535). B. Prehistory The archaeological record indicates that sedentary populations occupied the coastal and inland regions of California more than 13,000 years ago. Early periods were characterized by the processing of hard seeds with the mano and milling stone and the use of the atlatl (dart thrower) to bring down large game, e.g., deer. Villages were typically around permanent water sourcesthat allowed exploitation of a variety of different habitatsfor food. In the later periods, prior to the arrival of Europeans, the bow and arrow was in use, trade and social networks evolved, and the mortar and pestle were used to process acorns in areas where they were available. Figure 2. Project Area, View to the South. C. History Spanish Period California was claimed by Spain during the sixteenth century as part of the empire it was establishing in the New World. Europeans arrived in Los Angeles in 1769 with the Gaspar de PortolA expedition. To solidify their claims, the Spanish government fortified San Diego and Monterey and started to establish Mission outposts. San Fernando Mission was established in 1797 and by the early 1800s, most of the Tataviam population, with the exception of those who had fled into the interior mountains and valleys, had come into the Mission system. Mexican Period Mexico declared independence from Spain in 1821. A city council was formed in 1822 for Los Angeles, and Alta California became a state with Monterey as the capital. During this period the Tataviam Indian population declined due to disease, disruption of traditional customs, and excessive toil. After secularization of the Missions, the properties and goods were administered by appointed government agents. Political considerations delayed implementation of the decree until 1837. In 1843, Governor Micheltorena restored mission administration to the padres, only to have his successor, Pio Pico, launch an effort to lease, and later sell, all remaining mission lands to private individuals in 1845 (Engelhardt 1973). United States Period After the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1846, Euro -Americans took over California and declared that Pico did not have the authority to lease and sell mission lands. The United States Lands Commission heard petitions for claims to mission lands and voided many of the transactions concluded under Pico's effort. The Rancho Period has been romanticized in literature and film as a time of easy wealth and leisure notable for dashing horsemanship and Hispanic hospitality on a grand scale. The reality was the more prosaic work of making a living in the cattle business (Greenwood 1989:451-466). The discovery of gold in northern California created a boom in the cattle industry which fed the hordes of miners searching for gold. During the 1860s, the Euro -American population grew rapidly, partly because many of the old rancho families lost title to their land, leaving a vacuum which was promptly filled by settlers from central and eastern United States. Santa Clarita is generally considered a bedroom community for the San Fernando Valley, and Western Los Angeles areas. The area in the vicinity of project has recently become a residential neighborhood. LITERATURE AND ARCHIVAL REVIEW A review of available literature, archaeological site archives, and relevant historical maps was conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center on January 30, 2017, by Dana Slawson, staff researcher at Greenwood and Associates, with the following results: Resources within Project Area: none Resources within 0.5 mi search area: 2 LAN -2105 LAN -2132 4 Investigations within 0.5 mi search area: 9 Investigations including all or portions of Project Area: 2 LA -1032 LA -4250 Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) results (0.50 mile radius): Evaluated historical resources: 2 19-002105H, Los Angeles Aqueduct, has been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places 19-002132H, Los Angeles Aqueduct Transmission Line, has been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places County historical properties: none California State Points of Historical Interest: none California State Historical Landmarks: none National Register properties: none Historical Map Review (note that the project location is very near the north -south boundary of adjoining 15 minute and 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle maps): USGS Santa Susana (1903) and San Fernando (1900), California 15' quadrangle maps. These maps indicate that Soledad Canyon Road was in place north of the project area by the turn of the twentieth century, with tracks of the Southern Pacific Railroad Santa Susana Line running along its south side. At this date, an unimproved (dirt) road extended southward from Soledad Canyon Road near the project area, roughly on the modern alignment of Golden Valley Road. There was no development within the project area; the nearest dwelling was located less than 0.25 mi to the south and additional solitary structures stood within 0.50 mi to the west and southeast. USGS Saugus (1933) and Humphreys (1932), California 7.5' quadrangle maps. These maps indicate that Soledad Canyon Road was known as Sierra Highway at that time. The roadway lying adjacent to the project area on the east remained unimproved. All houses depicted nearby on the 1900/1903 maps had been removed and there was now a single dwelling within the search area, located less than 0.25 mi to the north of the project area. The Los Angeles 5 Aqueduct had been completed nearby to the west, and the Los Angeles Aqueduct Transmission Line was aligned north -south less than 0.25 mi to the east. USGS Santa Susana (1941) and San Fernando (1940), California 15' quadrangle maps. This pair of maps show no changes in the vicinity of the project area with the exception of the addition of an east -west dirt road that branched from the existing road to the north of the project area. USGS Newhall (1952) and Mint Canyon (1960), California 7.5' quadrangle maps. These maps depict only one minor change in the vicinity of the project area: the addition of a single outbuilding adjacent to the dwelling located approximately 0.25 mi north of the project area. USGS Newhall (1988) and Mint Canyon (1988), California 7.5' quadrangle maps. These two maps show no development within or directly adjacent to the current project area. However, substantial changes had occurred within the search area. The roadway to the east of the project was now paved, and new construction within 0.5 mi included 15 dwellings and six larger buildings that may have served commercial, light industrial, or utility functions. Additionally, new paved roads had intruded into the search area to the west and north of the project site. NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Native American consultation is included as an appendix. Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians and the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians were contacted by mail (Appendix). AB 52 Contacts: Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians Attn: Michael Mirelez P.O. Box 1160 Thermal, CA 92274 Ms. Kimia Fatehi Fernandeno Band of Mission Indians 1019 Second Street, Suite 1 San Fernando, CA 91340. Ms. Fatehi responded on April 10, 2017 with the following recommendations: A professional Native American monitor shall inspect all ground disturbing activities (including grading or removal of native vegetation) associated with the Project in areas that are not currently composed of fill material, including the North property line area, West Property line area, and any impacts to local native plants. C The Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians (Tribe) shall procure Native American monitoring. SURVEY RESULTS The field survey was conducted on February 1, 2017 by John M. Foster, RPA. Visibility within the project was excellent. Transects were spaced at 20 m intervals due to potential for archaeological resources. Soils lacked organic content suggesting the area had been extensively graded. No evidence of archaeological deposits or features was observed. IMPACTS No impacts on cultural resources are expected as a result of the project. RECOMMENDATIONS As stated, there should be no direct impacts to recorded archaeological resources. If archaeological resources are encountered during ground disturbing activities, work should be temporarily diverted from the vicinity of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist can identify and evaluate the importance of the find, conduct any appropriate assessment, and implement measures to mitigate impacts on significant resources. In the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery, the steps and procedures specified in Health and Safety Code 7050.5, State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(d), and Public Resources Code 5097.98 shall be implemented. Specifically, in accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98, the San Bernardino County Coroner shall be notified within 24 hours of the discovery of potentially human remains. The Coroner typically would then determine within two working days of being notified if the remains are subject to his or her authority. If the Coroner recognizes the remains to be Native American, he or she would contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by phone within 24 hours, in accordance with PRC Section 5097.98. The NAHC typically would then designate a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) with respect to the human remains within 48 hours of notification. The MLD typically would then have the opportunity to recommend to the property owner or the project proponent means for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods within 24 hours of notification. Whenever the NAHC is unable to identify a MLD, or the MLD fails to make a recommendation, or the landowner or his or her authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the MLD and the mediation provided for in subdivision (k) of PRC Section 5097.94 fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner or his or her authorized representative would re -inter the human 7 remains and items associated with Native American burials with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. References Engelhardt, Fr. Zephyrin, O.F.M. 1973 San Fernando Rey. The Mission of the Valley. Ballena Press, Ramona. Greenwood, Roberta S. 1989 The California Ranchero: Fact and Fancy. In Colombian Consequences, Archaeological and Historical Perspectives on the Spanish Borderlands West, Vol. 1. David Hurst Thomas, editor, pp. 451-465. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London. King, Chester, and Thomas Blackburn 1978 Tataviam. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp 535-537. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, William Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. F Appendix AB -52 Consultation Letters Local Government Tribal Consultation List Request Native American Heritage Commission 1550 Harbor Blvd, Suite 100 West Sacramento, CA 95691 916-373-3710 916-373-5471— Fax nahc@nahc.ca.gov Type of List Requested ❑ CEQA Tribal Consultation List (AB 52) — Per Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1, subs. (b), (d), (e) and 21080.3.2 ❑ General Plan (SB 18) - Per Government Code § 65352.3. Local Action Type: _General Plan _General Plan Element_ General Plan Amendment Specific Plan _ Specific Plan Amendment I] Pre -planning Outreach Activity Required Information Project Title: Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff Station Local Government /Lead Agency: City of Santa Clarita Contact Person: John Foster, Greenwood and Associates (representing City of Santa Clarita) Street Address: 1885 Sunnydale Avenue City: Simi Valley, CA Zip: 93065 Phone: 310.717.5048 Email: Jfoster@Greenwood-associates.com Specific Area Subject to Proposed Action County: Los Angeles City/Community: Santa Clarita Project Description: proposed construction of new facilities that will include an approximately 44,000 square foot sheriffs station main building, and a 4,000 square footvehicle maintenance building (Figure 1). The site was previously graded as part of the Golden Valley Road extension project. Additional Request: ❑x Sacred Lands File Search - Required Information: USGS Quadrangle Name(s): Newhall, 1995 Township: N.A. Range: N.A. Section(s): Unsectioned Lat/Long: NW: 34 degrees, 24', 30"/118 degrees, 30', 16"; NE: 34 degrees, 24', 29"/118 degrees, 30', 16"; SW: 34 degrees, 24', 22"/118 degrees, 118 degrees, 30', 16"; SE: 34 degrees, 24', 23"/118 degrees, 30', 12". Figure 1. Vicinity Map and Project Location, USGS Newhall Quadrangle (1995). —E. 361WOmE. 36200—E. WGS84 Zone 115 NATIONAL ,an a ,an 2P 3M W """SM GEOGRAPHIC 5 a � "T Greenwood and Associates 725 Jacon Way Pacific Palisades, California 90272 February 7, 2017 Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians Attn: Michael Mirelez P.O. Box 1160 Thermal, CA 92274 RE: Proposed Construction of the Santa Clarita Sheriff Station, AB -52 Consultation Dear Mr. Mirelez: You are being contacted because you have requested AB -52 consultation with the City of Santa Clarita (Figure 1) on projects within its jurisdiction. The current project is a proposed Sheriff station located on the west side of Golden Valley Road and south of Centre Point Parkway, in the City of Santa Clarita (Figure 1). Greenwood and Associates has conducted an archaeological record search and field inventory of the subject parcel consisting of 7.9 acres in advance of the proposed construction of new facilities that will include a 44,000 square foot sheriff's station main building, and a 4,000 square foot vehicle maintenance building. The site was previously graded as part of the Golden Valley Road extension project. The proposed sheriff station and associated facilities are located on level ground in previously disturbed areas. The location has been subject to substantial previous disturbance including graded raised roads, terracing, extensive level pads, as demonstrated by the lack of contours, lack of vegetation, trees, or other objects (Figure 2). A temporary fire station currently occupies the site. The surface consists of dirt and visibility was excellent (Figure 3). The files of the California Historical Resources Information System South Central Coastal Information Center reported that there are two known historical sites (aqueduct and transmission line) recorded within a half -mile of the project area. We are seeking information from knowledgeable individuals regarding the potential presence of cultural resources in the project area. If you or your group are aware of heritage remains or have concerns regarding the potential effects to cultural resources, please contact us. We would like to hear from you within four weeks if possible. We understand you may need additional time, and we welcome your comments at any time during the project. Any information you share with us will be used only for planning purposes. Consultation will be confidential regarding location of Native American cultural properties, burial sites, sacred shrines, and other areas that may be eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources. If you have any questions or need additional information regarding this project, please contact Mr. John Foster, Senior Archaeologist at 310.717.5048. Sincerely, Original signed. Mr. John M. Foster. RPA Som E, 311---- E, 362000mE. WGS"Zone 11G 0 NATIONAL " M GEOGRAPHIC Ra no. Figure 1. Vicinity Map (USGS Newhall, CA, 1995). Figure 2. Area of Potential Effects, Santa Clarita Sheriff Station (Google Earth 2017) Figure 3. Graded Project Area (February 1, 2017). Ms. Kimia Fatehi Fernandeno Band of Mission Indians 1019 Second Street, Suite 1 San Fernando, CA 91340. Greenwood and Associates 725 Jacon Way Pacific Palisades, California 90272 February 6, 2017 Ms. Kimia Fatehi Fernandeho Band of Mission Indians 1019 Second Street, Suite 1 San Fernando, CA 91340 RE: Proposed Construction of the Santa Clarita Sheriff Station, AB -52 Consultation Dear Ms. Fatehi: You are being contacted because you have requested AB -52 consultation with the City of Santa Clarita (Figure 1) on projects within its jurisdiction. The current project is a proposed Sheriff station located on the west side of Golden Valley Road and south of Centre Point Parkway, in the City of Santa Clarita (Figure 1). Greenwood and Associates has conducted an archaeological record search and field inventory of the subject parcel consisting of 7.9 acres in advance of the proposed construction of new facilities that will include a 44,000 square foot sheriff's station main building, and a 4,000 square foot vehicle maintenance building. The site was previously graded as part of the Golden Valley Road extension project. The proposed sheriff station and associated facilities are located on level ground in previously disturbed areas. The location has been subject to substantial previous disturbance including graded raised roads, terracing, extensive level pads, as demonstrated by the lack of contours, lack of vegetation, trees, or other objects (Figure 2). A temporary fire station currently occupies the site. The surface consists of dirt and visibility was excellent (Figure 3). The files of the California Historical Resources Information System South Central Coastal Information Center reported that there are two known historical sites (aqueduct and transmission line) recorded within a half -mile of the project area. We are seeking information from knowledgeable individuals regarding the potential presence of cultural resources in the project area. If you or your group are aware of heritage remains or have concerns regarding the potential effects to cultural resources, please contact us. We would like to hear from you within four weeks if possible. We understand you may need additional time, and we welcome your comments at any time during the project. Any information you share with us will be used only for planning purposes. Consultation will be confidential regarding location of Native American cultural properties, burial sites, sacred shrines, and other areas that may be eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources. If you have any questions or need additional information regarding this project, please contact Mr. John Foster, Senior Archaeologist at 310.717.5048. Sincerely, Original signed. Mr. John M. Foster. RPA Som E, 311---- E, 362000mE. WGS"Zone 11G 0 NATIONAL " M GEOGRAPHIC Ra no. Figure 1. Vicinity Map (USGS Newhall, CA, 1995). Figure 2. Area of Potential Effects, Santa Clarita Sheriff Station (Google Earth 2017) April 10, 2017 Rudy J. Ortega, Jr. Tribal President Tribal Historic & Cultural Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians Preservation Committee Tribal Historic & Cultural Preservation Steve Ortega Chairman Department RE: REVISION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CULTURAL RESOURCES MITIGATION MEASURES OF MARCH 30 2017 FOR THE SHERIFF'S STATION (PROJECT) This letter constitutes (resubmittal of) formal comments under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 subdivisions (b), (d) and (e)) for the mitigation of potential impacts to tribal cultural resources for the above referenced project (Project). The Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians (Tribe) thanks the applicant for the information provided in the Consultation Form (form). In continued consultation with the Lead Agency, THCP is amending the recommendations of the March 30 2017 letter and has the following comments: A professional Native American monitor shall inspect all ground disturbing activities (including grading or removal of native vegetation) associated with the Project in areas that are not currently composed of fill material, including the North property line area, West Property line area, and any impacts to local native plants. The Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians (Tribe) shall procure Native American monitoring. Sincerely, Kimia Fatehi Tribal Historic and Cultural Preservation Department kfatehi@tataviam-nsn.us 1019 Second Street, Suite 1 I San Fernando I California, 91340 1 (818) 837-0794 1 Fax (818) 837-0796 1 thcp@tataviam-nsn.us Initial Study —Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station Appendix VI Appendix VI. Geotechnical Investigation and Geologic -Seismic Report Prepared by RTF&A Dated June 8, 2017 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND GEOLOGIC -SEISMIC REPORT SANTA CLARITA VALLEY SHERIFF STATION WEST SIDE OF GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SOUTH OF CENTRE POINTE PARKWAY CITY PROJECT NO. F3023 SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA FOR CITY OF SANTA CLARITA JUNE 8, 2017 JOB NO. 99-715-001 ERTFA GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY MRTFaA GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY June 8, 2017 City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, California 91355 Job No. 99-715-001 Attention: Mr. Ross Pistone Subject: Geotechnical Investigation and Geologic -Seismic Report Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff Station West Side of Golden Valley Road, South of Centre Pointe Parkway City Project No. F3023 Santa Clarita, California Ladies/Gentlemen: We are pleased to submit our "Geotechnical Investigation and Geologic -Seismic Report, Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff Station, West Side of Golden Valley Road, South of Centre Pointe Parkway, City Project No. F3023, Santa Clarita, California" for the City of Santa Clarita. The location of the site is shown on the Site Location Map, Figure 1. The layout of the Sheriff Station is depicted on the Geotechnical Map, Figure 5.1. Our proposed services for the project were based on the Scope of Work outlined in the City of Santa Clarita Public Works Department Request for Proposal (RFP) dated August 24, 2016 as well as consultation with Mr. Ross Pistone of the City of Santa Clarita. The detailed project scope was subsequently presented in our Geotechnical Services Proposal dated September 14, 2016 (Proposal No. P014[R]-2016-001). Based on the findings of our investigation, and in accordance with the California Geological Survey Note 48 Guidelines, we conclude that there are no potential geologic -seismic hazards that could adversely impact the proposed Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff Station. Furthermore, there are no unfavorable geotechnical conditions that would preclude site development. In our opinion, the site is suitable for the proposed sheriff station. The site has previously been graded and portions of the site are mantled by as much as 82 feet of certified engineered fill. Near -surface bedrock is present along the western site boundary and will require overexcavation and replacement as certified engineered fill. The proposed buildings may R. T. FRANKIAN & ASSOCIATES 26027 HUNTINGTON LANE SUITE A SANTA CLARITA CALIFORNIA 91 355 TEL. (818) 5311501 WWW.RTFRANIIUAN.COM City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 be supported on continuous or individual spread footings established in the certified engineered fill soil. If you should have any questions regarding this report please feel free to contact us. Respectfully submitted, R. T. FRANKIAN & ASSOCIATES by: Alan W. Rasplicka Principal Geotechnical Engineer and: Timothy P. Latiolait AWR/TPL/ew Principal Engineering Geologist MRTFA G�ECHMICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1 SITE DESCRIPTION......................................................................................................................2 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION...................................................................................................2 SOIL CONDITIONS.......................................................................................................................3 LABORATORY ANALYSES........................................................................................................3 INFILTRATION TESTING............................................................................................................4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS..........................................................................................4 INFILTRATION TESTING................................................................................................4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................6 GEOLOGY......................................................................................................................................6 REGIONAL GEOLOGY.....................................................................................................6 SITEGEOLOGY.................................................................................................................7 GROUNDWATER..............................................................................................................9 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY........................................................................................................ 10 GENERAL......................................................................................................................... 10 FAULTS............................................................................................................................ 10 LANDSLIDES AND SLOPE STABILITY...................................................................... 14 DEBRIS FLOW AND ROCKFALL HAZARD................................................................ 15 FLOODING....................................................................................................................... 16 TSUNAMIS AND SEICHES............................................................................................ 16 SUBSIDENCE................................................................................................................... 16 VOLCANIC HAZARD..................................................................................................... 17 OTHER EXCEPTIONAL GELOGIC HAZARDS........................................................... 17 SLOPE STABILITY.......................................................................................................... 17 SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS............................................................................. 17 STABILITY ANALYSES................................................................................................. 18 HISTORIC SEISMICITY.................................................................................................. 19 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN...................................................................................................20 DEAGGREGATED SEISMIC SOURCE PARAMETERS..............................................20 LIQUEFACTION..............................................................................................................20 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................22 GRADING.........................................................................................................................22 EXPANSIVE SOILS.........................................................................................................29 FOUNDATIONS...............................................................................................................30 RADIO TOWER FOUNDATION....................................................................................31 FOUNDATIONS FOR INCIDENTAL STRUCTURES...................................................31 FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT.................................................................................................32 ORTSAL GE ECHNIC,L ENGINEERING®. ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 TABLE OF CONTENTS (conk) Title Page CORROSION PROTECTION...........................................................................................34 Site Location Map PAVEMENT DESIGN......................................................................................................35 Regional Geologic Map RETAINING WALLS.......................................................................................................37 Regional Fault Map UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL......................................................................................39 Earthquake Fault Zone Map CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................39 — Geotechnical Map (in pocket) 18.02.030F STATEMENT.............................................................................................................39 — Removal Map (in pocket) OBSERVATION AND TESTING................................................................................................40 Geologic Sections ATTACHMENTS: References Figure 1 — Site Location Map Figure 2 — Regional Geologic Map Figure 3 — Regional Fault Map Figure 4—Alquist—Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map Figure 5.1 — Geotechnical Map (in pocket) Figure 5.2 — Removal Map (in pocket) Figure 6 — Geologic Sections Figure 7 — Seismic Hazard Zones Figure 8 — Earthquake Epicenter Map Figure 9 — Probability Seismic Hazard Deaggregation Figure 10 — Stability Fill Details for Grossly Stable Slopes Appendix A — Explorations Appendix B —Laboratory Tests Appendix C—Historic Earthquake Search Results Appendix D — Soil Corrosivity Study Appendix E — USGS Seismic Design Calculations Appendix F — Boring Percolation Testing Procedures and Results Appendix G — Hunsaker Hydrology Calculations Appendix H — Slope Stability Calculations ORTSAL G�ECHNICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND GEOLOGIC -SEISMIC REPORT SANTA CLARITA VALLEY SHERIFF STATION WEST SIDE OF GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SOUTH OF CENTRE POINTE PARKWAY CITY PROJECT NO. F3023 SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA FOR THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA JUNE S, 2017 JOB NO. 99-715001 INTRODUCTION R. T. Frankian and Associates (RTF&A) is pleased to present our Geotechnical Investigation and Geologic -Seismic Report for the Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff Station on Golden Valley Road, in Santa Clarita, California. The location of the site is shown on the Location Map, Figure 1. The purpose of the investigation is to provide a geotechnical and engineering geologic report for submittal to the reviewing agency. The work has been performed in general accordance with California Geological Survey (CGS) Note 48 (CGS, 2007) guidelines for essential services buildings. RTF&A previously performed a geotechnical investigation and plan review of the site that was presented in our report dated November 16, 2001 (RTF&A, 2001a), and performed observation and testing services during the site grading at the subject site (RTF&A, 2003). Data from these reports was reviewed and evaluated in preparation of this report. A listing of pertinent geologic and geotechnical maps and reports reviewed as part of this report is presented in the attached References. Our findings and recommendations are based on the results of our subsurface investigation, a review of published data, and appropriate engineering and geologic analyses. Our professional services have been performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included ERTSAL GE ECHNIC,L ENGINEERING®. ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page 2 in ttris report. This report has been prepared for the City of Santa Clarity and their design consultants, to be used solely for planning and design of the Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff Station, and associated grading. SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is located on the west side of Golden Valley Road and is approximately 1,800 feet south of Centre Pointe Parkway. Los Angeles County Fire Station 104 currently occupies the southern portion of the site and will require demolition prior to construction of the subject development. The site was graded in 2001 and 2002 as part of the grading of adjacent Golden Valley Road under the observation and testing of RTF&A. Prior to grading the site consisted of a central northeasterly -draining canyon with natural bedrock slopes ascending north, east, and southeast from the canyon bottom. Grading of the site consisted of cutting the bedrock hills and filling the central canyon to establish a near -level building pad at approximate elevation 1460 feet above mean sea level (msl). An estimated 82 feet of certified engineered fill was placed on the site to establish grade. The proposed development will encompass approximately 7.6 acres and will consist of a Sheriff Station, a vehicle maintenance building, a future 4,000 square foot building, a radio tower, a helipad, and paved parking areas. The Sheriff Station building and radio tower will be located in the southern portion of the site. The site entrance road, vehicle maintenance building, and helipad will be located in the northern portion of the site. Paved parking areas will occupy the central portion of the site. Mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls will be utilized in construction of the helipad and the site entrance road. The MSE walls will attain a height of approximately 30 feet. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION We recently explored the site by drilling 10 borings. The borings, drilled with both bucket auger and hollow stem auger drill rigs, ranged in depth from 5 to 50'/z feet below existing grade. We ORTSAL G�ECHMICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page 3 obtained undisturbed and Standard Penetration Test (SPT) samples from the borings for laboratory examination and testing. The borings were supplemented by 22 backhoe test pits. The locations of the borings and test pits are shown on the Geotechnical Map, Figure 5.1. The boring and test pit logs are presented in Appendix A. A total of 5 infiltration test borings were also excavated. The details regarding the infiltration testing within 4 of the 5 test borings and results are presented in Appendix F. SOIL CONDITIONS The majority of the site is mantled by certified engineered fill soils placed during rough grading of Golden Valley Road. The on-site fill soils generally consist of silty sand and sandy silt. The fill soils are very dense and moist. The fills soils are underlain by Saugus Formation bedrock units, which outcrop along the west side of the site. The subsurface conditions are graphically illustrated on the Geologic Sections, Figure 6. The boring logs are presented in Appendix A. LABORATORY ANALYSES We performed laboratory tests on selected samples obtained from the borings to aid in the classification of the soils, for use in liquefaction analyses, and to determine the pertinent engineering properties of the foundation soils. The results ofthe tests are presented in Appendix B. The following tests were performed: moisture content and dry density determinations; direct shear tests; maximum density determination; consolidation tests; expansion tests; R -value tests; sieve analyses; and hydrometer analyses. ERTSAL G�ECHNICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page 4 Tests to determine the corrosivity of the soils were performed by HDR on samples we submitted to them. The results of their tests are attached as Appendix B. INFILTRATION TESTING The City of Santa Clarita does not provide its own infiltration requirements and instead relies on guidelines prepared by the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works (LACDPW). The infiltration tests were performed in accordance with the Boring Percolation Test Procedure method presented in the LACDPW, "Guidelines for Design, Investigation, and Reporting Low Impact Development Stormwater Infiltration" (Form GS200.1, dated December 31, 2014). SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The surface of the subject site consists of bedrock or certified compacted fill. The compacted fill soils are underlain by bedrock or in some isolated areas the fill soils are underlain by alluvial soils. All the alluvial soils at the site are underlain by bedrock as indicated on Geologic Sections A -A' and B -B', Figure 6. In areas outside proposed building footprints suitable for on- site infiltration, the depth to the top of the on-site alluvial soils is greater than 45 feet below existing pad grade. In addition, the alluvial soils at the site are designated by the State of California as having the potential of being subject to liquefaction when saturated. Accordingly, the only appropriate potential for on-site infiltration is within the existing near surface compacted fill soils. INFILTRATION TESTING In-situ boring percolation tests (designated I13-1, I13-2, I13-3, and I13-5) were performed within the near surface compacted fill soils. I134 was not tested due to there being an abandon 1.5" diameter PVC waterline within the infiltration boring. Infiltration borings I13-1 through IB -4 ERTSAL G�ECHMICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page 5 were excavated with an 8 -inch diameter hollow stem auger drill rig. I13-5 was excavated with a 4 - inch diameter hand auger. The locations of the infiltration borings and infiltration tests are shown on the Geotechnical Map, Figure 5.1. Monitoring wells were installed in each of the borings and tests were conducted to determine the rate at which water infiltrates into the soil within the bottom of the infiltration boring. The tests were performed within the compacted fill soils at a depth of 3 feet below the existing site grades. The boring percolation testing procedures and results have been summarized in Appendix F of this report. Field infiltration rates were obtained from each of the tests and then corrected for borehole diameter. The rates were then adjusted for LACDPW required reduction factors for site variability and number of tests (CFv) and long-term siltation, plugging, and maintenance (CFs), which further reduces the field infiltration rate. A value of 2 was used for CFv and a value of 2 was used for long-term siltation, plugging, and maintenance (Cls). When the LACDPW recommended corrections for borehole diameter, CFV, and Us are applied, the design infiltration rate in the on- site soils range from only 0.10 to 0.18 inches per hour, respectively. The LACDPW requires a minimum infiltration rate of 0.3 inches per hour, which is significantly higher than the rates we obtained. ERTSAL G�ECHNICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY Borehole Field Corrected Calculated Infiltration Field Field Boring Rate Infiltration Infiltration Location (in/hr) (in/hr) CF, CF, (in/hr) Compacted Fill 3.86 0.66 2 2 0.17 Compacted Fill 3.87 0.66 2 2 0.17 I13-3 Compacted Fill 3.97 0.4 2 2 0.10 I13-5 Compacted Fill 6.45 0.73 2 2 0.18 ERTSAL G�ECHNICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The results of infiltration testing indicate that the existing near -surface compacted fill soils do not meet the minimum County LID infiltration rate of 0.3 in/hr, as presented in Appendix F. The compacted fill soils do not meet the LACDPW requirements for infiltration. It is recommended that infiltration into the subsurface compacted fill soils not occur at the subject site. GEOLOGY REGIONAL GEOLOGY The proposed Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff Station (herein referred to as "the site") is located at the western end of the Soledadbasin within the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province of California. The Soledad basin consists of an elongate, northeast trending basin, measuring approximately 30 miles long and 8 to 12 miles wide. The floor of the basin is irregular, with elevations ranging from 400 feet rust at its western end to as much as 2,500 rust feet near the eastern end. The basin is bounded on the north, east, and south by ridges and mountain masses of relatively old crystalline rocks that, along with ancestral highland masses, have contributed large quantities of Cenozoic age sediments to the basin (Jahns and Muehlberger, 1954). More than 20,000 feet of stratified rocks were deposited into the elongate lowland area of the basin, with an additional 4,500± feet of volcanic rocks accumulated locally (Jahns and Muehlberger, 1954). Structurally, the Soledad basin is a westerly plunging open syncline with locally wrinkled flanks (Bailey and Jahns, 1954). The basin appears to have been defined as a trough of deposition mainly by faults, receiving its sedimentary fill in a manner that was very irregular in detail. Repeated episodes of primarily early Tertiary deformation, both within and along the margins of the basin, is indicated by numerous faults, folds, and unconformities, as well as by the distribution and lithology of the sedimentary rocks (Jahns and Muehlberger, 1954). The early Miocene and younger strata of the basin, although maintaining the broadly synclinal structure, have been ERTSAL GIN0TECHNICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page 7 considerably less deformed (Bailey and Jahns, 1954). These deposits blanket many of the older faults of the basin, but are themselves offset by other faults, such as the nearby San Gabriel fault zone. The San Gabriel fault zone, the dominant geologic feature in the Santa Clarita Valley, forms the southwestern boundary of the Soledad basin, and separates the basin from the structurally similar Ventura basin. At its closest point, the fault lies approximately 700 feet south- southwest of the site. SITE GEOLOGY The site is underlain by sedimentary rock units of the Plio-Pleistocene age Saugus Formation (map unit designation "TQs"). As observed on site, the Saugus Formation is composed of interbedded light yellowish -brown and light brown silty sandstone and pebbly sandstone, and reddish -brown silty sandstone, mudstone and local claystone. This formation is typically moderately cemented, indurated, and generally poorly exposed, except for sandstone outcrops on anti -dip slopes and in existing cuts. Bed thickness of the coarse-grained units typically ranges from laminated and ttunly bedded fine-grained sandstone to thickly bedded conglomerates. The siltstone, mudstone, and claystone units are primarily thickly bedded to massive. Geologic structure of the Saugus Formation within the site is dominated by deformation of the San Gabriel fault, which has resulted in the presence of the Highway Anticline (Oakeshott, 1958), located approximately'/ mile north of the subject site. Bedding along the axis of the anticline dips 3 to 7 degrees to the northwest. The site is located along the southern limb of the anticline, which steepens as the structure approaches the San Gabriel fault. Based on data collected during previous grading operations and our recent investigation, bedding of the Saugus Formation strikes generally northwest to northeast, and dips from 8 to 17 degrees towards the west. Within the site boundaries, the Saugus Formation is mantled by certified engineered fill materials (map unit "cef') placed under the observation and testing of RTF&A. The certified engineered fill attains a maximum depth of approximately 82 feet beneath the site. Stockpiled fill MRTFA G�ECHMICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page 8 materials (map unit "af') are present in the northwest corner of the site. Both the engineered and stockpiled fills consist of mixtures of sand and silty sand. During our prior site investigation and subsequent site grading, RTF&A identified one existing landslide in the southwest comer of the site (designated landslide "Qls 1") and one possible landslide along the west edge and northern portion of the site. The existing landslide and possible landslide were investigated as part of our current investigation. Investigation for Qls 1, lying offsite but descending towards the Sheriff Station site, included the excavation of an exploratory test pit (designated TP -10) and one boring (designated B-1). The test pit, excavated offsite, encountered 7 feet of landslide debris overlying undisturbed Saugus Formation rock units. The landslide debris consisted of a combination of residual soil and weathered bedrock materials. Relict bedding, striking north-northeast and dipping 19 degrees to the east, and converse to the westerly bedding dip observed in Saugus Formation units onsite, was observed at a depth of 4 feet in the test pit. No definitive slide plane or slip surface was observed at the contact with the undisturbed Saugus Formation. Qls 1 is believed to represent a relatively shallow slump limited to residual soil and weak weathered rock materials. Boring B-1 was drilled downslope of the landslide to establish if a deeper slide mass extended onto the Sheriff Station site. The boring encountered certified engineered fill, to a depth of 29'/z feet, overlying undisturbed Saugus Formation units. Bedding in the Saugus Formation observed in the boring strikes north- northeast and dips 13 degrees to the west. The second possible landslide, in the northwest portion of the site, was mapped descending away from the Sheriff Station site, off property to the west. The upper portion, or "head" of the possible landslide, was believed to underlie the Sheriff Station site. Boring B-2 was excavated within the conjectural head of the questionable landslide, extending to a depth of 45 feet. The boring encountered massive to thickly bedded sandstone, pebbly sandstone and siltstone units of the Saugus Formation from ground surface to the bottom of the boring; the rock units were undisturbed and determined not to be representative of a landslide. ORTSAL G�ECHMICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page 9 The areal distribution of the various geologic units, including the one landslide, are shown on the Geotechnical Map, presented as Figure 5.1. The subsurface conditions within the site are depicted on Geologic Sections (Figure 6). GROUNDWATER The site is located in of Township 4 North, Range 14 West, Section 25, within the Eastern Hydrologic Subarea of the Upper Santa Clara River watershed of Los Angeles County. The closest known water well was a well that has be inactive since 1975. The well, designated by the LACDPW as Well No. 7098A, was located approximately 0.5 mile north of the site. LACDPW water level measurement records for this well cover a six-year period from October 1969 to April 1975. The highest observed water level in the well during that period was 16.1 feet below ground surface, measured on April 6, 1971. The last recorded water level from the well was 29.5 feet on April 30, 1975. The nearest active well (Well No. 7078F) is located approximately 13/a miles to the northwest Due to the distance from the site, the active well is not a good indicator of water levels, particularly historic high water levels, within the vicinity of the site. Groundwater was not encountered during grading of the site, which included excavations on the order of 82 feet below the current site grades, nor in our current 2017 exploratory borings, drilled to a maximum depth of 50'/z feet below ground surface. Based on review of the historic high groundwater contours presented on Plate 1.2 of the Seismic Hazard Zone report of the Newhall Quadrangle (California Division of Mines and Geology [CDMG], 1997), the nearest historic high groundwater contour corresponds to a depth of 15 feet below ground surface. The 15 -foot contour lies along the alignment of Soledad Canyon Road, about 3/4 -mile north of the site. The subject site is at an elevation that is more than 175 feet above the nearest historic high groundwater contour. Due to the distance from the site and elevation differential, the historic high groundwater map is not a good indicator of water levels, particularly historic high water levels, within the vicinity of the site. ERTSAL G�ECHNICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page 10 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY GENERAL Potential geologic and geotechnical hazards include, but are not limited to, primary earthquake hazards (ground shaking and ground rupture), secondary earthquake hazards from earthquake ground shaking (such as liquefaction, tsunamis, and seiches), and landslides/slope instability. Earthquakes have the potential to inflict the greatest loss of life and property damage. Consequently, the location of a site to active or potentially active faults is a key element in assessing the potential for earthquake damage. The major cause of damage from earthquakes is generally the result of strong ground shaking from movement along a fault or fault zone. Ground shaking could occur not only immediately adjacent to the earthquake epicenter, but within areas for many miles in all directions. Damage due to actual fault displacement or ground rupture beneath a structure may also occur; however, fault ground rupture is much less common, and typically confined to areas along, or immediately adjacent to, the surface trace of the fault. Landslides are common hazards in southern California, particularly in hillside areas underlain by sedimentary rock units. Landslides can occur in terrain ranging from vertical cliffs to slopes as gentle as one or two degrees. Materials on slopes that are subject to landsliding include rock, soil, artificial fill, or combinations of these. FAULTS The numerous faults in California include both active and potentially active faults. In accordance with criteria established by the CGS for the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning program (Hart and Bryant, 1997), a fault canbe considered active ifithas demonstrated movement within the Holocene epoch, or approximately the last 11,000 years. Faults that have demonstrated Quaternary movement (last 1.6 million years), but lack strong evidence of Holocene movement, ORTFA G�ECHNICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page 11 are classified as potentially active. Faults that have not moved since the beginning of the Quaternary period are deemed inactive. No known active or potentially active faults underlie the site, and the site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, as established by CGS. The closest active (and zoned) fault to the site is the San Gabriel fault, located approximately 700 feet to the south-southwest. Although this fault is 700 feet from the site, the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone established for the San Gabriel fault ends approximately 2,000 feet southwest of the site (see Figure 4). In our opinion, there is little probability of surface rupture due to faulting occurring on site. A discussion of nearby active and potentially active faults is presented in the following sections. The location of the site, relative to nearby active and potentially active faults, is illustrated on the Regional Fault Map (Figure 3). Active Faults: The nearest active fault to the site is the San Gabriel fault. The San Gabriel fault extends approximately 90 miles through the Transverse Ranges of southern California. The fault strikes southeasterly from near Frazier Mountain, forming the boundary between the dissected hills of the Ridge basin region on the northeast, and the Piru Mountains on the southwest. Between Castaic and the San Gabriel Mountains, the fault crosses beneath the Santa Clara River and the low hills of the Santa Clarita Valley, separating the Ventura basin on the west from the Soledad basin on the east. Southeast of the Santa Clarita Valley, the fault trends through the San Gabriel Mountains where the south branch merges with the Sierra Madre fault zone, and a northerly branch terminates near San Antonio Canyon (Weber, 1979). The San Gabriel fault consists of a zone of imbricate steeply north -dipping faults. Throughout most of its extent, the fault has strong geomorphic expression, with the faults comprising the zone characterized by displaced geologic units, deflected drainages, strike valleys, notched ridges, subparallel faulting, fracturing, and folding (Oakeshott, 1958; Wentworth and Yerkes, 1971). According to Oakeshott (1958), no single fault plane in the fault zone canbe traced for more than two to three miles before displacement appears to die out, to be taken over by movement along another plane subparallel to the first. The result is a zone of faulting ranging in ERTSAL GE ECHNIC,L ENGINEERING®. ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page 12 width from a single plane, with no more than a few inches of gouge, to a half -mile -wide area of several fault planes, zones of brecciation, and very complex steep -limbed folds. Within the Santa Clarita Valley, from Castaic Creek to the San Gabriel Mountains, the fault crosses the Castaic lowlands and the Santa Clara River where its course is marked by a belt of braided small faults and steep dips in Pliocene and Pleistocene beds. Since most of the displacement within the fault zone took place before deposition of these geologically young beds, the fault's trend through this area is not nearly as conspicuous as within the rocks along the southwestern margin of the Ridge basin or in the basement rocks of the San Gabriel Mountains (Crowell, 1982). The location of the fault, however, is somewhat defined by the steeply dipping and folded beds of the Plio-Pleistocene Saugus Formation, and the fault is exposed in cut slopes, roadcuts, and trenches. Prior to 1979, most geologists studying the San Gabriel fault acknowledged that late Pleistocene (approximately the past 100,000 years) activity along the fault zone was probable, but evidence for possible Holocene activity was judged to be very questionable (Kahle, 1986). However, after completing a geologic and geomorphic investigation of the San Gabriel fault, Weber (1979) concluded that some evidence strongly suggested Holocene activity. Subsequently, Cotton and Seward (1984) conducted exploratory trenching along segments of the fault zone in the Santa Clarita Valley. Although no surface evidence of faulting was recognized, at least two trenches revealed displacement of Holocene age alluvial deposits. Radiocarbon analyses of detrital charcoal from faulted alluvial materials in a trench excavated in Rye Canyon yielded an age of 3,500±250 years before present. Alluvium dated as 1,550±190 years before present was shown to be unfaulted in the same trench, establishing limits of latest movement on the Castaic-Bouquet Junction segment of the San Gabriel fault. Based on the findings of Weber (1979), Cotton and Seward (1984), and the recommendations of Kahie (1986) for a CDMG Fault Evaluation Report for the fault, the State Geologist established an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for the San Gabriel fault in 1987 within the Newhall Quadrangle. The zone trends northwest -southeast across the Santa Clarita ORTSAL GE ECHMIC,L ENGINEERING®. ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page 13 Valley from just north of Rye Canyon to the upper reaches of Oakdale Canyon, southeast of Bouquet Junction. Other more distant, but significant active faults include the San Fernando fault zone, located approximately 6 miles south of the site, and the San Andreas fault zone, located approximately 18 miles to the northeast. Potentially Active Faults: The potentially active Holser fault is situated approximately six miles west of the site. The Holser fault consists of a south -dipping, sharply folded reverse fault (Winterer and Durham, 1962) that trends east-southeast from near Piru Creek to at least Castaic Junction. The fault was probably first mapped in the late 1920's and later defined during development of the Ramona and Del Valle oil fields, located northwest of Castaic Junction. In the vicinity of these oil fields the Holser fault follows a somewhat sinuous surface trace generally paralleling the regional east -west structural alignment of the folded sedimentary rocks. The fault is traceable as far west as Piru Creek area where it merges with the Del Valle and San Cayetano faults (Yeats et al., 1994). East of the Del Valle oil field, the fault trace bends to the south and follows a course parallel to the southern portion of Hasley Canyon. Near the mouth of Hasley Canyon, the Holser fault is inferred to pass beneath alluvium and, consequently, southeasterly into the Santa Clarita Valley. Within the valley, the Holser fault has been mapped as far east as Bouquet Junction (Winterer and Durham, 1962), although the fault's existence to the east and exact fault location becomes a matter of differing interpretation. Winterer and Durham (1962) and Weber (1979) suggest that this fault intersects the San Gabriel fault beneath the alluvium of Santa Clara River, but differ in depicting the intersection of the two faults. Winterer and Durham (1962) show the Holser fault/San Gabriel fault intersection at a point approximately'/a-mile southeast of Bouquet Junction. Weber (1979) depicts the intersection of the Holser "structural zone" with the San Gabriel fault near the mouthof San Francisquito Canyon, about 21/ miles northwest of the Winterer and Durham location. More recent findings by Stitt (1986), however, suggestthat the Holser fault cannotbe found in a subsurface cross section southwest of, and parallel to, the San Gabriel fault. Referencing ERTFA GE ECHNIC,L ENGINEERING®. ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page 14 Stitt's 1986 data, Yeats et al. (1994) show the easterly termination of the Holser fault at about Castaic Junction. The Holser fault post-dates deposition of the Pico Formation and is believed to be a "backthrust" of a subsurface thrust fault that represents the intersection of the San Cayetano and Santa Susana faults at depth(Yeats etal., 1994). Weber (1979) states thatthere is no clear evidence of Holocene activity along the Holser fault, but "plentiful evidence" that activity has occurred in the past 100,000 years. Consequently, the fault is considered potentially active. Other nearby potentially active faults include the Santa Susana fault, Northridge fault, and the Sierra Madre fault, located approximately 6 miles south-southwest, 11 miles south-southwest, and 16 miles east- southeast, respectively, of the site. Blind -Thrust Faults: A growing body of geologic and seismologic data, supplemented byregional structural interpretations, suggests Pliocene to modem deformationin the Los Angeles basin is partly accommodated by developing basement -involved fold and thrust belts (Davis et al., 1989; Hauksson, 1990; Shaw and Suppe, 1996). The fold and thrust belts are expressed at the ground surface by elongate low-lying anticlinal ridges. At the core of these anticlinal ridges are low -angle, blind -thrust faults rising off a basal detachment surface. Recognized blind -thrust faults in the Los Angeles and Ventura basins include the Elysian Park, Compton -Los Alamitos, Oakridge, and Northridge blind -thrust faults. The closest known blind -thrust to the site is the Northridge blind -thrust fault. The site, however, is not underlain by any known blind -thrust fault. LANDSLIDES AND SLOPE STABILITY The site is located within the Seismic Hazard Zones for the Newhall Quadrangle (CDMG, 1998), presented as Figure 7. As indicated on Figure 7, portions of the site lie within designated areas of previous landslide movement or areas of potential landslides. One landslide (Qls 1) was previously identified on or in close proximity to the site (RTF&A, 2001a). In our Observation and Testing/As-Built Geologic report for the site (RTF&A, ORTSAL G�ECHNICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page 15 2003) RTF&A postulated that Qls 1 was approximately 10 feet in depth. This assumption was without benefit of subsurface exploration and was based solely on geomorphic expression of the landslide. During site grading landslide material at the toe of Qls 1 was completely removed within the building area of the Sheriff Station site before placement of certified engineered. The remaining portion of the landslide, upslope of the site was left in place; however, a debris basin was designed to contain the remaining portion of the landslide, estimated to be 10 feet deep at that time, in the event of landslide reactivation. As part of our 2017 geotechnical investigation RTF&A excavated one exploratory test pit within Qls 1, upslope of the site. The landslide was observed to a depth of 7 feet in the test pit. Geologic Section B -B' (Figure 6) depicts the configuration of landslide Qls 1, relative to the proposed Sheriff Station site. It is recommended that landslide Qls 1 be entirely removed and the slope reconstructed as a 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) stability fill slope with backdrains. The keyway for the stability fill slope should be a minimum of 25 feet wide and be founded at least 3 feet into competent bedrock or engineered fill. The approximate location of the recommended stability fill keyway is shown on the Removal Map, presented as Figure 5.2. The stability fill slope and backdrains should be constructed in accordance with the "Stability Fill Details for Grossly Stable Slopes", presented as Figure 10. Excavation of the landslide should be observed by an engineering geologist to establish that the landslide debris has been completely removed prior to construction of the stability fill slope. DEBRIS FLOW AND ROCKFALL HAZARD In general, areas most susceptible to potential debris flow or rockfall are those located directly below and adjacent to natural slopes, or graded slopes lacking adequate drainage devices, such as benches or terrace drains. Within the Sheriff Station site this condition is limited to the western edge of the site, in the area of a descending bedrock ridge in the southwest comer, and a cut bedrock slope along the west central side of the site. Both the existing natural and cut slopes will be eliminated as part of the site grading, and the area reconstructed as a fill slope with ORTFA G�ECHNICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page 16 engineered drainage devices. This proposed grading will effectively eliminate any debris flow or rockfall hazard in the western portion of the site. The remainder of the site is elevated above the surrounding terrain and not subject to debris or rockfall hazard. FLOODING A review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Maps for the incorporated areas of Los Angeles County indicates that the site is located within a "Zone D" flood hazard area (FEMA, 2008). According to FEMA, "Zone D" are "areas in which flood hazards are undetermined, but possible." Development of the Sheriff Station and ancillary structures includes improvements to control and direct site drainage to a storm drain/flood control system. Furthermore, grading of the site has raised the building pad approximately 30 feet above the nearest natural drainage course. Therefore, in our opinion, the potential for flooding occurring on the site is judged to be low. TSUNAMIS AND SEICHES The site is not in a coastal zone and, therefore, not susceptible to tsunamis (seismic sea waves). The site is not located downslope of any large impounded bodies of water that would adversely impact the site as a result of seiches (oscillations in a body of water due to earthquake shaking). Therefore, the potential for tsunami and seiches adversely impacting the site is considered unlikely. SUBSIDENCE The site is not within an area of known subsidence associated with petroleum or groundwater withdrawal. Additionally, the site is mantled by engineered fill and alluvium which is, in tum, underlain by sedimentary bedrock units. These bedrock units are very dense and not subject to subsidence. ORTFA G�ECHNICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page 17 VOLCANIC HAZARD The site is not in an area of active volcanism. Therefore, the site is considered safe from hazards associated with volcanic activity (volcanic eruptions, volcanic debris flows, volcanic ash, etc.). OTHER EXCEPTIONAL GELOGIC HAZARDS The site is not impacted by exceptional geologic hazards as defined by CGS Note 48. SLOPE STABILITY Only minor cut slopes less than 10 feet in height are proposed as part of site development. Several fill slopes exist and are proposed at the site. The fill slopes are proposed at gradients no steeper than 2:1. The maximum slope height is about 35 feet and is descending from the southern portion of the proposed building pad. SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS Presented below are the selected bedding plane shear strengths, as well as the cross - bedding and compacted fill shear strengths. As part of the evaluation of shear strength parameters to be used in slope stability calculations, the referenced reports concerning the nearby vicinity of the site were reviewed. The shear strengths were determined from laboratory tests performed on representative samples of the earth materials encountered within borings and review of previously approved City of Santa Clarita approved shear strength parameters presented in the referenced reports. ERTSAL G�ECHNICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page 18 MATERIAL COHESION ANGLE OF SHEARING RESISTANCE (degrees) Bedding Plane 200 18 Bedding Plane for Seismic Analysis 300 18 Saugus Cross Bedding 900 30 Compacted Fill 450 30 Alluvium 200 28 STABILITY ANALYSES Slope stability analyses were performed using the program Slope/W by GEO-SLOPE International Ltd., which utilized Bishop's Simplified Method or Spencer's Method. The analyses were based on subsurface conditions as depicted on the Geologic Sections, presented as Figure 2. The existing ground surface, proposed grading scheme, and subsurface geologic structure are shown on the Geologic Sections. Although groundwater was not indicated on the Geologic Sections, the analyses generally assumed a phreatic surface above the critical failure surface for bedding plane failures. Results of Stability Analyses: As previously addressed, grading of the site will result in the creation of minor cut slopes underlain by bedrock units of the Saugus Formation and certified compacted fill slopes. The maximum fill slope height is about 35 feet as illustrated in Geologic Sections A -A'. Gross and Seismic slope stability calculations performed for Section A -A' and D — D' are presented in Appendix H and meet static and seismic factor of safety requirements of 1.5, and 1.1, respectfully. In addition to the gross and seismic slope stability calculations we also performedrapid drawdown slope stability calculations based on hydrology calculations performed by Hunsaker. The Hunsaker calculations are presented in Appendix G and indicate that there is the potential for build to build up to an elevation 1443.72 if the existing standpipe was blocked. Static and seismic slope stability calculations for rapid drawdown with saturated fill conditions up to an elevation of 1443.72 are also presented in Appendix H. The slope stability calculations presented in Appendix G meet gross, seismic, and surficial factor of safety requirements. ERTSAL GE ECHNIC,L ENGINEERING®. ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page 19 HISTORIC SEISMICITY The historic occurrence of earthquakes within the region of the site was determined using the program EQSEARCH for Windows (Blake, 2000a). This program computes and prints the epicentral distance from a selected site to each of the earthquakes within a specified search radius (100 miles). From the computed distances, the program also estimates the peak horizontal ground acceleration that may have occurred at the site, due to each earthquake, utilizing the Bozorgrda Campbell Niazi (1999) attenuation relation. The EQSEARCH output is presented in Appendix C. A historic earthquake search for the time period 1932 through 2017 was also attained from the SCEC website, since the data for the EQSEARCH program has not been updated since 2005. We used a combined earthquake catalog for magnitude 4.0 or larger events between the years 1800 and 2017. The earthquake catalog for events prior to about 1932 is limited to the higher magnitude events. Using this catalog for probabilistic calculations would skew the results. A listing of historic earthquakes within 100 miles of the site is presented in Appendix C. An earthquake epicenter map for magnitude 5.0 or larger events between the years 1800 and 2005 is presented as Figure 8, which was obtained from the EQSEARCH output. The closest recorded earthquake epicenter was located 1.8 miles from the site. This earthquake event occurred on March 9, 1974 with a measured magnitude (M) of 4.0. The calculated site-specific ground motion associated with this event was 0.179g. At least 14 events of M5 or greater have occurred within 15 miles of the site during the period of 1800 and 2017. These 14 events included the February 9, 1971 M6.4 San Fernando earthquake and the January 17, 1994 M6.7 Northridge earthquake. The epicenters of these two earthquakes were located 5.9 and 13.5 miles, respectively, from the site. The largest known earthquake event occurring within 100 miles of the site was the M7.9 Fort Tejon earthquake of January 9, 1857. The epicenter of this earthquake was approximately 96 miles from the site. The estimated site-specific ground motion from the Fort Tejon earthquake was 0.064g. ORTSAL G�ECHNICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page 20 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN Under Section 1613 Earthquake Loads of the 2013 California Building Code (CBC), the following coefficients and factors apply to seismic force design of structures at the subject site. The parameters were determined using the Ground Motion Parameter Calculator (Version 5.0.8) at the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Earthquake Hazards website and the results are presented in Appendix E. Site Class C Ss 2.958 S1 1.029 SMS 2.958 SMR 1.337 SDS 1.972 SDR 0.891 PGAm 1.094 DEAGGREGATED SEISMIC SOURCE PARAMETERS The USGS website was used to determine the Probability Seismic Hazard Deaggregation for a 2,475 -year return period for a site with Vs=700 m/s. The graph from the USGS website is presented in Figure 9. LIQUEFACTION The State of California Seismic Hazard Map for the Newhall Quadrangle indicates the subject site is partially located within a potential liquefaction area. The portion of the map showing the location of the subject site relative to liquefaction hazard areas is presented as Figure 7. The liquefaction evaluation of the site conservatively assumed that the proposed Sheriff Station is located within a potential liquefaction area. Liquefaction may occur when saturated, loose to medium dense, cohesionless soils are densified by ground vibrations. The densification results in increased pore water pressures if the ERTSAL G�ECHNICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page 21 soils are not sufficiently permeable to dissipate these pressures during and immediately following an earthquake. When the pore water pressure is equal to or exceeds the overburden pressure, liquefaction of the affected soil layers occurs. For liquefaction to occur, three conditions are required: ground shaking of sufficient magnitude and duration; soils that are susceptible to liquefaction; and a groundwater level at or above the level of the susceptible soils during the ground shaking. For a site to be considered susceptible to liquefaction using the criteria and methodology initially developed by Seed and Idriss (1982) liquefaction of underlying soil layers must result in an observed surface effect such as sand boils, mud -spouts, surface water seepage, ground cracking, or quicksand -like conditions. Lateral spreading can result in ground cracking, and may occur when a site is sloped or is near a free -face and there is a sufficiently continuous liquefiable layer on which the overlying soils can move laterally. Ground settlement may occur during seismic shaking of an area. The settlement can be caused by liquefaction of loose granular soils and by compaction of loose, but not necessarily liquefiable, soils. As graded, most of the proposed site is mantled by certified engineered fill, with bedrock exposed along the western edge of the site. During the site grading, the upper compressible alluvial materials within the site boundaries were removed prior to placement of certified engineered fill. All the remaining alluvial soils at the site are dense and are overlain by certified compacted fill. The fill depth below the site ranges from 2 to 82 feet. Accordingly, the site is now underlain by bedrock materials, dense alluvial deposits, and certified engineered fill. Groundwater was not encountered during the current subsurface explorations, the previous subsurface explorations presented in the MRTFA G�ECHMICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page 22 referenced report, and was not encountered during grading operations that included removals more titan 60 feet below existing site elevations. Due to the dense nature of the certified engineering fill and underlying alluvial materials, and the lack of groundwater at the site, the site is considered to have a very low potential for liquefaction. The site is also not subject to lateral spreading. SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS This portion of the submittal has been prepared to summarize our geotechnical recommendations pertaining to grading of the site and construction of the Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff Station. The recommended bearing material for the proposed structures wit un the subject development is compacted fill soil, to be placed as part of site grading. GRADING General: The following sections present recommendations for site grading. The applicability of the preliminary recommendations given in the following sections for foundation and retaining wall design should be confirmed at the completion of grading. Paving studies and additional soil corrosivity tests should be performed at the completion of rough grading to develop detailed recommendations for protection of utilities, structures, and for construction of the proposed roads. Site Preparation: Prior to performing earthwork, the existing vegetation and any deleterious debris should be removed from the site. Existing utility lines should be relocated or properly protected in place. All unsuitable soils and uncertified fills in the areas of grading receiving new fill should be removed to competent earth materials and replaced with engineered fill. The depth of removal and recompaction of unsuitable soils is noted on the Removal Map (Figure 5.2). Any fill required to raise the site grades should be properly compacted. ORTFA G�ECHNICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page 23 All existing uncertified fill soils should be removed and recompacted prior to placement of additional fill. Removal of the exposed soils should extend to at least the depths indicated on the Removal Map (Figure 5.2). After excavation to the recommended removal depth, further excavation should be performed, in necessary, to remove any additional unsuitable material. Removal Depths. The required depth of removal and recompaction of the existing compacted fill or natural soils prior to the placement of compacted fill are indicated on the Removal Map (Figure 5.2). Deeper removals will be required if disturbed or unsuitable soils are encountered. The Geotechnical Consultant of Record may require that additional shallow excavations be made periodically in the exposedbottom to determine that sufficient removals have been made prior to recompacting the soil in place. Deeper removals may be recommended by RTF&A based on observed field conditions during grading. During grading operations, the removal depths should be observed by a representative of RTF&A and surveyed by the Project Civil Engineer for conformance with the recommended removal depths shown on the grading plan. Material for Fill: The on-site soils, less any debris or organic matter, maybe used in the required fills. Any expansive clays should be mixed with non -expansive soils to result in a mixture having an expansion index less than 30 if they are to be placed within the upper eight feet of the proposed rough grades. Rocks or hard fragments larger than 12 inches may not be placed in the fill without special treatment. Rocks or hard fragments larger than four inches shall not be clustered or compose more than 25 percent by weight of any portion of the fill or a lift. Soils containing more than25 percent rock, or hard fragments larger than four inches must be removed or crushed with successive passes (i.e., with a sheepsfoot roller) until rock or hard fragments larger than four inches constitute less than 25 percent of the fill or lift. Oversized Material: Rocks or material greater than 12 inches in diameter, but not exceeding four feet in largest dimension, shall be considered oversized rock. The oversize rocks can be incorporated into deep fills where designated by the Geotechnical Consultant of Record. Rocks should be placed in the lower portions of the fill and should not be placed within the upper ERTFA GE ECHNIC,L ENGINEERING®. ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page 24 ten feet of compacted fill, or nearer than 15 feet to the surface of any fill slope. Windrows should be excluded from areas of proposed utilities, pools, and other types of future underground improvements. Additional costs and construction difficulties should be anticipated if future improvements are located in areas where there will be conflicts with existing windrows. Rocks between 12 inches and four feet in diameter shall be placed in windrows or shallow trenches located so that equipment can build up and compact fill on both sides. The width of the windrows shall not exceed four feet. The windrows should be staggered vertically so that one windrow is not placed directly above the windrow immediately below. Rocks greater than one foot in diameter shall not exceed 30 percent of the volume of the windrows. Granular fill shall be placed on the windrow and enough water should be applied so that soil can be flooded into the voids. Fill should be placed along the sides of the windrows and compacted as thoroughly as possible. After the fill has been brought to the top of the rock windrow, additional granular fill should be placed and flooded into the voids. Flooding is not permitted in fill soils placed more than one foot above the top of the windrowed rocks. Where utility lines or pipelines are to be located at depths greater than 15 feet, rock shall be excluded in that area. Excess rock that cannot be included in the fill, or that exceeds four feet in diameter, should be stockpiled for export or used for landscaping purposes. Import Material: Import material should consist of relatively non -expansive soils with an expansion index less than 30. The imported materials should contain sufficient fines (binder material) so as to be relatively impermeable and result in a stable subgrade when compacted. The import material should be free of organic materials, debris, and rocks larger than 12 inches. A bulk sample of potential import material, weighing at least 25 pounds, should be submitted to the Geotechnical Consultant of Record at least 48 hours in advance of fill operations. All proposed import materials should be approved by the Geotechnical Consultant of Record prior to being placed at the site. Compaction: After the site is cleared and excavated as recommended, the exposed soils should be carefully observed for the removal of all unsuitable material. Next, the exposed ERTSAL GE ECHMIC,L ENGINEERING®. ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page 25 subgrade soils should be scarified to a depth of at least six inches, brought to above optimum moisture content, and rolled with heavy compaction equipment. The upper six inches of exposed soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density obtainable by the ASTM D 1557-91 Method of Compaction. After compacting the exposed subgrade soils, all required fills should be placed in loose lifts, not more than eight inches in thickness, and compacted to at least 90 percent of their maximum density. For fills placed at depths greater titan 40 feet below proposed finish grade, a mihimum compaction of 93 percent of the maximum dry density is required. The moisture content of the fill soils at the time of compaction should be above the optimum moisture content. Compacted fill should not be allowed to dry out before subsequent lifts are placed. Rough grades should be sloped so as not to direct water flow over slope faces. Finished exterior grades should be sloped to drain away from building areas to prevent ponding of water adjacent to foundations. Shrinkaee and Bulkine: Most of the site is mantled by certified engineered fill that is unlikely to shrink or bulk. Portions of the site will encounter bedrock materials that will bulk an estimated 3 to 6 percent. A minor amount of landslide debris will be encountered southwest of the site during the offsite grading within the Santa Clarita LLC property. It is anticipated that the landslide debris will shrink approximately 6 to 10 percent. Temporary Slopes: For purposes of construction, the soils encountered at the site should not be expected to stand vertically for any significant length of time in cuts four feet or higher. Where the necessary space is available, temporaryunsurcharged embankments maybe slopedback at a 1:1 gradient without shoring, up to a height of 40 feet in competent bedrock with favorable bedding. Where any cut slope exceeds a height of 40 feet within competent bedrock, a bench at least 10 feet wide should be located at mid -height. Within alluvial or compacted fill material, temporary excavations may be made at a 1'/:1 cut to a height of 20 feet. If the temporary construction embankments are to be maintained during the rainy season, berms are recommended ORTSAL G�ECHNICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page 26 along the tops of the slopes, where necessary, to preventrun-off water from entering the excavation and eroding the slope faces. Where sloped embankments are used, the tops of the slopes should be barricaded to prevent vehicles and storage loads within five feet of the tops of the slopes. A greater setback may be necessary when considering heavy vehicles, such as concrete trucks and cranes; we should be advised of such heavy vehicle loads so that specific setback requirements can be established. All applicable safety requirements and regulations, including OSHA regulations, should be met. Permanent Slopes: Permanent cut and fill slopes may be inclined at 2:1, or flatter. The current rough grading plan indicates that the steepest slope to be constructed at the site during grading will be 2:1. Proposed Cut Slopes: Cut slopes proposed for the rough grading of the site are less trtan 10 feet in height and are shown on the Geotechnical Map (Figure 5.1). The underlying geologic structure is stable relative to proposed cut slopes. All cuts slopes should be constructed at a gradient of 2:1 or flatter. All grading should conform to the minimum recommendations presented in tris report. If these slopes are modified from those that are discussed in this report, the modifications should be reviewed by RTF&A to ascertain the applicability of our recommendations. Fill Slopes: Where the toe of a fill slope terminates on natural, fill, or cut, a keyway is required at the toe of the fill slope. The fill slope keyway should be a minimum width of 12 feet, be founded within competent material, and should extend a horizontal distance beyond the toe of the fill to the depth of the keyway. The keyway should be sloped back at a minimum gradient of two percent into the slope. The width of fill slopes shall be no less than eight feet and under no circumstances should the fill widths be less than what the compaction equipment being used can fully compact. Benches should be cut into the existing slope to bind the fill to the slope. Benches should be step-like in profile, with each bench not less than four feet in height and established in competent material. Compressible or other unsuitable soils should be removed from the slope ERTFA GE ECHNIC,L ENGINEERING®. ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page 27 prior to benching. Competent material is defined as being essentially free of loose soil, heavy fracturing, or erosion -prone material and is established by the Geotechnical Consultant of Record during grading. Where the top or toe of a fill slope terminates on a natural or cut slope and the natural or cut slope is steeper than a gradient of 3:1, a drainage terrace with a width of at least six feet is recommended along the contact. As an alternative, the natural or cut portion of the slope can be excavated and replaced as a stability fill to provide an all -fill slope condition. Where the contact between the face of the fill slope and the face of a lower natural or cut slope is inclined at 45 degrees or steeper, a drainage terrace would not be required. When constructing fill slopes, the grading contractor shall avoid spillage of loose material down the face of the slope during the dumping and rolling operations. Preferably, the incoming load shall be dumped behind the face of the slope and bladed into place. After a maximum of four feet of compacted fill has been placed, the contractor shall backroll the outer face of the slope by backing the tamping roller over the top of the slope, thoroughly covering the entire slope surface with overlapping passes of the roller. The foregoing should be repeated after the placement of each four -foot thickness of fill. As an alternative, the fill slope can be overbuilt and the slope cut back to expose a compacted core. If the required compaction is not obtained on the fill slope, additional rolling will be required prior to placement of additional fill, or the slope shall be overbuilt and cut back to expose the compacted core. Stabilitv Fills: A stability fill slope has been recommended within the Santa Clarita LLC property. Specifically, the stability fill slope will be graded to restore slope grades after removal of the landslide southwest of the Sheriff Station site. The keyway for the stability fill should measure a minimum of 25 feet wide and be founded at least 3 feet into competent bedrock. The approximate location of the recommended stability fill keyway is indicated on the Removal Map (Figure 5.2). The width of stability fill may taper uniformly to no less than eight feet at the top of the slope. Under no circumstances should the fill widths be less than what the compaction equipment being used can fully compact. Backdrains should be provided at the backcut as ERTSAL GE ECHNIC,L ENGINEERING®. ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page 28 described in the following section and indicated in Figure 10 (Stability Fill Details for Grossly Stable Slopes). The stability fill slope should be constructed in accordance with the recommendations for keyway, benching, and backdrain details shown in Figure 10. Stabilitv Fill BackdrainE Backdrains, consisting of four -inch diameter or larger perforated pipe, should be installed at the backcut of the stability fill. Non -perforated drain outlets should be provided at vertical intervals not exceeding 15 feet, and horizontal intervals not exceeding 100 feet, and under the direction of the Geotechnical Consultant of Record. The exact location of the subdrains should be determined in the field by the Geotechnical Consultant of Record after the back cut has been made so that they can be best positioned to intercept potential seepage. The backdrains should be surrounded by at least 3 cubic feet per lineal foot of granular filter material, and there should be at least 6 inches of compacted granular filter material or gravel on all sides of the pipe. The granular filter material for backdrains should meet the "F I " material gradation criteria in accordance with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Graybook (June 2006) or have a gradation approved by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement. As an alternative to the granular filter material, 3/4 -inch -diameter gravel may be placed around the pipe. The gravel should be separated from the surrounding soils by a filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N, or equivalent, wrapped around the gravel ("burrito wrapped"). Surface Drainaee: All surface drainage should be directed away from proposed structures through non-erosive devices. The ponding of water must not be allowed, especially adjacent to foundations. The pad gradients should not slope toward any descending slopes to reduce the potential for surficial erosion. Water that flows towards slopes should be conducted to appropriate discharge locations via non -erodible drainage devices. Drainage devices, including drainage terraces on graded slopes, should be inspected periodically and kept clear of debris. Drainage and erosion control should be designed in accordance with the standards set forth in the CBC. ORTSAL G�ECHMICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page 29 Any modification of the grades of building pads, parking areas, etc., could adversely affect drainage at the site. Future landscaping, construction of walkways, planters, and walls, etc., must never modify site drainage unless additional measures to enhance drainage (e.g., area drains, additional grading, etc.) are designed and constructed in accordance with the applicable Los Angeles County regulations. Erosion Protection: To reduce the potential for erosion, all permanent cut and fill slopes on-site should be seeded or planted with lightweight, deep -rooting, drought -resistant vegetation. A landscaping expert should be consulted for ground cover recommendations. Excessive landscape irrigation or leakage from irrigation lines can cause localized slope failures. Therefore, irrigation systems for slope vegetation should be designed and maintained to minimize leakage onto graded slopes. If automatic sprinkler systems are used, they should be adjusted for seasonal variations in rainfall. Vegetation on natural slopes should remain natural and not be landscaped or irrigated in the same manner as graded slopes. Rodent burrows are known to provide direct conduits for water flow that can decrease slope stability. Therefore, to maintain the integrity of graded slopes, a rodent abatement program should be instituted. Even with the implementation of these recommendations, it is not possible to eliminate erosion within hillside developments. Removal of debris from drainage devices, slope maintenance, and landscaping will be required, especially after periods of heavy rainfall. EXPANSIVE SOILS Samples of on-site soils that will be used for compacted fill were obtained to determine their expansion potential; the results of the tests performed indicate that the on-site materials generally have an Expansion Index that varies from 18 to 56, as presented in Appendix B. These materials would be classified with an expansion designation that ranges from very low to medium potential for expansion. The on-site soils can be classified as having a very low potential for expansion. MRTFA G�ECHMICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page 30 FOUNDATIONS General: The proposed buildings may be supported on continuous or individual spread footings established in properly compacted fill soil. The provided design values are based on our investigation and laboratory test results. A formal review of future foundation plans should be performed prior to commencement of construction. Footings should not be constructed any closer than five feet to the face of a descending slope, measured horizontally from the outer bottom edge of the proposed footing. In addition, footings should not be constructed any closer to the face of a descending slope than one-third the height of the slope, with a maximum setback distance of 40 feet. In case of constructing footings adjacent to the face of an ascending slope, the horizontal distance from the outer bottom edge of the proposed footing to the toe of the slope should not be any closer than one-half the height of the slope or 15 feet, whichever is less. Bearine Caoacily: It is assumed that the proposed building foundations will be founded near final grade, have interior loads of not more than 200 kips at column locations and continuous footing loads that will not exceed three kips per lineal foot, and have normal floor loads with no special requirements. Individual column pads or wall footings should have a width of at least 12 inches and be placed at a depth of at least 18 inches below the lowest final adjacent grade. It is anticipated that structures may be supported on spread footings using a bearing value of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) when established withinproperly compacted fill soils. There should be at least three vertical feet of compacted fill below the bottom of proposed footings. The recommended bearing value is a net value and the weight of the concrete in the footings may be taken as 50 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). The weight of soil backfill may be neglected when determining the downward loads from the footings. A one-third increase in the bearing value may be used for temporary loads such as wind or seismic loads when allowed by the CBC. ORTSAL G�ECHMICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page 31 RADIO TOWER FOUNDATION A tall radio tower is proposed in the southwest corner of the building pad. We understand the foundation for the radio tower will consist of 3 separate cast -in -drilled -hole (CIDH) piles. It is recommended that the foundation for the radio tower be designed as fiction piles. Compacted fill placed as part of previous grading operations, naturally deposited soils, and bedrock may be used to provide fictional support for the foundation piles. Friction piles should be at least 18 inches in diameter and be designed using a skin friction value of 500 psf for the supporting soils. The passive resistance for the radio tower foundation may be assumed to be equal to the pressure developed by a fluid with a density of 400 pcf, increasing with depth and limited to a maximum pressure value of 3,500 psf Skin friction and lateral resistance should be assumed to apply at a depth of 8 feet below the surrounding grade. The CIDH piles should be constructed under the observation of the geotechnical consultant of record. FOUNDATIONS FOR INCIDENTAL STRUCTURES It will be required to construct incidental structures, such as trash enclosures or decorative walls. Spread footings maybe used to provide support for incidental structures, provided they are separate and unattached from adjacent structures. Footings for incidental structures should be founded at depths of at least 12 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade, and have widths of at least 12 inches. Incidental footings may be designed using a bearing value of 1,500 psf for combined dead and frequently applied live loads. This bearing value may be increased by one- third for the total of all loads, including seismic or wind forces. Lateral Resistance: Lateral loads may be resisted by soil friction and by the passive resistance of the soils. A coefficient of friction of 0.4 may be used between the footings, floor slabs, and the supporting soils. The passive resistance of properly compacted fill soils may be assumed to be equal to the pressure developed by a fluid with a density of 300 pcf, increasing with depth and limited to a maximum pressure value of 3,000 psf A one-third increase in the passive ORTSAL G�ECHMICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page 32 value may be used for wind or seismic loads. The frictional resistance and the passive resistance of the soils may be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance. Settlement: Provided that the structures are founded in compacted fill soils as recommended, we estimate that the total static and seismic settlement will be about 1.25 inches. Static and seismic differential settlement within a horizontal distance of 30 feet is estimated to be about 0.75 inches. FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT General: The floor slab design recommendations presented in this section are based upon the assumption that the soil subgrade in proposed floor slab areas will consist of compacted fill soil and that floor slabs will be subjected to normal loads with no special requirements. All floor slabs should be designed to resist the static and seismic settlement estimates presented in this report. Any surficial soils that become dried or disturbed during construction should be moisture - conditioned and compacted prior to casting the floor slab. Expansive Soil Conditions: The upper soils encountered during our investigation ranged from very low to a medium potential for expansion. The highest expansion obtained was a test performed on a bulk sample of the upper soils that resulted in an Expansion Index of 56, which is a "medium" potential for expansion. Perimeter grades around each building should be sloped in a manner allowing water to drain away from the structure and not pond next to the foundations. Roof downdrains should be connected to underground pipes carrying water away from the building areas, or have extenders so water does not drain and pond next to the buildings. As previously mentioned in the "Grading" section of this report, if import soils are required to establish final grade, they should consist of relatively non -expansive soils. Post -Tensioned Floor Slabs: Post -tensioned floor slabs should be designed per the recommendations of the CBC. The design values, presented following this paragraph, assume that the proposed floor slabs will be poured monolithic with continuous perimeter edge footings. Perimeter edge footings should have a minimum depth of 18 inches. Footing depths should be MRTFA G�ECHMICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page 33 measured from the lowest adjacent grade for perimeter footings or the top of slab for interior footings. Net Bearing Value: An allowable net bearing value of 2,500 psf may be used for footings with a nummum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. Coefficient of Friction: 0.75 Passive Pressure: 250 pcf for level ground condition Modulus of Subgrade 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci) for a footing width of Reaction (K): one foot. For larger footings or floor slabs, this value should be reduced using the following equation: Kr=K �(B+1)]� 2B where: Kr = Reduced Modulus Value K = Modulus of Subgrade Reaction for a One -Foot -Wide Plate B = Width of Large Footing or Slab Modulus of Elasticity: 1,000 pounds per square inch (psi) Edge Moisture Variation Distance Me (Center Lift): 5.25 feet Me (Edge Lift): 2.5 feet Estimated Differential Movement Medium My (swelling): 0.9 My (shrink): 0.4 0.7 Water Vapor Mitieation: Water vapor transmitted through floor slabs is a common cause of floor covering problems. An impermeable membrane `vapor barrier" should be installed to ERTSAL G�ECHNICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page 34 reduce excess vapor drive through the floor slab. The function of the impermeable membrane is to reduce the amount of water vapor transmitted through the floor slab. Vapor -related impacts should be expected in areas where a vapor barrier is not installed. Floor slabs should be underlain by a vapor barrier surrounded by 2 inches of sand above and below it The membrane should be at least 10 millimeters thick; care should be taken to preserve the continuity and integrity of the membrane beneath the floor slab. The sand should be sufficiently moist to remain in place and be stable during construction; however, if the sand above the membrane becomes saturated before placing concrete, the moisture in the sand can become a source of water vapor. Another factor affecting vapor transmission through floor slabs is a high water -to -cement ratio in the concrete used for the floor slab. A high water -to -cement ratio increases the porosity of the concrete, thereby facilitating the transmission of water and water vapor through the slab. The Project Structural Engineer or a concrete mix specialist should provide recommendations for design of concrete for footings and floor slabs in accordance with CBC, with consideration of the above comments. Alternative methods of providing floor slab water vapor mitigation have also been successfully utilized. If requested, we would be pleased to provide geotechnical comment if it is desired to utilize alternative mitigation methods. These recommendations may be superseded by the design team based on their experience with alternative mitigation methods. However, RTF&A assumes no responsibility related to adverse impacts associated with superseding the recommendations of this report. CORROSION PROTECTION Soil corrosivity tests were performed by HER as presented in Appendix E. The corrosion test results indicate that the on-site soils are severely corrosive to ferrous metals and that any type of concrete maybe utilized. Review of the corrosion test results and implementation of appropriate corrosion protection recommendations for the site-specific improvements are referred to the ERTSAL G�ECHMICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page 35 Project Design Consultant. A Corrosion Consultant, such as HDR, could be retained to provide corrosion design and construction recommendations for the site-specific proposed development. PAVEMENT DESIGN We obtained two samples of the near surface compacted fill for R -value testing during the site investigations. The R -Value test results for the two samples were 19 and 32. Samples of the on-site soil should be obtained from near final grade elevation in proposed pavement areas, following the grading operations, to perform R -value tests. The R -value test results would be used to prepare final pavement section recommendations. The preliminary pavement section recommendations presented below assume that the on-site subgrade soils will have an R -value of at least 19. The final pavement section recommendations could vary depending on the results of the actual R -value tests. We would be pleased to provide pavement section recommendations for alternative Traffic Index values upon request. TRAFFIC INDEX ASPHALT THICKNESS INCHES BASE COURSE (CAB) THICKNESS INCHES 4 4 5 6 4 9 8 5 14 10 7 17 12 8 22 Base course material should consist of crushed aggregate base (CAB) as defined by Section 200-2.2 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Greenbook). Base course should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density of that material. Base course material should be purchased from a supplier who will certify the base course will meet or exceed the specifications in the Greenbook as indicated. We could, at your request, perform sieve analysis and sand equivalency tests on material delivered to the site which appears ERTSAL G�ECHNICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page 36 suspect. Additional tests could be performed, upon request, to determine if the material is in compliance with the specifications. The pavement section recommendations presented above are based upon assumed Traffic Index values. RTF&A does not take responsibility for the numerical determination of the Traffic Index values or the areas where they apply within the site. Portland Cement Concrete pavement (PCC pavement) can be placed directly on at least 4 inches of CAB compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density. The soil subgrade underlying the CAB should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density. The thickness of pavement should be in accordance with the following table. The water -to -cement ratio of the concrete should be no more than 0.5, with a minimum compressive strength of 3,000 pounds per square inch (psi). TRAFFIC INDEX PCC PAVEMENT THICKNESS INCHES 6 8 10 9 12 10 The layout of PCC paving joints should be determined by the Civil Engineer, preparing the site plan with consideration of the following joint spacing and reinforcement recommendations. These recommendations may be superseded by a Civil Engineer with pavement design expertise. The PCC pavement should include longitude and transverse joints at intervals not to exceed 15 feet on center. The joints should be saw cut within four hours of the concrete pour. Jointing should not allow any concrete areas to remain in which the length of the concrete rectangle exceeds 1.5 times the base. All joints should be reinforced with centered 30 -inch long, #4 bars at 30 inches on center. ORTSAL G�ECHNICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page 37 RETAINING WALLS General: Abearing value of 2,000 psf maybe used in the design of retaining wall footings. Backfill placed behind retaining walls should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by the Soil Compaction Test Method (ASTM Standard D1557). When backfilling, walls should be braced. Heavy compaction equipment should not be used any closer to the back of the wall than the height of the wall. Soils that have an expansion index more than 30 should not be utilized for backfill behind walls. The backs of retaining walls should be water -proofed where aesthetics are concerned. MSE or Crib Walls: Crib and/or MSE walls are proposed for support of the proposed helicopter landing pad and also above the north driveway access road. We understand that these walls have not yet been designed, but that they are expected to be reinforced with geogrid. The length of geogrid will be dependent upon the strength of the soils used in the reinforced zone of the wall backfill. It is recommended that additional strength testing of the soils proposed for use in the reinforced zone be performed prior to wall construction. Care should be taken during the design of these walls so that the reinforced backfill zone is at least 10 feet outside proposed building footprints. In addition, it is recommended as part of the regulatory review process that the geotechnical consultant of record perform a review of the wall plans once they are available. Lateral Earth Pressure: Cantilevered retaining walls separate and independent of buildings, where the surface of the backfill is level and the retained height of soils is less than 15 feet, may be designed assuming that drained, non -expansive soils will exert a lateral pressure equal to that developed by a fluid with a density of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). The indicated pressure assumes that lateral deflection of up to about one percent of the wall height is acceptable at the top of the wall. If it is desired to decrease the amount of potential wall deflection, a greater lateral pressure could be used in the wall design. Where the surface of the backfill is inclined at 2:1, it may be assumed that drained soils will exert a lateral pressure equal to that developed by a fluid with a density of 50 pcf. ORTFA G�ECHNICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page 38 For the design of a rigid wall where rotation and lateral movement are not acceptable, as in the case of buildings, it may be assumed that drained, non -expansive soils will exert a rectangular lateral pressure with a maximum pressure equal to 25H psf, where "H" is the wall height in feet. The pressure value and distribution may vary significantly when considering wall rigidity and restraining conditions. The structural characteristics of the wall are referred to the Project Structural Engineer. If requested, we can provide additional geotechnical design parameters for specific restrained conditions. In addition to the recommended earth pressure, walls should be designed to resist any lateral surcharges due to nearby buildings, storage, or traffic loads. A drainage system should be provided behind the walls to reduce the potential for development of hydrostatic pressure. Seismic Lateral Earth Pressure: The preceding recommended values indicate earth pressures for conventional static loading conditions. Ground shaking associated with earthquakes may cause additional pressure on walls. In addition to the previously mentioned lateral earth pressures, it is recommended that all rigid (building) walls of any height, and cantilevered retaining walls greater than 6 feet in height, be designed to support an additional seismic earth pressure equal to an inverted equivalent fluid pressure of 29 pcf. Wall Drainage: A drainage system should be provided behind retaining walls or the walls should be designed to resist hydrostatic pressures. If a drainage system is not installed, walls should be designed to resist an additional hydrostatic pressure equal to that developed by a fluid with a density of 55 pcf for the full height of the wall. The drainage system could consist of a four -inch diameter perforated pipe placed six inches from the base of the wall, with the perforations down, and connected to an outlet device. The pipe should be sloped at least one inch per 50 feet and surrounded on all sides by at least six inches of clean gravel. The gravel should be "burrito - wrapped" with filter fabric, such as Mirafi 140N or equivalent. As an alternative to the gravel and filter fabric, filter material meeting the requirements of Los Angeles County Flood Control District Designated F-1 Filter Material, and slotted pipe, may be used. The backside of the wall should be waterproofed. ORTSAL G�ECHNICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page 39 A vertical six-inch wide gravel chimney drain, or a drainage geocomposite such as Miradrain, should be placed against and behind retaining walls that are higher than three feet. The top of the back drain should be capped with 18 inches of on-site soils. The installed drainage system should be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant of Record prior to backfilling the system. Inspection of the drainage system may also be required by the reviewing governmental agencies. Density of Racldill: When designing retaining walls to resist over -turning, it can be assumed that compacted, on-site soils will have a density of 125 pcf. UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL Backfill soil placed within trenches excavated for installation of utility lines must be mechanically compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum density from the top of pipe or bedding materials up to finish grade. Detailed recommendations for compaction of utility trenches can be provided upon request. CONCLUSIONS On the basis of our geotechnical investigation and geologic -seismic evaluation, and in accordance with the CGS Note 48 Guidelines, we conclude that there are no potential geologic - seismic hazards that could adversely impact the proposed Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff Station. Furthermore, there are no unfavorable geotechnical conditions that would preclude site development. In our opinion, the site is suitable for the proposed Sheriff Station and ancillary structures. 15.02.030F STATEMENT Based on the findings summarized in this submittal, it is our professional opinion that the proposed grading, and any proposed structures at the site, will be safe from hazards of settlement, slippage, or landslide, provided that the recommendations of this submittal, and those of the City ERTSAL GIN0TECHNICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page 40 of Santa Clarita Code, are incorporated into the proposed construction. Additionally, the grading performed at the site will not adversely affect the geotechnical conditions on adjacent properties. OBSERVATION AND TESTING This report has been prepared assuming that RTF&A will perform all geotechnically- related field observations and testing. If the recommendations presented in this report are utilized, and observation of the geotechnical work is performed by others, the party performing the observations must review tris report and assume responsibility for recommendations presented herein. That party would then assume the titre "Geotechnical Consultant of Record." A representative of the Geotechnical Consultant should be present to observe all grading operations, as well as all footing excavations. A report presenting the results of these observations and related testing should be issued upon completion of these operations. -000- ERTSAL G�ECHMICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page 41 Should you have any questions regarding this report, please contact our office. The following are attached and complete this report. References Figure 1 — Site Location Map Figure 2 — Regional Geologic Map Figure 3 — Regional Fault Map Figure 4 — Alquist—Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map Figure 5.1 — Geotechnical Map (in pocket) Figure 5.2— Removal Map (in pocket) Figure 6 — Geologic Sections Figure 7 — Seismic Hazard Zones Figure 8 — Earthquake Epicenter Map Figure 9 — Probability Seismic Hazard Deaggregation Figure 10 — Stability Fill Details for Grossly Stable Slopes Appendix A — Explorations — Unified Soil Classification System — HS -1 through HS -8 —B-1 and B-2 —Test Pits TP -1 through TP -22 — IB -1 through IB -5 Appendix B — Laboratory Tests — Direct Shear Test Data — Consolidation Test Data — Grain Size Distribution Appendix C— Historic Earthquake Search Results Appendix D — Soil Corrosivity Study Appendix E — USGS Seismic Design Calculations Appendix F — Boring Percolation Testing Procedures and Results Appendix G — Hunsaker Hydrology Calculations Appendix H — Slope Stability Calculations ERTSAL G�ECHNICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page 42 Respectfully submitted, R. T. FRANKIAN & ASSOCIATES by: Alan W. Rasplicka Principal Geotechnical Engineer and: Timothy P. Latiolait AWR/TPL/ew Principal Engineering Geologist PDF Distribution via Email: — City of Santa Clarita, Attn: Mr. Ross Pistone — Hunsaker & Associates, Attn: Mr. Bruce Bayne and Ms. Jeannine Giem ERTSAL G�ECHNICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 REFERENCES Bailey, T. L., and Jahns, R. H., 1954, "Geology of the Transverse Range Province, Southern California", in Geology of Southern California, California Division of Mines Bull 170, Vol. 1, pp. 83-106. Blake, Thomas F., 2000a, Computer Program "EQSEARCH for Windows," Version 3.00b. Blake, Thomas F., 2000b, Computer Program "FRISKSP," Version 4.00. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1995, "State of California Earthquake Fault Zones, Newhall Quadrangle." California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, "Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Newhall 7.5 -Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California," Seismic Hazard Zone Report 04. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1999, "State of California Seismic Hazard Zones Mint Canyon Quadrangle." California Geological Survey, 2007, "Checklist for the Review of Engineering Geology and Seismology Reports for California Public Schools, Hospitals, and Essential Services Buildings," Note 48. Cotton, William and Associates, Inc., and Allen E. Seward Engineering Geology, Inc., 1984, "Engineering Geologic Investigation of the San Gabriel Fault," prepared for Newhall Land and Farming Company, Valencia, California; vol. 1, 34p. Crowell, J.C., 1952, "Probable Large Lateral Displacement of San Gabriel Fault, Southern California," Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Vol. 36, No. 10, pp. 2026-2035. Crowell, J.C., 1982, "The Tectonics of the Ridge Basin, Southern California," in J.C. Crowell and M.H. Link, editors, Geologic History of the Ridge Basin, Southern California, Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Pacific Section, Vol. 22, pp. 25-42. Davis, T.L., Namson, J., and Yerkes, R.F., 1989, "A Cross Section of the Los Angeles Area: Seismically Active Fold and Thrust Belt, the 1987 Whittier Narrows Earthquake and Earthquake Hazard," Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 94, No. B7, pp. 9644-9664. ORTSAL G�ECHNICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 References Page 2 Dibblee, T. W., Jr., 1996a, "Geologic Map of the Newhall Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California," Dibblee Geological Foundation Map DF -56. Dibblee, T. W., Jr., 1996b, "Geologic Map of the Mint Canyon Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California," Dibblee Geological Foundation Map DF -57. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2008, "FIRM —Flood Insurance Rate Map, Los Angeles County, California and Incorporated Areas, Panel 820 of 2350," FEMA Map 06037C0820F, dated September 26, 2008. Frankian, R. T., & Associates, 1999b, "Geotechnical And Geologic Grading Plan Review, Proposed Golden Valley Road and High School, Santa Clarita, California", for The City of Santa Clarita, dated December 14, 1999, Volumes I through IV, Job No. 99-700-01. Frankian, R. T., & Associates, 2001a, "Report of Geotechnical And Geologic Grading Plan Review, Proposed Golden Valley Road 12 -Acre Site, Santa Clarita, California", for The City of Santa Clarita, dated November 16, 2001, Job No. 99-706-01. Frankian, R. T., & Associates, 2001b, "Limited Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Golden Valley Road Phase III, South of Redview Drive and North of Proposed Station 92 + 00, Santa Clarita, California," for City of Santa Clarita, dated December 12, 2001, Job No. 99- 706-01. Frankian, R. T., & Associates, 2003, "Report of Observation and Testing, Golden Valley Road Phase 1 and High School, Santa Clarita, California", for The City of Santa Clarita, dated January 6, 2003, Volumes I and II, Job No. 99-700-20. Hart, E. W., and Bryant, W.A., 1999, "Fault -Rupture Hazard Zones in California," California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42, 32p. Hauksson, E., 1990, "Earthquakes, Faulting, and Stress in the Los Angeles Basin," Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 95, B10., pp. 15365-15394. Jahns, R. H., and Muehlberger, W. R., 1954, "Geology of the Soledad Basin, Los Angeles County", in Geology of Southern California, California Division of Mines Bull 170, Map Sheet No. 6. Jennings, C.W., 1994, "Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, with Locations and Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions," California Division of Mines and Geology Geologic Data Map No. 6. ERTSAL G�ECHNICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 References Page 3 Kahle, J.E., 1986, "Fhe San Gabriel Fault Near Castaic and Saugus, Los Angeles County, California," California Division of Mines and Geology Fault Evaluation Report FER-178. Kew, W. S. W., 1924, "Geology and Oil Resources of a Part of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, California," U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 753, 202p. Oakeshott, G. B., 1958, "Geology and Mineral Deposits of the San Fernando Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California," California Division of Mines Bulletin 172, 147p. Saul, R.B., and Wootton, T.M., 1983, "Geology of the South Half of the Mint Canyon Quadrangle," California Division of Mines and Geology Open -File Report 83-24, 139p. Seed, H. Bolton and Idriss, I. M., 1982, "Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes," Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. Shaw, J.H., and Suppe, J., 1996, "Earthquake Hazards of Active Blind -Thrust Faults Under the Central Los Angeles Basin," Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 101, No. B4, pp. 8623- 8642. Stitt, L.T., 1986, "Structural History of the San Gabriel Fault and Other Neogene Structures of the Central Transverse Ranges," in P.L. Ehlig, compiler, Guidebook and Volume: Neoteetonies and Faulting in Southern California, Geological Society of America, pp. 43-102. Weber, F. H., Jr., 1979, "Geologic and Geomorphic Investigation of the San Gabriel Fault Zone, Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, California," California Division of Mines and Geology Open -File Report 79-17, 78p. Weber, F.H., Jr., 1982, "Geology and Geomorphology Along the San Gabriel Fault Zone, Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, California," California Division of Mines and Geology Open -File Report 82-2, 159p. Wentworth, C.M., and Yerkes, R.F., 1971, "Geologic Setting and Activity of Faults in the San Fernando Area, California," U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 733, pp. 6-16. Winterer, E.L. and Durham, D.L., 1962, "Geology of the Southeastern Ventura Basin," U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 334-11, pp. 275-366. ORTSAL G�ECHNICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 APPENDIX A EXPLORATIONS MRTFA G�ECHMICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 APPENDIX A EXPLORATIONS RECONNAISSANCE GEOLOGIC MAPPING During geologic mapping, local surficial deposits (both natural and man-made) and bedrock units were mapped on a base map prepared by Hunsaker & Associates. Geologic structural features, including bedding, were observed, measured, and plotted on the base map. LOGGING OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS Logging was performed for 22 exploratory test pits (TP -1 through TP -22) excavated at selected locations within the site. The test pits were excavated using a backhoe equipped with a 2 -foot - wide bucket. Test Pits varied in depth from approximately 2.5 feet to 10 feet. Test Pit TP -10 was logged by a Certified Engineering Geologist. The locations of the test pits are indicated on the Geotechnical Map, Figure 5.1. EXCAVATION AND LOGGING OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS We explored the project site by drilling 8 hollow -stem auger borings (designated HS -1 through HS - 8) and 2 bucket auger borings (designated B-1 and B-2). The bucket auger borings were downhole logged by a Certified Engineering Geologist. Additionally, 5 shallow hand auger borings were excavated for conducting infiltration testing. The hand auger borings are designated IB -1 through I13-5. The locations of the borings are shown on the attached Geotechnical Map, Figure 5.1. The soils encountered in the borings were classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The boring logs are presented in this Appendix. Undisturbed and bulk samples of the subsurface materials were collected for laboratory inspection and testing. The lined -barrel sampler used to take undisturbed samples has an external diameter of 3.25 inches and an internal diameter of 2.625 inches. The depths at which the undisturbed samples were obtained are indicated on the logs. The number of blows required to drive the sampler 12 inches with the hammer weight are also shown on the boring logs. ORTFA G�ECHNICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTS MRTFA G�ECHMICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page B-1 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTS Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples obtained from the borings to aid in the classification of the soils and to determine their engineering properties. Moisture and Densitv Tests: Moisture content and unit dry density tests were performed on samples of undisturbed soil obtained in the test borings. Dry density and field moisture information is useful in correlating field and laboratory data and in providing an indication of the variations of soil characteristics. The results of these tests are shown on the Log of Borings in Appendix A. Direct Shear Tests: Direct shear tests were performed on remolded samples to determine the strength of the soils. The remolded samples were compacted to approximately 90 percent of the maximum dry density of the soils. The tests were performed after soaking the samples to near - saturated moisture content and at various surcharge pressures. The results of the direct shear tests are indicated on the attached summary of "Direct Shear Tests." Consolidation Tests: Confined consolidation tests were performed on selected undisturbed and/or remolded samples at and below the proposed foundation level. The remolded samples were compacted to approximately 90 percent of the maximum dry density of the soils. Tests were performed on samples at or near the field moisture state. Samples of bearing soils that may become inundated were also tested in an artificially saturated state. For purposes of presentation, the results of the pertinent consolidation tests performed are shown on the attached summary of"Consolidation Test Data." Gradation Tests: A sieve analysis was used to determine the distribution of grain sizes in selected soil samples. The purpose of the tests was to assist in classifying the soil. The results of the sieve analysis tests are presented as an attachment to this report. Expansion Index Tests: Expansion index tests were used to classify the expansion characteristics of selected soil samples. The results of the test are as followings: MRTFA G�ECHMICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 Page B-2 Boring No. and Sample Depth Expansion Index HS -1 A 3-6' 31 HS -2 3-5' 41 HS -3 1-5' 56 HS -8 1-5' 52 TP -2 3-6' 42 TP -5 A 3-6' 18 IB -4 A 1' 50 Maximum Densitv Tests: The maximum dry densities and optimum moisture contents of bulk soil samples obtained from the test borings were determined in our laboratory in accordance with the current ASTM Soil Compaction Method D1557. The optimum moisture contents mein percent of dry weight and the maximum dry densities are in pounds per cubic foot (pcf). The double -letter soil classification that follows each soil description is in accordance with the Uniform Soil Classification System (ASTM D2487). The results of the maximum dry density tests are as follows: ERTSAL G�ECHNICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY Optimum Maximum Moisture Sample Soil Description and Dry Density Content Number Classification SAND: fine to medium with HS -1 @ 4-7' occasional coarse and fine gravel, 134.0 8.0 medium brown (SM) HS -2 @ 1-5' SAND: fine to coarse with fine 129.5 8.5 gravel, medium brown (SW) SAND: fine to medium with HS -3 @ 1-5' occasional coarse, medium brown 134.0 8.5 SM SAND: fine to medium with HS -5 @ 3-8' occasional coarse and fine gravel, 135.0 7.5 medium brown SM ERTSAL G�ECHNICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 APPENDIX C HISTORIC EARTHQUAKE SEARCH RESULTS MRTFA G�ECHMICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY APPENDIX D SOIL CORROSIVITY STUDY MRTFA G�ECHMICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 APPENDIX E USGS SEISMIC DESIGN CALCULATIONS ERTFA G�ECHNICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 APPENDIX F BORING PERCOLATION TESTING PROCEDURES AND RESULTS MRTFA G�ECHMICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 APPENDIX F BORING PERCOLATION TESTING PROCEDURES AND RESULTS The Boring Percolation Test Procedure method utilized as part of the subject infiltration study was performed within a 4 -inch -diameter hand auger boring. The test was performed after presoaking the boring sidewall soils by filling an installed casing with water and maintaining at water height of over 12 inches. After a minimum of 4 hours of presoaking, the water level was established at least 12 inches above the bottom of the boring and the water level was allowed to drop in successive cycles. The water level was periodically monitored during the test and was recorded. The test cycle is performed up to eight times but maybe stopped if three successive cycles yield a relatively uniform infiltration rate. The field procedures are as follows: • The boring was initially excavated to the desired depth and then a 2 -inch -diameter PVC pipe casing was installed the full depth of the boring. The lower portion of the casing was perforated with slots greater than 0.02 inches in width and was capped at the bottom. • The perforated portion of the pipe was then surrounded with a filter pack consisting of washed gravel. After installation of the filter materials, the boring was then pre-soaked by filling the lower portion of the casing with water and maintaining a level that was at least 12 inches above the bottom of the casing. • The casing was then refilled with water up to a level at least 12 inches above the bottom of the pipe. The water level was allowed to drop and the depth of the water level was measured at regular intervals. At the completion of the test cycle, the water level was again measured and recorded, signifying the end of that test cycle. • The casing was then refilled with water and the next test cycle was begun. The test cycles were repeated up to a total of eight times to complete the series of tests within the boring, but may have been stopped if three successive cycles yield a relatively uniform drop. ERTSAL G�ECHMICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 APPENDIX G HUNSAKER HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS MRTFA G�ECHMICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY City of Santa Clarita June 8, 2017 99-715-001 APPENDIX H SLOPE STABILITY CALCULATIONS MRTFA G�ECHMICAL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station Appendix VII Appendix VII. Greenhouse Gas Analysis Prepared by Pomeroy Environmental Services GREENHOUSE GAS ANALYSIS Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact may occur if a project would: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; and/or b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Summary of Findings Pomeroy Environmental Services (PES) completed a detailed assessment of the Project's potential impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions. Key findings of the analysis are summarized as follows, and the detailed analyses are provided on the following pages: • The Project would be under the SCAQMD's proposed screening level of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year for all land use projects (non -industrial projects); • The Project is consistent with the City's Climate Action Plan; • The Project would meet the requirements of the Santa Clarita Green Building Standards Code and the CALGreen Code. And, as such, the Project is consistent with statewide goals and policies in place for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, including AB 32 and the corresponding Scoping Plan. a -b) Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are called greenhouse gases (GHGs), since they have effects that are analogous to the way in which a greenhouse retains heat. Greenhouse gases are emitted by both natural processes and human activities. The accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere regulates the earth's temperature. The State of California has undertaken initiatives designed to address the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, and to establish targets and emission reduction strategies for greenhouse gas emissions in California. Activities associated with the Project, including construction and operational activities, would have the potential to generate greenhouse gas emissions. The principal GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and water vapor (H2O). CO2 is the reference gas for climate change because it is the predominant greenhouse gas emitted. To account for the varying warming potential of different GHGs, GHG emissions are often quantified and reported as CO2 equivalents (CO2e). California has enacted several pieces of legislation that relate to GHG emissions and climate change, much of which sets aggressive goals for GHG reductions within the state. Per Senate Bill 97, the California Natural Resources Agency adopted amendments to the CEQA Guidelines, which address the specific obligations of public agencies when analyzing GHG emissions under CEQA to determine a project's effects on the environment. However, neither a threshold of significance nor any specific mitigation measures are included or provided in these CEQA Guideline amendments. Assembly Bill 32 (Statewide GHG Reductions) The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, widely known as AB 32, requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop and enforce regulations for the reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. CARB is directed to set a statewide GHG emission limit, based on 1990 levels, to be achieved by 2020. The bill set a timeline for adopting a scoping plan for achieving GHG reductions in a technologically and economically feasible manner. The heart of the bill is the requirement that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. The CARB AB 32 Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) contains the main strategies to achieve the 2020 emissions cap. The Scoping Plan was developed by CARB with input from the Climate Action Team (CAT) and proposes a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall carbon emissions in California, improve the environment, reduce oil dependency, diversify energy sources, and enhance public health while creating new jobs and improving the State economy. The GHG reduction strategies contained in the Scoping Plan include direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non - monetary incentives, voluntary actions, and market-based mechanisms such as a cap -and -trade system. CARB has adopted the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan.' This update identifies the next steps for California's leadership on climate change. The first update to the initial AB 32 Scoping Plan describes progress made to meet the near-term objectives of AB 32 and defines California's climate change priorities and activities for the next several years. It also frames activities and issues facing the State as it develops an integrated framework for achieving both air quality and climate goals in California beyond 2020. In the original Scoping Plan, CARB approved a total statewide GHG 1990 emissions level and 2020 emissions limit of 427 million metric tons of CO2e. As part of the update, CARB revised the 2020 Statewide limit to 431 million metric tons of CO2e, an approximately 1 percent increase from the original estimate. The 2020 business -as -usual (BAU) forecast in the update is 509 million metric tons of CO2e. The State would need to reduce those emissions by 15.3 percent to meet the 431 million metric tons of CO2e 2020 limit. CARB also aims to reduce GHG emissions significantly by 2030. As California moves closer to reaching the 2020 GHG emission reduction goal state legislation has focused on furthering GHG emission reduction targets. Executive Order B-30-15 was issued April 2015 and establishes a mid-term GHG reduction target for California of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. In 2016, the Legislature passed SB 37 with the companion bill AB 197 which further mandates the 2030 target and provides additional direction to CARB on strategies to reduce GHG emissions. In response to Executive Order B-30-15 and SB 37 CARB is moving 3 CARB, First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework, May 2014. forward with a second update to the Scoping Plan to reflect the 2030 target.' SB 32 was enacted in 2016 and expands on AB 32 to require California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The bill targets reductions from the leading greenhouse gas emitters in the state. Transportation is the largest sector of greenhouse gas emissions in the state and will be a primary subject for reductions. Through advances in technology and improved public transportation the state plans to significantly improve greenhouse gas emissions from transportation sources to meet the 2030 reduction goal. California Senate Bills 1078, 107, and 2; Renewables Portfolio Standard Established in 2002 under California Senate Bill 1078 and accelerated in 2006 under California Senate Bill 107, California's RPS requires retail suppliers of electric services to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources by at least 1 percent of their retail sales annually, until they reach 20 percent by 2010. On April 2, 2011, Governor Jerry Brown signed California Senate Bill 2 to increase California's RPS to 33 percent by 2020. This new standard also requires regulated sellers of electricity to procure 25 percent of their energy supply from certified renewable resources by 2016. Low Carbon Fuel Standard California Executive Order 5-01-07 (January 18, 2007) requires a 10 percent or greater reduction in the average carbon intensity for transportation fuels in California regulated by CARB. CARB identified the LCFS as a Discrete Early Action item under AB 32, and the final resolution (09-31) was issued on April 23, 2009. Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375) California's Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, also referred to as Senate Bill (SB) 375, became effective January 1, 2009. The goal of SB 375 is to help achieve AB 32's GHG emissions reduction goals by aligning the planning processes for regional transportation, housing, and land use. SB 375 requires CARB to develop regional reduction targets for GHGs, and prompts the creation of regional plans to reduce emissions from vehicle use throughout the State. California's 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) have been tasked with creating Sustainable Community Strategies (SCS) in an effort to reduce the region's vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in order to help meet AB 32 targets through integrated transportation, land use, housing and environmental planning. Pursuant to SB 375, CARB set per -capita GHG emissions reduction targets from passenger vehicles for each of the State's 18 MPOs. On September 23, 2010, CARB issued a regional eight (8) percent per capita reduction target for the planning year 2020, 4 The Proposed Second Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan was published January 20, 2017. and a conditional target of 13 percent for 2035. California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code Although not originally intended to reduce greenhouse gases, California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 Part 6: California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. Since then, Title 24 has been amended with recognition that energy-efficient buildings that require less electricity and reduce fuel consumption, which in turn decreases GHG emissions. The 2016 Title 24 standards (effective as of January 1, 2017) were revised and adopted in part to respond to the requirements of AB 32. Accordingly, new development projects constructed within California after January 1, 2017 are subject to the mandatory planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resources efficiency, and environmental quality measures of the California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11). As noted on page 37 in the First Update to the Scoping Plan (May 2014), building efficiency standards updated in 2013 and are 25 percent more efficient for residential construction and 30 percent more efficient for non-residential construction .5 Local Policies and Regulations City of Santa Clarita General Plan The City's Conservation and Open Space Element of the 2011 General Plan has identified the following goals, objectives and policies aimed at greenhouse gas reduction for projects in the City. Goal CO 8: Development designed to improve energy efficiency, reduce energy and natural resource consumption, and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Objective CO 8.1: Comply with the requirements of State law, including AB 32, SB 375 and implementing regulations, to reach targeted reductions of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Policy CO 8.1.1: Create and adopt a Climate Action Plan within 18 months of the OVOV adoption date of the City's General Plan Update that meets State requirements and includes the following components: a. Plans and programs to reduce GHG emissions to State -mandated targets, including enforceable reduction measures; s Computed from California Energy Demand, 2012-2022 Final Forecast, June 2012, Form 2.2 on Committed Energy Impacts. i. The CAP may establish goals beyond 2020, which are consistent with the applicable laws and regulations referenced in this paragraph and based on current science; ii. The CAP shall include specific and general tools and strategies to reduce the City's current and projected 2020 inventory and to meet the CAPs target for GHG reductions by 2020; iii. The CAP shall consider, among other GHG reduction strategies, the feasibility of development fees; incentive and rebate programs; and, voluntary and mandatory reduction strategies in areas of energy efficiency, renewable energy, water conservation and efficiency, solid waste, land use and transportation. b. Mechanisms to ensure regular review of progress towards the emission reduction targets established by the Climate Action Plan; c. Procedures for reporting on progress to officials and the public; d. Procedures for revising the plan as needed to meet GHG emissions reduction targets; and, e. Allocation of funding and staffing for Plan implementation; Climate Action Plan The State of California requires all cities that create a new general plan or update their general plan document to consider its impacts on GHG emissions. In order to do so, cities can prepare a Climate Action Plan (CAP). The CAP must achieve the emission reduction goals outlined by the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions must be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. Measures identified in Santa Clarita's Climate Action plan will not only meet but exceed the State's AB 32 GHG emission reduction mandate. In June 2011, the City Council adopted a new General Plan (formerly referred to as One Valley One Vision) which is intended to guide growth and development within all portions of the Santa Clarita Valley. Policy CO 8.1.1 of the City's General Plan states the City shall create and adopt a Climate Action Plan within 18 months of the OVOV adoption date of the City's General Plan Update that meets State requirements. Consistent with this policy, in January 2011, the City began the process of developing a CAP, with the Final CAP published in August 2012. The CAP, part of the General Plan, serves as a component of the general plan document for the City to address GHG emissions. Using the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan as a starting point, the CAP identifies mitigation measures that can be quantified and translated into significant reductions in the GHG emissions by the year 2020. The development of a CAP begins with a premise that establishing a complete GHG emissions inventory within the city's boundary is the critical foundation for the remainder of the project. The 2005 baseline year GHG emissions inventory has captured emissions from various sources. The total emissions of GHG in 2005 were estimated to be 1,717,648 MTCO2e. The emissions are presented separately for community -wide sources and municipal sources. Of this total, the emissions from on -road vehicles were the main source of GHG emissions for the City in 2005 (60%) followed by residential energy use (18%) and commercial/industrial energy use (13%). The municipal source emissions make up approximately 2% of the total emissions. This emissions profile is typical for a City with the characteristics of Santa Clarita. 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. Applying estimated reductions from CAP measures shows that the resulting 2020 net emissions are expected to be approximately 4% below the 2005 baseline level. The reduction represents a level that is 17% below the 2020 BAU emissions level and is consistent with the overall Statewide Goals of AB 32. The Climate Action Plan not only identifies a reduction target or commitments, but it also sets forth the complement of goals, policies, measures, and ordinances that will achieve the target. These policies and other strategies include measures in transportation, land use, energy conservation, water conservation, and vegetation. The CAP also defines a local threshold of significance for GHG emissions for project level submittals that trigger review by the California Environmental Quality Act. 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 will by association demonstrate consistency with the CAP. Santa Clarita Green Building Standards Code Section 25.01.010 in the Santa Clarita Municipal Code adopts by reference that certain code known and designated as the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11, further described as the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code, also referred to as the 2016 CalGreen Code, published by the California Building Standards Commission. Such code shall be and become the City of Santa Clarita Green Building Standards Code, regulating the planning, design, operation, construction, use and occupancy of every new building or structure to ensure buildings have a more positive environmental impact and encourage sustainable construction practices as specifically provided for therein. GHG Significance Threshold The County, the SCAQMD nor the State CEQA Guidelines Amendments provide adopted quantitative thresholds of significance for addressing a residential project's GHG emissions. Nonetheless, Section 15064.4 of the CEQA Guidelines Amendments serves to assist lead agencies in determining the significance of the impacts of GHGs. As required in Section 15064.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, this analysis includes an impact determination based on the following: (1) an estimate of the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the project; (2) a qualitative analysis or performance based standards; (3) a quantification of the extent to which the project increases greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting; and (4) the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2008, the SCAQMD adopted an interim 10,000 metric tons COze (MTCOze) per year screening level threshold for stationary source/industrial projects for which the SCAQMD is the lead agency. The SCAQMD continues to consider adoption of significance thresholds for non -industrial development projects. The most recent proposal issued in September 2010 uses the following tiered approach to evaluate potential GHG impacts from various uses: Tier 1: Determine if CEQA categorical exemptions are applicable. If not, move to Tier 2. Tier 2: Consider whether or not the proposed project is consistent with a locally adopted GHG reduction plan that has gone through public hearings and CEQA review, that has an approved inventory, includes monitoring, etc. If not, move to Tier 3. Tier 3: Consider whether the project generates GHG emissions in excess of screening thresholds for individual land uses. The 10,000 MTCOze/year threshold for industrial uses would be recommended for use by all lead agencies. Under option 1, separate screening thresholds are proposed for residential projects (3,500 MTCOze/year), commercial projects (1,400 MTCOze/year), and mixed-use projects (3,000 MTCOze/year). Under option 2 a single numerical screening threshold of 3,000 MTCOze/year would be used for all non -industrial projects. If the project generates emissions in excess of the applicable screening threshold, move to Tier 4. Tier 4: Consider whether the project generates GHG emissions in excess of applicable performance standards for the project service population (population plus employment). The efficiency targets were established based on the goal of AB 32 to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The 2020 efficiency targets are 4.8 MTCOze per service population for project level analyses and 6.6 MTCOze per service population for plan level analyses. If the project generates emissions in excess of the applicable efficiency targets, move to Tier 5. Tier 5: Consider the implementation of CEQA mitigation (including the purchase of GHG offsets) to reduce the project efficiency target to Tier 4 levels. City of Santa Clarita Climate Action Plan Threshold As stated previously, the City's adopted CAP defines a local threshold of significance for GHG emissions for project level submittals that trigger review by the California Environmental Quality Act. Because goals, objectives and policies approved under the General Plan are forecast to meet the GHG emission reduction targets mandated by AB 32, projects that are able to demonstrate consistency with the General Plan and zoning ordinance will by association demonstrate consistency with the CAP. This threshold of significance is consistent with the SCAQMD's Tier 2 draft threshold noted above and will be the threshold of significance for the Project. As such, if the Project can demonstrate consistency with the General Plan and zoning ordinance, then the Project will by association be consistent with the City's CAP and result in a less than significant project -level impact. Construction GHG Emissions Construction emissions represent an episodic, temporary source of GHG emissions. Emissions are generally associated with the operation of construction equipment and the disposal of construction waste. To be consistent with the guidance from the SCAQMD for calculating criteria pollutants from construction activities, only GHG emissions from on-site construction activities and off-site hauling and construction worker commuting are considered as Project -generated. As explained by California Air Pollution Controls Officers Association (CAPCOA) in its 2008 white paper, the information needed to characterize GHG emissions from manufacture, transport, and end -of -life of construction materials would be speculative at the CEQA analysis level. CEQA does not require an evaluation of speculative impacts (CEQA Guidelines §15145). Therefore, the construction analysis does not consider such GHG emissions, but does consider non -speculative on-site construction activities and off-site hauling and construction worker trips. All GHG emissions are presented on an annual basis. Emissions of GHGs were calculated using CalEEMod 2016.3.1 for construction of the Project. As shown in Table 5, Project Construction - Related GHG Emissions, the Project would generate a total of 812.86 metric tons of construction related GHG emissions. Consistent with SCAQMD recommendations and to ensure construction emissions are assessed in a quantitative sense, construction GHG emissions have been amortized over a 30 -year period and have been added to the annual operational GHG emissions of the Project identified in Table 6. Table 5 Project Construction -Related GHG Emissions Year CO2e Emissions (Metric Tons per Year) 2019 328.33 2020 363.34 2020 (Off -Site Right -of -Way Improvements) 121.19 Total Project Construction GHG Emissions 812.86 Calculation data and results are provided in Appendix 111 to this Draft IS/MND. Operational GHG Emissions The Project includes the development of a Los Angeles County Sheriff station with a 44,900 square -foot main building, a 4,000 square -foot maintenance building, an additional 8,000 square -foot building, and 358 parking spaces on a surface parking lot. The operations of the Project would generate GHG emissions from the usage of on -road motor vehicles, electricity, natural gas, water, and generation of solid waste andwastewater. Emissions of operational GHGs are shown in Table 6, Project Operational GHG Emissions. As shown, the GHG emissions generated by the Project would be approximately 2,039.38 CO2e MTY. As noted previously, the SCAQMD released a draft guidance document regarding interim CEQA GHG significance thresholds. The SCAQMD proposed a tiered approach, whereby the level of detail and refinement needed to determine significance increases with a project's total GHG emissions. The SCAQMD also proposed a screening level of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year for all land use projects (non- industrial projects), under which project impacts would be considered "less than significant." As shown in Table 6, the Project would be under the 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold for non -industrial projects. Table 6 Project Operational GHG Emissions As the Project would have less -than -significant land use impacts and the Project would be consistent with the City's General Plan (see land use and planning analysis section in this Draft IS/MND), the Project would also be considered consistent with the CAP. It should also be noted because the Project would be required to meet the Santa Clarita Green Building Standards Code and the CALGreen Code, the Project is also qualitatively consistent with statewide goals and policies in place for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, including AB 32 and the corresponding Scoping Plan and GHG impacts would be less than significant. Cumulative Impacts Given the Project's consistency with the CAP and compliance with the CALGreen Code and Santa Clarita Green Building Standards Code, the project would be consistent with local and statewide goals and policies aimed at reducing the generation of GHGs, including CARB's AB 32 Scoping Plan. Therefore, the project's generation of GHG emissions would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to GHG emissions and impacts would be less than significant. Estimated CO2e Emissions (Metric Tons per Year) Area Sources 0.01 Energy Demand (Electricity & Natural Gas) 525.27 Mobile (Motor Vehicles) 1,334.70 Solid Waste Generation 26.61 Water Demand 125.69 Construction Emissions a 27.10 Project Total 2,039.38 °The total construction GHG emissions were amortized over 30 years and added to the operation of the Project. Calculation sheets are provided in Appendix 111 to the IS/MND As the Project would have less -than -significant land use impacts and the Project would be consistent with the City's General Plan (see land use and planning analysis section in this Draft IS/MND), the Project would also be considered consistent with the CAP. It should also be noted because the Project would be required to meet the Santa Clarita Green Building Standards Code and the CALGreen Code, the Project is also qualitatively consistent with statewide goals and policies in place for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, including AB 32 and the corresponding Scoping Plan and GHG impacts would be less than significant. Cumulative Impacts Given the Project's consistency with the CAP and compliance with the CALGreen Code and Santa Clarita Green Building Standards Code, the project would be consistent with local and statewide goals and policies aimed at reducing the generation of GHGs, including CARB's AB 32 Scoping Plan. Therefore, the project's generation of GHG emissions would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to GHG emissions and impacts would be less than significant. Project Construction and Operation Greenhouse Gas Emissions 00 i rn Cl) o_ 0 N N co N O m m a Cl) O N 0 73 LU LU m U C 0 (V 0 0 LU LU LU m U 7 0 0 — o. U= `o U m •� • w E N r •� m G1 l U � c a f6 m m m � m v � Q •J O N O Y U) Dt2 a a t N N O N u r N a E - = - N ^Z Oa r r m U U c 00 0 0 N N N n co N O N N O) m n C N C OO E Q m 0) w O N O Q w 3:O O 0 m O N m O M �3 O- o U U O 6 C U m o r � Q QQ N O U C U m C O 6 u Z N E Q 5 w N Q O 0 O U m O r .� y n Q C) (n 3 C N n C O U U U r U (D d n O -O Z J d ° to O C) Q w 0 O (D .O o a -p (7 O) O C) mo L Q C N C OO E Q m 0) w O N O Q w 3:O O 0 m x � o •o •o .o .o .o -I �o •o m •N •N •N N •N •N •~ •N N m IJ Z :o :E m 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I o to l0 1 1 1 1 1 1 o to to to to l0 1� to Ip = p to to to to l0 1- 1 1 o to to I� I� I� If0 I� to cl m 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I x m m u m WI -I of m 1Em m IJ :o :E O , O , , U ' m , Z U W , Z , Z ml m, O m Z Z: . ,LLI ,LLI .Q '> ,W C : N MO m m m m m p m •t m U .O • U .O • (-) ��� m =_ m N •N •N ,0 ;0 ;0 •OI V • •0 Z :m :m ,U ,U ,U' � :'^ :o m a u v • v • m • m m • m m • m cl 2 m `? ._ `? :._� `? :._ � ,Q ,Q ,Q .Q:E „o .0 •a •a •a • :o Q :Q :Q 'O a .a •a •a :a 00 0 0 N N N C O .y N E W 0 N ,x ,g 0 o m m ;U --t---t--t--t--t--t--t--t--t--t--t--t--t--t--t--t--t -- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 to to l0 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O ,o Ip 10 10 10 10 Ip 10 1� IN 1 10 10 10 10 1� Ip IN 1� Ip Ip 1� IM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I� N ,N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I T :E :E :� � C ,C ,C ::S ::S •p •per •O •OI •OI •N •� •j •} ;a' .r .r .¢.N .N .�•C •C •C • o •o F Q • c •cl • C • C • N • N • • X W • d • d • O. • N • N • N • _ • C • E, E , E , W W • U) • U) :O m U ,Q U ,Q •'� Q • E E E d m O .'� IJ z � � � � •� •� •� :z :z:O :O :a . ' . ' . ' ;� ;� ;� , .Q ,g .o ,O 0 o 0 0 m .m .m 10-.1 .1- O .O .O a' a ' a ' a ' a ' a ' a : m : m ' m � m • E ' E ' E ' E �� • d o o o o o o o. .i� :.v :.v :.v :.v :.v ,O •O •O •O •O •d ,> �� 0000000 O ;O ;O ;O ;O ;O :a N C O .y N E W 0 N 00 I rn Cl) o_ O N N N n 16 C Q C 0 O U (n R O U L_ co U) O N V N V IT m � a Q 0 O J C O U) L Cn C) U w r •N m m Cl) ry O O {7 a7 I O 1 N O to O to O O 0 0 O O ry o to o to O O O Z 73 O O W W C O c O U 7 � O 7 v 2 c C > U U c` m In 0 W W O R U o Iv r Im a m N 7 w r •N m m N o ry O N m • In {7 a7 I 1 O to O to O O 0 0 O O ry o to o to O O 0 0 O Z O 10 O i0 O O 1 m IN v Im m N l0 v 2 rn a ID U o 0 c` m In O n U m o Iv r Im a m r Io 1 o In O n m m 1 omi O 10 � N O O m - 1 N 1 r a o l0 0 1 1 V IN O Im NN mN V O NN mN o �0 0 Ija 1 Ija I LLLL O i0 O mfg LLLL 1 N Ir m IN O O O_ A N W I O_ V f2F I o ID N N y m IN 1 M 1O LL Ijx y `o Ll >o m In 1 rn OI CC LLLL N 1 O O i0 N O v >o _F I. m M� LLLL N O O N IN O t7 1 O t7 to o0 W O {7 _F I. moo co 1 v 000 a N O I W O {7 O 000 a N I N m 1 m a7 vryi U r �m rn O 1 I a7 vryi U x rn o 11O I� o z N i N fV O r j m m C7 N i N r j m fV m C7 O A M O O O E N i N 'N % D ry O U N m m {7 7 I O ry O to O to O O 0 0 O Z O 10 O i0 O O I v 2 m IN v Im m N l0 rn a ID U o 0 0 0 0 O U m o v r Im a m r Io I m om o In r I� NO OU n b m � I' m I omi O 10 � N O O m I N I m N r a� o jo 0 I I NN mN V IN O Im V O O Ija I 10 mfg LLLL O O i0 O O I O_ V f2F m Ir m I N IN o ID N N I y Ll `0 1 v >o m In m M� LLLL IO O i0 O _F I. N O N 1N O t7 I O t7 low W O {7 moo In I v 000 a O N I N m 1 m a7 vryi U r �m rn III I O IF M q z N i N r j m fV m C7 O A M O O O E N i N 'N % D G Q rn Cl) O r O N N O w 4% N (6 � V N 0 X Z + O o m m m m v o � a C w Q C D E O U w m O U L_ D co U) O L( N V (V m m c a Q 0 0 N W N n O 0 O O O O O O U) L Cn U Cn W n o V n rn O N O W w rn rn 0 0 0 N r r N N N Q O O N O O O U N N N N N yr r r r r y N W N N W O (V 0 GO G d W = N 7 V N D W Q C) U N 7 ry N O r 1b 1 1b 0 o ion io io ion 0 IN l0 l0 Im o ON 1 IN 1� 1 IV IV In Im 1 IN Im y V 0 N 10 IIO 10 10 r T � O 0 o IN IM l0 1� rn i O O O jo IN �Nm jo In l0 0rn � 1� mo rn Z L. I I L. N OU m 1 1 1 v Iv IN to to N u�- N 0 DO INO I� 10 �O CD rn aF NO !NO i0 �CD O �O q O d)1d) pN 1 1 Ip t7 I 1 1 IO to Ir 10 1 1 to 10 NN N N� � r 00 INO IO i0 i0 O W a N I N I O I O I O O F _F _F _F vN 1 IN 1 1 N �a o � o N 1I 1 1d) l0m Ito 1I 1 Im to N O I 1 1I 1 to 1 O o- A W a� 0 Iry I l0 l0 N IN I� 1 1 illp d oN Id low 10 10 I� l0 10 l0 N 0f2 OD IND 10 10 10 O O Wa O N 1IN i I10 1i0 i - - 1i0 i0 1 jo 1 1 rno m iia 1 1 1 I� O O 0 I v loo I N I I� 1 I 1 o N o 100 l0 1 1 0 O w IN N I I � N I0 IIS I I x oN �m N jm j n j m O Z N m m I0 I I v N I lom In I I I I 7 o 0 0 loi l0 1 1 0 O �p � T • OI ' N • �0.. • `ry R rn v .'n U 00 I mo C Q 0 O U (n 0 O U L_ co U) O (D V N m m � a Q 0 J C O U) U) Cn U) Cn u A d N U O O O (D 0 •� .r .m .m ry O N O 73 Z LU LU ) �� 0 R C O w L C O � � y � Q R > O w o LU LU L W O O d R (i N I I I Opp IN IV IV IN 1� Ir 1m 1m N O u A d N U O O O v N 0 •� .r .m .m ry r 1d) 1 1d) jo jo jom Z O O 00 lom 0 IN l0 l0 Im O I I I Opp IN IV IV IN 1� Ir 1m 1m V O y V UDO 0 i0 i0 i(O it7 N O N � �. m l0 l40 l0 l0 p � m 0 O 10 lorvim 1r 1m o IN Im l0 1� �m rn N 4__••4•___4____4__.. m Iry Im to Ilp � O U 2 rno o O U o 1r Im 10 1m 10 INm 10 lap map Z N O O IN 1t7 10 1' rn Z L I� I L - O 0 p m � T } }......... N u? w I w I 1 1 a q N 0 Opp ION Ir 10 10 DO INO I� IO IO rn aF 00 INO 10 10 1CD 0 O N 1 I 1 1 IN I 1 1 m� orn O NN N d)1 � 1 1 1IO to to pN Ipt7 Ir 10 10 � r ylxm N� 00 INO 10 i0 i0 O wa IN l0 l0 l0 O >N ry 52 o vul 1 IN 1 � N LLa �a 1 l0 1 1 0 LL I I I I o q O o- A 1 1 1 d)1d) Im to to o l0m I 1 1 N N O O W df F O N 0 0 O 7YIo w Iv to to to oul lom I� l0 l0 N y1LL 0f2 OD IND 10 10 10 O i0 i0 O ILa C N IN 10 4 4 -4 -4 >O m� rn 0 >>0 m R LLa 1 I� 1 1 4---- 4---- 4---- 4---- I I I I o N o O O I v I N I I 0 10o I� 1 1 e N o 100 l0 1 1 0 1 1 1 O O m IN N I I m° IN Ir I I O U m N I0 I I I I Z o O w IN I� 0o IN Im I I rn N r- 1 1 00 m I v I N I 1 m tom Ir I I m O O m O o IN0 I� 1 1 Qn 0 1 c 10 1 1 0 1 I 1 1 T •T C Cp W rc u A m 0 co N O r N m R a Cl) 0 N O LU LU LU m U c O 0 c0 G W LU m U _ O Q U N 0 L a •N •M •`V (D N N I N l iN I 1 z 1 l y I I � E 3: 1 1 1 z 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 m l 1 I = to to io � jm jm 11m 1 1 1 1 1 1 N 1 1 I l 1 1 I 1 1 I m IT 10 10 (n o 10 10 10 1 1 N IN IN IN 1ZZ: N 1Ir � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I p 1 0 101 1 U 1 N 1 d 11 0 1 m Iv IU 1 N 1 VI 1 I a ) IU 01 1 01 1 U 1 __ 1 C_ 1 41 1 01 p 1 p 1 L 1 C N 1= 1 U 1 7 ;o z = U • N m • i • O L a � o p 01 U �� �L • C 'a J-,SO •N •M •V 0 N N 00 d Q O7 C Y R a w a Y N 0 N V 00 N O O 7 O R C d L d K C O Z O M N 00 O O L C R C C O Z O O O IW 00 0 0 0 N N co N O co N m n 0 N O 73 W W R U c O m N 0 O LU W W_ m U O LL N O J l ............. m r r r m v r io m o ry o Im 1n m v m i1 m m m v r M �M m l I I I I I I I I I I I I I m I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 = I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O O O O 0 2 2 2 2O o co O IOo IOo IOo IOo IOo IOo 1IOo C6 ' to 0 I O I = I m 1 m 1 � 1 � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T7�TM T7�TM T7�TM T7�T7�T7�TD = O ¢ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I O 0 1 1 1 1 0 O 1 1 1 1 1 I N N 1 1 L 1 U 1 1 1 L 1 U 1 1 1 1 1 IX I 1 IY W 1 1 1 O 1 (] 1 1 N 1 1 1 1 1 I V1 1 1 N 1 1 1 1 O 1 1 1 E I E 1 1 I O I g 1 1 1-U 1 d 1 0 1 O 1 1 1 1 1 d 1 (n 1 0 1 O 1 1 1 00 1 1 1 1 Q 1'5 1 1 I I "O O 10 1� 1 Ip 1 IW 1 �� O 1 00 1� IN 10 1� 1 1'i 10 Id 1 1 1� 1 101 1 1� �N ,p 1-0 1L 1U 10 1y 141 1U 1'0 1U 1> 1> 1yJ x 1 1= 1 1 1 O 1 C 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1` 1> 1 0 1> 1 0 1— 1 0 I E d :� :: ::............ .. :: :a :a :�..L: I E m y) • O • O • O • O • O � L 2 , , , , .O co ,L •0 55 •C a �O � 1 m I O U X 1 X 1 X X � m 0 c c c Ip N 1 1 1 1 1 1 U 1 1 1 L 1 1 1 > m 1 1 I 1 1 I y 0 x l x I x I x d O O O 10 o Io Io Io � 1 1 im 1m 1m 1� 1 1 I m 1 1 00 > J I I J I I 1 n o Io Io to �� � E I = 1 � Z ; ; I t t 0 0 0 Io � •M 1 1 00 E 1 � Z 1 > I d o 10 F� co 1 1 16 I N ; ;(D 1 60 d E 1 o = Z 1 1 I I I W O 1 1 1 1 I 0 U 1 1 I 0 1 1 I 0 1 1 I I 1 1 O 1 1 I 1 1 1 0 O 'O � N U E 2 O m .0 Z O : N ,L L': 00 I N n !6 Q 0 O U 0 O U L_ co U) O (V O IT m C a Q w O J C O U) L Cn > U) Cn (D O N O 73 W W m U C m O r O � N > O c LU W f�6 W � U N M U N �O r r U o m 'm m m I o to jo o l0 0 o o o Io l0 0 Z Z o 0 1 I 1 v o jmr o l0 n 0 U �o dog oN U OO �� im0 T c` 1 N O o Im rn T oo Im rn s 6 O U o 1n m F I� Im m N o Iry rn b oo Im m 1 N o N F m I 1 to I� o jm m Z 1 moo O •O O •O O O 0 m o N O •O O •O O O I +f+ 1 _ N 1 IN N N O O O to as �O •O r m o jo 0 •O O rfr rfr rrr 1 rr 1 rr N q w ON to 10 Iw ION w 00 �$ O 10 O wa h0 o �0 0 l0 1 r I 1 �N LLa xa o � o IO i0 O N 1 1 a NO 1� O m I� ern W N i0 N aF N O O 1____ 1 10 >N 1 Io IoN O{7 'rn� oo �f2 Ivo O IO LLa W d N CD 1 Io Iv 1 N r , N 0 1 1 I 1 o � oN mcC joN N I N LL d �o O i O eo ar 1 1. m Io IN of 1w w N 1py oy w 00 to 10 Iv IO'n w O� Xf2 m0 �O IO IOD 00 rn t7 �m 1 IO W N 0 0 1 �r n O to IN N m cC �0 0 INO rn0 a LL v m I o la IN m m IN N OX I 1 IN t7 Im N N Z N rn to ION �0 0 _F oo 1m io p m o Im N 0 �0 m O 1N O m m v o 16 U U LL ;O 0 U N_ �O •N O N o to jo 0 � o o Io to Io l0 0 0 Z I 1 y oN �o dog oN U OO �� im0 C 0 T IO 1' N O U m to I� o o Iry rn sI 6 N to 1 N o N F m I 1 to I� o N O U moo ul to IN 1 o N Z I 1 O O �O �O •O •O O O 0 O �O •O O m O �O •O O rfr rfr rrr 1 rr 1 rr N q w ON to 10 Iw ION w 00 fC' S O^O Ip Imo h0 d l0 1� r I 1 �N xa O V IO i0 O N O O V a NO 1� O 10o ern W N I 1 V N 1____ 1 >N 00 Io IoN O{7 'rn� oo to Ivo rno LLa N CD 1 Io Iv 1 N r I 1 o � oN �o joN oN �o I� Ico eo ar m Io IN of 1 i____i ____ �o w 00 to 10 Iv IO'n w O� Xf2 m IO IOD 00 XM W t7 IO IO W N 0 0 1 >o om to IoN ON m cC m0 10 INO rn0 a LL v m I o la IN m m I 1 N ov to ION ooa oo io No o Im N 1____ m O 1N O to l0 U o 0 1b O m X O m O N N Z to loo o 0 d)IO 1 1b w O oo jo jmo mo K mo to Ic.o No I IN a U 00 I N n !6 Q 0 O U 0 O U L_ c N O O p O N (V V IT (6 Q a 0 O J C O U) L Cn > U) Cn (D O N O 73 W W m U I_ m O r O � N > O c LU W f�6 W � U N M U N �O r r U o m 'm m m I o to jo o l0 0 o o Io l0 0 Z Z o 0 0 1 I 1 i ____' ____ v o jmr o l0 n 0 U �o dog oN U OO �� im0 T 1 N O o U O I� N U oo Im rn 6 s I� o In F Im . m N sN 6 y 0 im to b o N oo Im m m I 1 to I� o jm m Z 1 O •O O •O O O 0 m o N O •O O •O O O I +f+ 1 y m 1N rn 6 O O 0 s O O O a o l0 0 •O O rfr rfr rrr I rr 1 rr N q w ON to 10 Iw ION w 00 �$ O 10 O x d to 1 r I 1 2� W T LL d O i O xa 1 O V IO i0 O N O O V a s I� O o I$ ern W N I 1 V N 1 I 1 1 >N 00 Io IoN �2 O IO Xd O iO O T N 0 1 1 1 14 >0 1 mcC o � I O I O LL d joN O i O �o 1 1. Ico eo ar m Iw w N loy oy 1 88 w 00 m0 Iv IO'n w O� xf2 rn IO I OD �m 1 Xd W T t7 N IO IO W V N o �r n O IN N ON to �0 0 m cC m0 IO INO rn0 a LL IN N OX m m IN N N Z ---- I 1 Im rn N �0 0 to ION _F oo Im p m No 0 to Im �0 I 1____ 0 o m m IN M v o U LL ;O U o U N_ �O •N O N o to jo 0 � o Io to Io l0 0 Z o 0 I 1 i ____' ____ y oN �o dog oN U OO �� im0 C 0 T IO 1' N U m to I� o o Iry rn sN 6 N to I 1 o N F m I 1 to I� o N O U I 1 N o N Z I 1 O O �O �O •O •O O O 0 O O O O m O �O •O O rfr rfr rrr I rr 1 rr N q w ON to 10 Iw ION w 00 �S d to I� r I 1 �N xa O V IO i0 O N O O V a NO I� O IOo ern W N I 1 V N 1 I 1 >N 00 Io IoN O{7 LL d m o 1 14 I 1 o � oN �o joN oN �o I� Ico eo ar m Io IN of 1 �o w 00 o IO Iv IO'n w O� xf2 00 IO I OD 00 Xd W T t7 N IO IO W V N o i r- I 1. >o ON to IoN ON m cC m0 IO INO rn0 a LL v m o la IN m m ---- I 1 N ov to ION ooa oo io No to Im N I 1____ m O IN O to l0 U o 0 1b O m X O m O N N Z to loo o 0 d)IO 1 1b w O oo jo jmo mo K mo to Ic.o No I IN a rn O ao w `0 m p i > 0 U 00 I rn Cl) o_ 0 N N (D N n 16 Q C 0 O U 0 O U L_ c N O ) O N r V IT (6 Q a 0 O J C O (n L Cn v VA (D N O -p N O LU 0 LU Q LUm U � C w+ O N C 0 � U O L LUW m U Cl) M d N N N m rn m W N O N o o S Z O o Z 0 0 v I 1 0 0 U o Iv Iv o lom loN w ooN U 0 0 r f2 m W N O Oo m Ir n 6 m m "° N N F 0 O Ir Im N O W ° m r r b m m m N N Z 0 N O O O U o 0 0 0 ° 0 0 m N 0 0 d O a N 0 � IOp I� 1 in u� o I d Id d da O Imo IOD IOpO x W x o 0 r ---- I 1 I 1 d N r N m�2 'm f2 LL LL O m N O O It7 10 1 O V a n N o 0 Ipy O 0 0 wa �o o Iv Iv O ION log T o 0 O IVD I00 `o wa T o IN I� n r 0 N o i r- I 1 Ola m0 00 IN 1� n rn� LL N 0 N o �o �0 d N O N O N m O Id Id I00 1p0 d O O 00 O M U m rn 0 m 0 W X O m v W Z IO Ir C7 N m m O � Z O v O O N O Ir O IN 10 N Z m m o 16 ~ U O rn N d O N O ,m •m p V �O �m N ID W 0 N V rn O i0 i0 rn o to to O IO to 0 0 Z o io i� o I 1 v o Iv Iv o lom loN w ooN U � T Io0 INO O o 1 1 ho a N OU Oo m Ir n 6 s 1 -------------- r____ N 0 O Ir Im h ° m Iv Iv O a la m m Z .............. o .o •0 0 rrr I rr 1 r rfr r*r 'n d O I w Im O ION IN N �S O ANO 10 O a o I l0 0 I� 1 in u� o I d Id d da O Imo IOD IOpO x W o Iry Im I o r ---- I 1 I 1 'm f2 O iN0 i0 O LLLL O O It7 10 1 O V o Ir to O N I r n N Ipy O 1 �o o Iv Iv O ION log w ON dcC O IVD I00 ND wa T o IN I� n r N o i r- I 1 m0 00 IN 1� n rn� O Ir IV o to l0 N 0 LLLL o �o �0 0 O Id Id I00 1p0 d O O 00 m . r r- O I� to OO IO Ir N O Im N O N O Ir O IN 10 N Z o I d) I IN O ON N rn N � Imo 1 O I(O 10 O rn O a° d `o m p 0 00 I rn Cl) o_ 0 N N (D N n 16 Q C 0 O U 0 O U L_ c N O ) O C14 N (V V IT (6 Q a 0 O J C O (n L Cn > U (D 0 O -p N O LU 0 LU Q LUm U � C w+ O c C 0 � U O L LUW m U Cl) M d O O d C N ID W N m rn m W N O N O i0 i0 o o S Z Oo o 0 0 v I 1 v 0 0 U � T 0 0 N r O Oo m Ir n 6 s 6 m m "° N N F N O (O ID Z r r o m m m 0 N N Z N O O O U o 0 0 0 ° N 0 0 m O 0 0 d 0 Op N �S o 0 a� 0 0 ill N N 'O O d `$ Q o O O wa o 0 'm f2 d N r N m�2 O LLLL LL LL O m N 1t7 10 I 1 O V o Ir to O N I n N a O o 0 1 0 0 wLL w ON dcC O IVD I00 T o 0 o Im I� `o N o i iV I 1 O m0 Ola n rn� O Ir IV o to l0 N 0 LLLL LL 0 N d N O N O N m d O O i�0 ip0 00 (/J O IOpO O � � U m rn 0 m 0 O I� to W X O m v W Z N C7 m m O O Im N � Z O v O Z o m w o m 16 (� o I� I N O ION 1N ~ � U O O d O N O ,m •m p V �O �m N ID W 0 N V rn O i0 i0 rn o to to O IO to 0 0 Z o io i� o I 1 v o Iv Iv o lom loN w ooN U � T I00 INO O o 1 1 NO a N OU Oo m Ir n 6 s 1 -------------- r____ I IN {� N � O Ir Im N m 0 la la m Z .............. o .o •0 0 rrr I rr 1 r rfr r*r 'n d O I w Im O ION IN N �S O ANO 10 O a o I l0 0 I� 1 Y/IN o Id Id d Imo IOD xa W d ry Im I IN Q o I 1 I 1 'm f2 O iN0 i0 O LLLL O O 1t7 10 I 1 O V o Ir to O N I n N yr Ip O 1 �o o Iv Iv O l0N log w ON dcC O IVD I00 ND wa T o Im I� n r N o i iV I 1 m0 00 IN 1� n rn� O Ir IV o to l0 N 0 LLLL o �o �0 0 O Id Id 1p0 100 d O O i�0 ip0 00 (/J O IOpO rn r- r- O I� to OO 10 Ir N O Im N O N O Ir O IN 10 N Z (� o I� I N O ION 1N rn N � Imo 1 O I(O 10 O 00 I (V n 16 Q C 0 O U 0 O U L_ c N O ) O r N (V (V (6 Q a 0 O J C O U) L Cn > U) (D O O NO -p N O LU 0 W p LU m U U C w+ O N C � O � U O L LUW m U Cl) M O O d N N N N N N N p 0 0 l0 0 N 0 N o o l0 to l0 0 ON o 0 Z o 0 0 0 v o 0 0 0 U Imo IN0 mo T c` 0 0 N O F 2 m W N O 00 N IN O U n m n rn N r r I 1 0 IN 1� ^ o S F N 0 N N O U r W n Z m rn o O y y O O O o .o •0 O 0 N N z Z 0 m N 0 p O O p o 0 0 0 ° 0 0 m N 0 0 0 o I l0 0 0 0 _ d ri m rn da O OD ill N O N N O I 1 x o 0 M. i0 O LLLL d N r N m� O LL LL m rn o Im jm o Im IN N ,o a 0 o 0 1 m rn �O o Iv Iv o l0m log w Om m m wa 0 �o xa W T O I� IN T o 0 1 1 `o 0 rn� Ola a 0 LLLL o �o �0 0 LL N d N O d O N 0 O O O O O n 00 C? O O O iN0 im0 y0j0 N- m N O rn O O pX m m W rn Z m n o U C7 {i n p m m � Z 0 v 0 O O IN IN O N O Im to o Z m w o m 16 ~ C7 U O ry N O p m N m N N U 0 0 0 l0 0 NN o o l0 to l0 0 Z o 0 I 1 v o Iv Iv o lom lom w oo^ � U Imo IN0 mo T c` O Iv IN 1 o IN lomi ,e o N O 00 N IN O 16 1 O IN 0 I^ 1^ � F r r I 1 0 IN 1� ^ o N m Z 1 O O O N O O O O o .o •0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 m o 0 0 0 rrr I rr 1 r rfr r*r d IN NS � O ON o to iso N 0 a o I l0 0 IN I ill N O I d I d d da O Ido IOD OD x O I iN N I 1 M. i0 O LLLL O IN 10 O I 1 o� o Im jm o Im IN N ,o o Io l0 0 1 �o o Iv Iv o l0m log w Om 0 � jyo lyo 0 �o xa W T O I� IN fV N 0 1 1 rn� I I o to l0 a 0 LLLL o �o �0 0 O Id Id 1p0 100 d O O 00 (/J O iN0 im0 y0j0 r i^ Ir I O ^ IN m O o m Im to IN e U O {i O N 1^ N O O IN IN O N O Im to N V m Z C7 0 to Im I Ig ry O O o to l0 y 0 � rn O a° d `0 m p! 0 00 I (V n 16 Q C 0 O U 0 O U L_ c N O ) O V N (V V IT (6 Q a 0 O J C O U) L Cn > U) (D O O NO -p N O LU 0 W p LU m U U C w+ O N C � O � U O L LUW m U Cl) M m m d N N N N N 0 0 l0 0 N 0 N o o l0 to l0 0 ON o 0 Z o 0 0 0 v o 0 0 0 U Imo IN0 mo T 0 0 N F O 00 N IN O U n m n rn N r r I 1 0 IN 1� ^ o S F N N N O U r O n Z m rn o O y y O O O o .o •0 O 0 N N z Z 0 m N 0 p O O p o 0 0 0 ° 0 0 m N 0 0 0 o I l0 0 0 0 _ d ri m rn da O OD ill N O N N O I 1 x o 0 M. i0 O LLLL d N r N m� O LL LL m rn o Im jm o Im IN N ,o a 0 o 0 1 m rn �O o Iv Iv o l0m log w Om m m wa 0 �o xa W T O I� IN T o 0 1 1 `o 0 rn� Ola a 0 LLLL o �o �0 0 LL N d N O d O N 0 O O O O O n 00 C? O O O iN0 im0 y0j0 N- m N O rn O O pX m m W rn Z m n o U C7 {i n p m m � Z 0 v 0 O O IN IN O N O Im to o Z m w o m 16 ~ C7 U O ry N O p m N m N N U 0 0 0 l0 0 NN o o l0 to l0 0 Z o 0 I 1 v o Iv Iv o lom lom w oo^ � U Imo IN0 mo T O Iv IN 1 ,e N 00 N IN O 16 1 O IN 0 I^ 1^ � F r r I 1 0 IN 1� ^ o N m Z 1 O O O N O O O O o .o •0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 m o 0 0 0 rfr r*r rrr I rr 1 r d IN NS � O ON o to iso N 0 a o I l0 0 IN I ill N O I d I d d da O Ido IOD OD x O I iN N I 1 M. i0 O LLLL O IN 10 O I 1 o� o Im jm o Im IN N ,o o Io l0 0 1 �o o Iv Iv o l0m log w Om 0 � jyo lyo 0 �o xa W T O I� IN fV N 0 1 1 rn� I I o to l0 a 0 LLLL o �o �0 0 O Id Id 1p0 100 d O O 00 (/J O iN0 im0 y0j0 r i^ Ir I O ^ IN m O o m Im to IN e U O {i O N 1^ N O O IN IN O N O Im to N V m Z C7 0 to Im I Ig ry O O o to l0 y 0 � rn O a° d `0 m p! 0 00 I (V n I6 Q 0 O U (n 0 O U L_ co N O O n Ln N N N m (6 Q a 0 O J C O U) L Cn U) (D O N N _0 O O N LU a) W c W_ C) m CJ O U O (n (V > U 0 o W U W m a U M ry 00 'V V U T O • N fV O �O I n o l0 0 o Io 0 Z jo o l0 0 o o Io to Io l0 0 0 Z 1 v o Id o log w oo$ � U INO NO T c` O 1 N 1 fV N O w iON O Im o U � o lm o Im m m "p 6 O iN N � 1 l o N O U b io 'm o jm o Im m m m O iN N Z o l O •O o o O lr Im n n O •O O 0 o O •O O m O •O O n N OU rrr 1 rr +f+ n m d io ION N �2 V0 O O INO IN 00 NO N LLF O r 1� -L I. �O �O •O •O O O i -ll N O I d d NN O O IOO OO O �O •O O WLL o Imo No 1 o d N I w w as r N m� o 10 Imo LL a 1 ;N 1 1. o � oo �oN odN � a� INo No 0 O 1� 1o'd O ON O x 1 1. O I �o 00 o Id O lON w ON dcC 10 O IND ND WLL T O IN N r N 0 1 O 1 I Ola iO i00 00 LL I 0 IN N 1. 1 I 1 N ld 1ooN d ooh ooN 00 DOO IN N O I� l0 Imo 1� 00 1 1 1. IN N O l0 O iON d Oh 10 �0 O 0 O 10 IOD OD wLL o o Im O V Ox N 1 l0 0 Z �0 0 00 �o �oN oN 'rna o m 1d O N V O LL � Imo � Imo o IN m 'a O N m o m IpN U E ;O ~ Q N O O 0 T O O �O r n o to jo 0 � o o Io to Io l0 0 0 Z I 1 V O �O w iON w Oh U � I� loo 000 o e ? c` io 'm N O O IO Im o U o o Io o lr Im n n S o o oo 1 I 1 l0 1� I I n N OU n m o io im Z I 1 O O �O �O •O •O O O 0 O �O •O O m O �O •O O ---1 rr 1 rr fr rfr o t o I w w as o 10 Imo A. N ;N N da 0 �Op 1o'd O ON O x O I loo 00 W 10 IN N 1 1 'm f2 O iO i00 00 LLLL O 0 IN N 1 I 1 ooN � ar O I� l0 Imo 1� 00 1 1 1. � 0 O �O iON d Oh dcC O 10 IOD OD wLL o o to O V N iN >o 00 �o �oN oN 'rna o �o Amo rno LL I N 0 ID IpN ON O iO i00 DO N N O p 1p 100 U 00, OD i00, iN0 NO 1b w O o 10 to 100 loo 00 Z o 00 IO IOD � O O o OD Im m 00 I (V n I6 Q 0 O U (n 0 O U L_ co N O O n O N N N m (6 Q a 0 O J C O U) L Cn U) (D O N N _0 O O N LU a) W c W_ C) m CJ O U O (n (V > U 0 o W U W m a U M ry 00 'V V U T O • N fV O �O I n o l0 0 o Io 0 Z jo o l0 0 o o Io to Io l0 0 0 Z 1 v o Id o log w oo$ � U INO NO T c` O 1 N 1 fV N O w iON O Im o U � o lm o Im m m "p 6 O iN N � 1 l o N O U b io 'm o jm o Im m m m O iN N Z o l O •O o o O lr Im n n O •O O 0 o O •O O m O •O O n N OU +f+ rrr 1 rr n m d io ION N �2 V0 O O INO IN 00 NO N LLF O 1� -F I. �O �O •O •O O O i -ll N O I d d NN O O IOO OO O �O •O O WLL o Imo No 1 o d N I w w as r N m� o 10 Imo LL a 1 ;N 1 1. o � oo �oN odN � a� INo No da O 1� �Op 1o'd O ON O 1 1. O �o loo o Id O lON w ON dcC O IND ND WLL T O IN N r 1 1 N 0 1 O 1 I 'm f2 Ola O iO i00 LL LLLL I O 0 IN 1. N ld 1ooN d ooh ooN 00 DOO IN N O I� l0 Imo 1� 00 IN N O � 0 l0 O �O iON 10 �0 O 0 O 10 IOD OD wLL o Im to Ox 1 l0 0 Z �0 0 >o 00 �o �oN oN 'rna m 1d O N V O rno � Imo � Imo o IN m 'a O m o m ID U E ;O ~ Q N O O 0 T O O �O r n o to jo 0 � o o Io to Io l0 0 0 Z I 1 V O �O w iON w Oh U � I� loo 000 o e ? c` io 'm N O O IO Im o U o o Io o lr Im n n S o o oo 1 I 1 l0 1� I I n N OU n m o io im Z I 1 O O �O �O •O •O O O 0 O �O •O O m O �O •O O ---1 rr 1 rr fr rfr o t o I w w as o 10 Imo A. N ;N N da 0 �Op 1o'd O ON O x O I loo 00 W 10 IN N 1 1 'm f2 O iO i00 00 LLLL O 0 IN N 1 I 1 ooN � ar O I� l0 Imo 1� 00 1 1 1. � 0 O �O iON d Oh dcC O 10 IOD OD wLL o o to O V N iN >o 00 �o �oN oN 'rna o �o Amo rno LL I N 0 ID IpN ON O iO i00 DO N N O p 1p 100 U 00, OD i00, iN0 NO 1b w O o 10 to 100 loo 00 Z o 00 IO IOD � O O o OD Im m 00 I (V n (6 Q 0 O U 0 O U L_ co N O O r N N N m (6 Q a 0 O J C O U) L Cn U) (D O N O 73 W W m U C O p N O N o rn W m C) a Lf) M N O O N O N V •O V U �O �O o m •o 06 m I o l0 0 to jo o l0 l0 0 Z o o o 0 0 0 Z 1 I 1 i ____' ____ V O �O w iON w Oh U O N fV loo 000 i N V U ao 1 0 0 N O o l0 0 6 s U � o O 1 1 1m I N O � U ao j o e b 1 1 I 0 l0 0 0 iO W z Z 1 O •O O 0 m I O •O O •O O O +f+ rrr 1 r O �O •O O 0 d �O 'O O N ON 00 �s O o 'o O a� m � 15 I w w i -ll N d I O d �N Orn � OD 10 Op cC DO i0 DO w° m to vi 1 d N 0 �Op r N rn� ON O LL a to 1 Oo wLL 1 1 w to w o m oN 10 0� O 0 10 a� .OI fC' NO 1� NO iO iN0 of 1 O vi O 1 1 of vi �o w to w o d2 �o 00 10 rnp N10 N WLL T co i O O N 0 1 NO O I 1 1 1. 1 I Ola O �O iON d Oh dcC LL 10 I OD WLL 1 O O O r N o N 1 d N Op V1 p V O o0 0o i o0 00 INo I 1 a LL o to IN N 1 N OU m 1 rn o 1 0 0 D o � o iO i00 m j rn x DO 1 e O Z I I 1 o 1 O O o � o 1p 100 1 U 00, (� ON SON N i00, iN0 NO o'rn a 1b o m w rn w > o o d :a Z U O N O O N N O O O �O �O o to jo 0 � o o to to l0 l0 0 0 Z I 1 i ____' ____ V O �O w iON w Oh U � I� loo 000 O V ? i0 iV N O U o O l0 0 1m I � N s 6 1 1 I N OU Z I 1 O �O •O O 0 O �O •O O m O �O •O O fr rfr ---1 rr 1 rr o t o I w w as o 10 'oo m Orn � d� 0 �Op 1o'd O ON O O to I�o Oo wLL 1 I 1 > A O 0 10 O .OI fC' O iO iN0 NO ii LL O I O 1 of vi I 1 1� o o �o IoM ooO ^ a� O I� l0 INo 1� NO I 1 1 1. N o O �O iON d Oh dcC O 10 IOD OD WLL O O O O r N o I 1 I 1. INo o $N a LL o to IN I I� 1____ I 1 N 0 D IQ d ON iO i00 O DO I I 1 O p 1p 100 d U 00, OD i00, iN0 NO Iv a 1b w O o o loo loo 00 Z o o 00 O to Iv a 6 C7 o jo IO boy IOD OD � O O IO IN h m O a° d `o m p U 2 > 0 00 I (V n (6 Q 0 O U 0 O U L_ co N O O co N N N m (6 Q a 0 O J C O U) L Cn U) (D O N O 73 W W m U C O p N O N o rn W m C) a Lf) M N O O N O N V •O V U �O �O o m •o 06 m I o l0 0 to jo o l0 0 Z o o o l0 0 0 0 Z 1 I 1 i ____' ____ V O �O O N fV U i I� N 000 O U ao 1 0 0 ? o l0 0 6 s O � 1 1 U N O l0 0 � � N U ao j o e b 0 l0 0 1 1 I 0 iO W z Z 1 O •O O 0 m O •O O •O O O I +f+ rrr 1 r O �O d O 'O N �O ON 00 �s o 'o O a� O fr rfr ---1 rr 1 rr m � I 15 i -ll N t o d I O d �N OD 10 Op cC Orn � DO i0 DO w° m to vi 1 d N r N rn� 0 �Op LL a ON O 1 O to 1 1 Oo wLL w to w o m oN 10 0� 1 I 1 > A a� O NO 1� NO O .OI fC' of 1 O vi iO iN0 1 ii LL �o I O w to w I 1 1� d2 00 10 rnp o �o N10 N WLL T co i O N 0 1 O I� l0 O NO 1 I Ola I 1 1 1. N o O �O LL d Oh I O 10 1 OD WLL O O N 1 d N N o Op V1 p V O o0 0o i o0 00 I 1 INo o $N a LL N 1 N OU IN m 1 rn o 1 0 o � o 0 D IQ d ON iO m j rn x 1 e O Z DO o 1 O I I 1 o � o O 1 p 1p 100 (� U ON SON N OD i00, iN0 NO o'rn Iv a o m rn w > o w d :a o o U O Z N O O N N O O O �O �O o to jo 0 � o o to to l0 l0 0 0 Z I 1 i ____' ____ V O �O w iON w Oh U � I� loo 000 O V ? i0 iV N O U o O l0 0 1m I � N s 6 1 1 I N OU Z I 1 O �O •O O 0 O �O •O O m O �O •O O fr rfr ---1 rr 1 rr o t o I w w as o 10 'oo m Orn � d� 0 �Op 1o'd O ON O O to I�o Oo wLL 1 I 1 > A O 0 10 O .OI fC' O iO iN0 NO ii LL O I O 1 of vi I 1 1� o o �o IoM ooO ^ a� O I� l0 INo 1� NO I 1 1 1. N o O �O iON d Oh dcC O 10 IOD OD WLL O O O O r N o I 1 I 1. INo o $N a LL o to IN I I� 1____ I 1 N 0 D IQ d ON iO i00 O DO I I 1 O p 1p 100 d U 00, OD i00, iN0 NO Iv a 1b w O o o loo loo 00 Z o o 00 O to Iv a 6 C7 o jo IO boy IOD OD � O O IO IN h m O a° d `o m p U 2 > 0 00 I rn Cl) O 0 N N (D co N O O) N (6 a w c O E O >. E E cncn a F` N V O a vm 'vm 1 O 10 N Z O 10 O 10 m � m m m 1 1 o U C Q to o to N m Im .W. U 6 Im o U m o m m m Z C 1� O O O •O O •O N 0 Q O •O N 1 N'p N6 N 'N r r�0 r a� m.p o to Ip N N C wa O 0 o to O M O M m� LLLL = M IM O 10 o T _F m 'm a� T 1� Uj 1 O Uj NO �cC M O O XLL w � 0 O 10 O 10 1 1 d a 1 1� LL 1 _F m N ;N O 10 O 10 1 1 _F m �_ 1 o.o N ;N T ' mlo v �v o Y Vlp V N m m 0 Z r r N IN �1 i 1 F i� m: U 1 O 10 r ,a a •v m'•o v v m o � 0 p.y c O E O >. E E cncn a F` N V a � Z m m � m m m m C Q N• N .W. N o O C • � •O � � Q N• N N'p N r�0 r T m.p T Ip N N C O.p O M O M = o T T ] Uj 1 O Uj M2 M `o d 1 m 1 m _y_ d > 1 1 Q m �_ 1 o.o T ' mlo m o Y Vlp V N NI Nlp N N �1 i 1 F m: U o.o m m'•o o � 0 p.y 0 � E J o m: N• W � . O. Z O.o `o m • o O o O � •O U o.p O.p O M O M = Z m •m `o O U m �_ U o.o V • V F U o.o E m: W � . O. N ¢] • O J m.a Ci C ' 00 I rn Cl) 0 0 N N N n 16 C Q 0 O U (n 0 O U L_ co N O O 0 N N N (1) m 6 Q a 0 O J C O () L U) U (D 0 N O 73 W W m C) C O 0 O LU W W m U d a d C LU O LD 9 N rn LU W mo U O w LE N to N V V co 'N U V •V �N 'N 1 w Iw Iw w �� Imp loo ioo z vo Ivo Imo Amo N N r- r- m Im Iv 'v 1 to loo U o ioo T 1 1 S F V 1 - 1 r IrIm m N O Ir r ... .. .... ..... L .... O •O •O •O O •O •O •O 0 O •O •O •O m O •O •O •O 1 1 1 o t o I w I yI 6 O 10 ION ION �S O �O ANO INO LL O 10 IN IN 1 1 MIN O 10 10 'O 1 t7 t7 �� O 1p IN 'N XLL W O IO INO ;NO 1 IN IN 1 ' LLLL 1 1 1 ' 1 1 o to Iv 'v I I N m ^�- O O 10 INO INO 1 IN N a� O 10 IN �N 1 1� Iv O �O iON ION NO O 10 INO INO WXM T 0 ID IN IN i iN N N 0 1 1 1 Ola I I ' 1 1 1 Iv Iv 1 loy goy N m0 Imo 1 1'___ 1 IN �N O1 10 10 1 1 O 1 'm Im 1 IN IN Z 1 to 0 1 bb O j j�o 'oo 1 ;NO co I IN IN �Awma ;mw : 9 m U v m E E w wD 'z zD 00 I N n 16 C C Q 0 O U (n R O U L_ co N O ) O n N N N N IT 6 Q a o J C O U) L Cn VA J Cl) O O N O 73 W W R U C O (V 0 O LU W W m U v m .o rn I w to oo l0 w 00 � N IO N N IO N _F I OD 10 Op 2 OD 10 Op U ? c` oo �o o`o N O ? c` m 1O mo 10 e N O 0 U m io n 1 0 in � o 1 N p O O 10 p O m Z m I m m 1O Z O 1 O •O O O O O O O .0 O O O ON 10 00 1 O NO 10 O NO Nq ON 10 00 O NO 10 O NO LL~ N N d I O ON 10 d 00 i _F I NOO i0 N I O NOO N i -ll N N d I O 10 d N� ON NOO i0 00 NOO LL O IL N 1 _F I N I I N m� i 1 1 rvo to N I NO N _F I om om to I 6 ar w rvo to NO NO i0 NO N 1 N _F I T `o N 10 N ibo w to w R� Ola NO i0 NO LL I I I wLL T N 10 N i0 `0 1 to I N 10 N O Ola 1 o 0 O LL 1 rn x O 1 1 N Z O I I 00 l o0 O 00 Om0 i0 �O 0 to O NO 1 of vi N 10 N O N10 F U o O N Z Y 1 L N IC 1 d m to rn x O N 10 10 N Z `w O O 'a 1 1 O 00 00 l o0 0 0 0 NO co io oi m muvi Z I �] � ,o m N N 0 N Z Y 1 L N IC OI • J d `w •a O v m �o rn I w to oo l0 w 00 � N IO N _F I 2 OD 10 Op U oo �o m IO o`o e ? c` mo 0 N O 0 U m io n N O O 10 p O m Z m I O O O O Nq ON 10 00 O NO 10 O NO LL~ N i N _F i -ll N N d I O ON 10 d 00 x IL LL NOO i0 N I O NOO N _F I m� ii a I I ar rvo to N I NO N _F I ibo w to w NO i0 NO wLL x T `o N 10 N Ola LL I I I Om0 i0 �O to I N 10 N O N U o 0 O I m o rn x O N 0 10 N Z O I I 00 l o0 O 00 0 0 0 O NO of vi m m0 Z I r �] F N ,o N N 0 N Z Y 1 L N IC d `w 'a O 00 0 0 N N N n 16 C C Q C 0 O U R O U L_ co N O O ) N N N N N m C Q a 0 O J C O U) L Cn U >. N (l Y co U U N O N • O OI Y ^ V _F 1. N N U O om log oo^ O W oo loo la 00 a W fV W W om lom N m D U umi I m N O N (6 � J o N to rn r O 0 aI R LU w LU c wU Y m w Cl) N L>6% 7 N N NO m m •� Ci U N O N • O OI ^ V _F 1. V O om log oo^ Z oo loo la 00 a N it7 fV v om lom umi I m N O N O umi 1 m rn o N to rn r O u w r O w W ^ � L u le m • � w N N m `w ~ 'a N N m `w ~ •a O N N m Ci U N O O V I. V O om log oo^ Z oo loo la 00 a N i t7 fV v om lom umi I m N O o N to rn u w r O W ^ � L u le w N N m `w ~ 'a O 00 I rn Cl) O 0 N N O 16 Q C 0 O U 0 O U L_ c N O O n N N m C 6 Q a 0 O J C O U) L > U 0 N O 73 W W m U O 0 O LU W W m U O W m N ry CL 0 O z N 6 I6 C) > r 0 O J N w O D Z N o �o o 0 O 10 p ry Z O 10 O 10 U oo 'oo I . � •f N p o to 0 0 Io r •f ry O O O Ir z O 10 O O Z � N O O ,O _ 1 ry Iry N q N O n I O n 00 100 aF oo ioo N �N -h N d d) N ,UN Om IOm 0 0 WLL N IN -h N N ' 1 L N m� 1 I LL LL I 'ON O N ON 00 loo ar oo ioo N IN -h �O N 'N 'ON ON OD Xa IOp O 10 W ? C o N ILN •f I I �o _ rn� 1 1 a LL 1 � -h I O �O p O 0 N O 0 O 10 v ;v 0 00 loo U mo Imo 1 . N IN v v o Z DO IDO 1 N IN 7 I m 'm O N IN O IO T ,a a v v m - m 00 I N n R C Q C 0 O U (n R O U L_ co N O O p N N N (V IT 6 Q a 0 J C O U) L Cn U) d ry O •O �O O •O O O (D O U o •o �0 0 O N p o j0 10 o 10 l0 O ry O O O O 10 10 O O Z W O i0 i0 O W p _F .F 1 dl d U W O �O SON o to loo Oh 00 R o U (n m a7 N p � (V 0 V, I^ 0 0 O .73 d R W W W 0 rC Q 0 (i N C r ... .L .... L.... f0 7 d ry O •O �O O •O O O O •O �O O U o •o �0 0 p o j0 10 o 10 l0 O 0 ry O O O O 10 10 O O Z O i0 i0 O _F .F 1 dl d V U O �O SON o to loo Oh 00 U o to 0 0 m a7 N p � o 10 l0 o to l0 0 0 N U I I o 10 l0 0 0 0 to l0 0 ... .L .... L.... N OO •O �O O b o •o ,0 0 m 1 I N A O 10 ION O 10 IOp Oh Op loo 00 i i N fV -F -F O 10 1) O to loN O ovl NN NN f2 0 10 0 O 10 ION O 10 IOp O ON Op x IL I l0 O 10 IN 0 N _F .F dN I I LL a I I 1 d O � d p ip ipN O 6 pN O a� o to loo O� 1 IN N illO O 1O Id O 10 ION d Oh xa 1� Ioo OQQ 0 1 I ola 1 LL 1 I _F .F N I 10 O O 1 to O (n _F .F I I d I lom d o� I IN N � Z I w I ION I Ioo w ON 00 1 Ioo o� N iiN O K O 1� oo N O 10 IN G Gi GG GG GG OI a N U d 15 o o o `o f a U • a � `m N Q • p L Y R d ry O •O �O O •O O O O •O •O O U o •o •0 0 p o j0 j0 o 10 10 O 0 ry O O O O 10 10 O O Z O i0 i0 O _F _F 1 1 dl d 2 O 10 100 to loo 00 U o O to l0 00 0 m a7 N p � o 10 10 0 to l0 0 0 N U I I o 10 10 0 0 0 to l0 0 ... .L .... L.... N OO •O •O O b o •o •0 0 m 1 1 N A a� O 10 ION O 10 IOp 10 100 Oh Op 00 0 N fV -F -F NN dry O 10 1) O to loN O ovl x O I l0 0 IL 10 IN N _F _F dN I I LL a I I 1 1 d d OV p ip 10 O 10 N ON O 6 Io O OQ 1 IN 4 4 N ill O O 1 O I d O 10 10N d Oh xa 1� Ioo OQQ ola 1 1 LL 1 1 _F _F N 1 10 O O 1 10 O (n _F _F I I w I lom d o� 1 1 I IN 6 N � Z I I w I ION I I00 w ON 00 1 loo o� N iiN K O O 10 1N 1 1 'G'Gi GG'Gi GG OI m • d ��-' • 6 d U d jpx a' .o o ` o f a �U •oa N Q • p 0 0 N N N n R C C Q C 0 O U R O U L_ co N O O Ln N N N N IT C Q a 0 O J C O U) L U) U O N O 73 W W_ m U I_ O N 0 O LU W W m U d N ,N O O rn N 0 (O • O • O ID N •' w 'w O Yj N 1 o00 loon -F I 1 m Im 2 w Op N �N M IM ? o to 1 m Im s m 0 .a a m v v m ,m m - m ;E O V IO V U w m 'o rn N 0 (O • O • O ID uj N •O Yj N -F I w to OD 10 w Op ? 0 to m N O V IO V U m �o rn �0 � N t70 10 u a m= 5 f `w 'a 0 0 N N N n mo C C Q C 0 O U 0 O U L_ co N O O N N N N IT C Q a 0 O J C O U) L > U w m 'o rn N 0 r r (O • O • O ID co to N •N O 10 uj N •O Yj N O -F N w to OD 10 w Op Z U cO G 0� W 0 to N 10 m W N V x N W N {7 U CO U D 1_ � 1� O (n O J a > >. m �o 0 .0 O LU LU j R (6 a°0 C C) N +' n w m 'o rn N 0 r r (O • O • O ID co to N •N O 10 uj N •O Yj N o to -F o to w to OD 10 w Op Z U Mo 1 0� ? 0 to N 10 m N V x N N 10 t7 O to N {7 U CO Ci 16 � 1� N O v to a U 'a a 'v m �o rn 'j m j5 m 0 0� a°0 C r 0 O� 1 v `w •a O N •N N r r U co to N •N O 10 N Z o to o to U m IN o to N 1 16 � 1� 'a a 'v 'j m j5 m 00 N n 16 Q x O U R O L_ co N O O ) n r N N N N m C Q a 0 O J C O U) L Cn U 7- v 1O2 . oo 2 N O 1O • 0 1p U N •p N O _F I N p N o jo O O O Z 73 O O LU m to W y v x v to m o 1 a a7 C 7 l0 0 to O_ C N � J N ry O (V N 10 ry U o r to n 0 O W r � a ry 0 q R LU N O N W 0 N r m N O 0 O C) N 7- v 1O2 . oo 2 N O 1O • 0 1p U N •p N _F I p N o jo O O 0 O Z O 10 O i0 O O � m to rn v x v to m o 1 a a7 p l0 0 to N O N ry O N 10 ry U o r to n 0 0 to 0 a ry 0 N a ry 0 N O N 0 N 0 O m N O 0 O N � L N a m= 5 f a m= 5 f `w �a p v 1On oo 2 N I p N o jo O O 0 O Z O 10 O O O F � Ii0 'r m to rn v x v to m o I a a7 p to o to N O N 10 ry U o r to n 0 0 to 0 a ry 0 N 0 N N O m N O 0 L N a m= 5 f `w �a p u O 00 N n mo Q x O U 0 O U L_ co N O O co N N N N m C Q a 0 O J C O U) L U O M C O O N � r O d N LU E W_ C. C C) a W o 0 L N �0 > C 0 0 O w L R LU w' LU co m o 0 O C N N N C 0 � 0 O v� m Off -Site Right -of -Way Improvements Greenhouse Gas Emissions 00 i m 0 0 r 0 N N Cy) 0 0 0) a M 0 N 0 LU W W_ m 0 C 0 N 0 0 LU W W m 0 i O r 0 O O 0 O a m d � o 0 w � j N � M O V O LL O N 0 O � N O M M O N (0 Q O O J O N T N 0_ Q d � LL d 'yi O N O N L U Q N d o o a` O z c � o m 0 N O N � a d a c— a � dt c xa U c `o N U N E r � .� U o m f6 m U L � t U � m r N Y T 0 VI J N � n U W r ° Q J C ° O d T c t W ° 0 E ^ O t N N Ot2 U d>� O C N T => N a E - = - N ^Z Oa r m U U— \ LU \ / { mo 0 Cl) mo \ 0 \ \ \ \ / a) / ° ( / \ ƒ 0 3: CD LO Z j \ D >\ E jE \ — \ \ = \ ( ( 0 3 \ \ ® \ E — > \ / § ) \ _ o _ \ \ ) 0 � §_ E ° § \ ) / \ ° \ ) / 0 LU ( \ \ \ \ t / ) \ \ \ 6 _ \ f \ E_ ) \ \ \ \ LU 00 0 0 0 N N d 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O 10 10 1� 10 10 IM 10 Im IN O 10 10 I— I 10 1 10 16 I? 1� ILL 1� IN 1'O 10 16 0 10 o l0 1� � 10 10 ,x ;o ,g m `m N N •� ,Y ,Y ,N ,�'� x '� '� m m ¢ ¢ ¢ m .0 ;N ,C_ � ,O , E ,O ,W m Z n ,y) m 0 O , O , , � Z , N , N , J , J U Z ,Z,� �� N LL ,LLI ,Q '> ' p" 'Q '� ,d' ,d' ,d' '"O N •O .t ;U p d 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O 10 10 1� 10 10 IM 10 Im IN O 10 10 I— I 10 1 10 16 I? 1� ILL 1� IN 1'O 10 16 0 10 o l0 1� � 10 10 a L E 7 N N C O .y N E W 0 N ;o N N •� ,Y ,Y ,N ,�'� x '� '� m m ¢ ¢ ¢ m .0 ,C_ � ,O , E ,O ,W m n ,y) m 0 O , O , Z , N , N , J , J U Z ,Z,� �� LL ,LLI ,Q '> ' p" 'Q '� ,d' ,d' ,d' '"O •O .t .t p ,0 ,E,E,E,E,E,E,E iz z o :O :O N N ' N ' N : : : : : : : : : : U o o o o o o o :a a L E 7 N N C O .y N E W 0 N 00 / ■ M � s § ) LU LU C) \ \ \ ) j °0 7 k ! / C § )) \ \ CO Xm § )) \ \ Xm 00 I (fl O N O LU W W m U C O N 0 cO G W W m U v ON •O �O �O �O m 00 •O �O •O •O Op c o to to o 10 10 to 10 to 10 p C ry O O O O 10 10 O 10 0 O O Z O i0 i0 x i0 O O 10 10 10 10 v z 2 U 0 0 0 o to to 0 to + y y W 0 N W Q O v v v w po^ o _ 10 10 d 10 N N O ON 10 10 00 10 10 10 10 10 10 O Op O pj DO i0 i0 E i0 DO _ 10 10 10 10 E N in 1 I 1 1 m N� 1 I 10 10 1 10 1 10 O 0 O 0 a x 10 10 10 10 10 10 NN N O Nf2 O 10 10 10 z O + Q y 0 N y Q W 1 l0 W 1 p iia I to I I O ----4---- ----4----4---- o jo to O 10 10 jo 10 jo 10 O_ A m �2F O 10 10 10 m O r"o 0 10 10 1 I 10 1 E 0 d� o to to to l0 0 E ---- 4---- 4---- io 1 jo d 1 po O1a 1 l0 N N N d Q N N N d L 9 O O m C t7 t7 t7 Z O 10 10 to I 1 I 1 O O d O O O p p N N N N i Q O O O yr r O o� to to 0 I I poa 0 U �0 1ci l0 1 1 in R N {7 I I N O O �o to to I I N �o N 7 ry ON •O �O �O �O 00 00 •O �O •O •O Op o to to o 10 10 to 10 to 10 p 0 0 ry O O O O 10 10 O 10 O 10 O O Z O i0 i0 i0 i0 O O 10 10 o 10 10 10 10 10 10 v O 0 2 U 0 0 0 o to to 0 to 0 l0 0 0 b to to om 10 10 jo 10 jo 10 O U w po^ o _ 10 10 10 10 N O ON 10 10 00 10 10 10 10 10 10 O Op O pj DO i0 i0 i0 i0 DO _ 10 10 10 10 N 1 I 1 1 N� 1 I 10 10 1 10 1 10 O O 0 a o 10 10 O 10 IO O 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 NN N O O Nf2 O 10 10 10 10 O I IO 1 1 dN O m� 1 l0 1 1 p iia I to I I O ----4---- ----4----4---- o jo to O 10 10 jo 10 jo 10 O_ A 0 O �2F O 10 10 10 10 O r"o 0 10 10 1 I 10 1 10 1 0 d� o to to to l0 0 ---- 4---- 4---- io 1 jo 1 1 po O1a 1 l0 1 1 O LL I I I O IIo N O 10 10 to I 1 I 1 O O O 0 O to l0 1 1 p p N O i0 i0 i i OO O o� to to 0 I I poa 0 U �0 1ci l0 1 1 ep N Io IIo I I N O �o to to I I N �o � oo to to O O I 1 op 1 I o to to m to to 1 j I 1 j I w O� 0 � �o �o of 1 0 1. 1 1 vi 1 [----L iii iiiii 1 ii iii ii 1 iiii O � T d • m ' N • �d.. • `d R m d .'n U 00 I Cl) 0 o_ 0 N N 16 Q C 0 O U (n 0 O U L 0 O O) U) _ (n O w fl IT Ac IT \ a w O J C w w O U u A O z1 M d N O p N 0 00 N 00 •O �O •O •O Op O 73 W LU ) 0 0 R O W L c O � w O O O O O O 10 10 10 10 O O R > p w O LU LU L w O 0 w R i� N +' O N O u A O z1 d N O p N ON •O �O �O �O 00 00 •O �O •O •O Op o to l0 10 10 to to O 0 ry O O O O O O 10 10 10 10 O O Z O i0 i0 i0 i0 O O 10 IO 10 10 ° O O v 2 o to Io to l0 0 0 0 0 0 to to to l0 0 0 NO U o o to to to l0 0 0 di to Io to to om to to to to m F O O U w po^ N O O 00 10 IO 10 10 � IO IO IO 00 � r 1O w to to to to om to to to to y o m Z O 0 O U w po^ 0 00 to to to to 00 N pj 10 IO 10 10 z L .... L....L_ ° O O mO N 1 I 1 1 d N� �F O 10 1 10 10 O 10 1 00 10 10 O O d O IO IO IO IO O NN 1 I 1 1 m� op NN N 1 1 1 O 10 IO 10 10 1 I 1 1 O x W Nf2 O 10 10 10 10 O x O i0 i0 i0 i0 O >� 4 522 p wul 1 10 1 1 O LLd m� 1 l0 1 1 p �a 1 l0 1 1 0 LL I I I ____4____4____ oq O � � o to io to to o to Io to l0 o 0 d~ �F o to to to l0 0 t � 0 o i"o_ o to Io to to 1 I 1 1 o Wd 10� o to to to l0 0 Ijd o to to to to o >O 0 >O O i I i i Op d d O1a 1 I� 1 1 O LL 1 I� 1 1 O N O I I I I N o N O 10 10 I I to l0 1 1 O O O O to 0 1 1 p p N O i0 i0 i i OO 0 0� io io i i 00 ga N 1� I� I I N x p ON 0 0 i_ I I I I___ ti O I� of 1 o I o 1 1 vi 1 I 1 1 T •T v C Cp �O W rc u A O z1 00 i (D 0 N O LU W W m C) c O N 0 O LU W W Fo C) O U LL a m 0 °� Im Im I� Iv Im m I I I I 1 --1---L-L--1--;" � o to to to to Io � I 0 1 = I m 1 m 1 � 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 = 1 1 1 1 1 = 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1--1--1--1--+- d 1 1 1 1 T 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 U W O C 01 F- 0 p ` 1 1 0 m N Z m m L a m m m m m m 5 5 5 5 5 5 G 'G 'G 'G 'G 'G 00 I (V n M (D O N O 73 W W m (J C= o O N O N > O c LU W f�6 W � U N M N O �2 'm rn O U I O ,O O N o l0 0 0 10 l0 0 Z o o 0 0 � o o Io to 10 l0 1 Z v o jo o l0 0 0 U I 1 N U OD U IOD O Im o O m oo IM IN 6 s T c` ry F NR Im rn N r 0 0 1� s N io b N oo IM � m 1 I 1 l0 1� o �m rn Z 1 10 o IN _ Z O •O O •O O O 0 m N O •O O •O O O I +f+ 1 O O �O �O N O O 0 as �O •O O m m �O •O O � I rr+ I ++ 1 ++ +f+ +f+ i -ll N O I N N N O I (O ID d$ O 10 O wa o �0 0 y m io ;N rn vi >N ON I ON m� �N oo i o0 LLLL da m 1 m IO i0 O N 1 LL oV I� 0 w IN og Im o og a� O m mCD I of of I 1 1 1 >N oO 00 o Im m O{7 o m I rn d� o l0 0 r o �0 0 ijLL 5. 0 _ 1 1 I 1 0 1 w c l0 I� 0 aF 0o oo �o �0 LL m I e l0 10 1. N Id lom d om O d 00 i'00 NOO Ow � 10� oo to Ioo I� xa W N to to Iv a h 0 o 1v a O IN N �0 0 'rn� mo Io l0 0 LLLL 1� to U 0 IN N N N Z I 1 Im m N i0 O 10 I IN 1 V _F U O O i0 O 1000 O C? 1O 10 I� N i0 O m to jm rn O � Io to IV l0 N U o d U LL ;O � ____F____F____ O U m N O ,O O N o to jo 0 � o o Io to 10 l0 0 0 Z I 1 U OD IO IOD ND O m I IN N r T c` ry to Im IO I� NR N O U r 0 0 IN s N io io 1 N F N 1 I 1 l0 1� N O U r 10 o IN _ Z 10 1� N I 1 O O �O �O •O •O O O 0 O �O •O O m O �O •O O rr+ I ++ 1 ++ +f+ +f+ Ns F Im a y m io ;N rn vi �N da O V IO i0 O N O O V LL No I� 0 loo yo w I of of I 1 1 >N 00 IO IO t7 O{7 ii LL r 1 0 I ry vi I 1 w to Io l0 I� 0 aF 0o oo �o �0 0 of l0 10 0 1 mo d 00 o IO Iv IO'd Ow � 10� oo to Ioo 00 xa W N to to a r h 0 o I Im I 1 'rn� mo Io l0 0 LLLL to �0 0 ry I 1 N d V 10 I IN 1 V d V U O O i0 O 1000 O C? 1O 10 I� N m to jm rn O � Io to IV l0 N U o 0 ____F____F____ 1b 0 0 1 m O V O I 100 loo N Z IO 1^ O O d) IO 1 1b w C7 om to lom om LL' y0 �0 !NO p0 U 00 I (V n M (D O N O 73 W W m (J C= o O N O N > O c LU W f�6 W � U N M d m 0 O �m rn d N O �2 O U 'm rn O N I o l0 0 o o Io 0 Z � o l0 0 Io to Io l0 0 Z o 1 0 v o jo o l0 0 0 U I 1 U N IO IOD ND U O m O IN o N r oo IM ry 6 s NR N O U F r Im rn N s 1� io io 1 N F b 1 I 1 l0 1� oo IM � m o �m rn Z 1 10 1� N O •O O •O O O 0 m I O •O O •O O O +f+ 1 O O �O �O •O •O O O 0 Nd �O ON' 7 as O �O •O O +f+ +f+ rr+ I ++ 1 ++ v � I i -ll N O I N N N O I N ID d$ O 10 O wa io o 0 dN >N N ON I d ON m� da oo i o0 IO i0 O N O O V a No � loo yo w w IN o y° of I aF I 1 1 oo �0 0 >N 00 IO IO t7 O{7 1 oO o Im m r o m I rn d� o l0 0 I 1 o �0 0 ijLL 5. 0 _ 1 1 l0 I� 0 aF 0 o0 1 �0 c oo I o0 ma l0 Oo i Oo LL co 1 15 mo 1. d 00 o IO Iv ION Ow � 10� Id d N Ioo lom om O N i'00 NOO a r h 0 o I Im I 1 I� Iv a 'rn� Iv a O 0 IN N to �0 0 ry I 1 N 1� d V 10 I IN I V IN N U Z O N Im N m O i0 O _F 10 I� N Ir O m ^ jm rn O � Io to i0 O U o 0 ____F____F____ 1b d U LL ;O � 1 m O d m 0 O U m N O ,O O N o to jo 0 � o Io to Io l0 0 Z o 0 I 1 U OD IO IOD ND O m I IN N r r c` ry Io Im IO I� NR N O U r 0 0 IN s N io io 1 N F N 1 I 1 l0 1� N O U r 10 0 IN_ Z 10 1� N I 1 O O �O �O •O •O O O 0 O �O •O O m O �O •O O +f+ +f+ rr+ I ++ 1 ++ Ns F Im a y m io ;N rn vi �N da O V IO i0 O N O O V LL No I� 0 loo yo w I of of I 1 1 >N 00 IO IO t7 O{7 ii LL r 1 0 I ry vi I 1 w 0 to I l0 I� 0 aF o0 0 �0 0 of to l0 0 1 mo d 00 o IO Iv ION Ow � 10� oo to Ioo 00 xa W N to to a r h 0 o I Im I 1 'rn� mo Io l0 0 LLLL to �0 0 ry I 1 N d V 10 I IN I V d V U O O i0 O 1000 O C? 1O 10 I� N m to jm rn O � Io to IV l0 N U o 0 ____F____F____ 1b N o 1 m O y I O Ioo loo N Z IO I^ O O d) IO 1 1b w C7 om to lom om LL' y0 �0 !NO p0 rn `0 w 0 U d m 0 00 I N n mo Q 0 O U (n 0 O U L 0 d) ) n O (1) O m c m m w a J Y s= N N O M (D O w N — _0 .0 73 m LU N LU W U 7 N O_ to N > o 0 w O � L LU LU C) U r V N O O U •O O •O o •o O 10 N Z O 10 O 10 _F o jo o U to o to o 0 1 N p s 6 o 0 o to N O 1 O 10 p O] O 10 O 1 O Z � O •O O •O 0 O •O m O •O 1 NN O �O 00 O �s o ;o a� o to N O$ O O 1 wa O 10 o to OI f2 O 1O LLd O 10 _F o 'o �F a 0 10 o to 1 �o o jo 0 0 10� xa W T h c O o io o 0 1 LL �f 1 1 rna LL o to O 10 _F N O ;O O O p N O 10 O 10 O 10 _F O O ;O O 10 U o to o to px o ,o 0 0 o to Z o to o to 1 to p o o to r ,a a •v v v m Cl) V x_ G1 v LL V 00 I Cl) 0 o_ 0 N N N n 16 C C Q 0 O U (n 0 O U L_ 0 O) ) n O (1) N m (1) Q m w d J C N N O M (D 0 N O 73 W W m U C O N 0 O LU W W 16 U 9 N to m LU W mo U O w LE N O O U •O �O •O O •O �O •O o •o �o •o .... i.... i.... .... O to 0 0 00 100 100 100 Z o to l0 10 ' 1 I o jo to jo U o to l0 10 T 1 N O 1 0 to 0 0 6 S 1 I O 1 I o 10 10 �o I I , O U b 0 to l0 10 O •O �O •O O •O �O •O 0 O •O �O •O m O •O �O •O 1 I 1 N 1 I 1 O 10 10 10 N 6 �s 1 I , wa o o �o �,o0 1 1 1 ' LLLL 1 1 I ' 1 I o jo to 'o aF o �o �0 10 1 1 o jo to jo �O 10� 0 to to io Ola I I ' 1 I N 1 10 �O 1 10 10 O N 1 10 10 0 I to 1 to �o O1 10 10 to jo ----F----F----r 1 I 0 1 0 1 Z 0 0 1 l0 10 to jo 1 io �o � 1 l0 10 to jo .ma ;m� o •�mm .mm m um U m mE mE 1L wD 'z zD 00 I N n R C C Q 0 O U R O U L 0 O) ) O (1) r m c Q m w d J C E a) 0 M M O O N O 73 W W R U C O 0 O LU W W m U � O O N O O O U o o O 0 p N 0 O Z O O 0 0 O O 0 0 � U 0 o 0 0 r r N O U � o 0 R 0 0 r 0 0 N pU O o b O o O 0 m d d Z O O N p U o O o 0 O 0 b m o 0 0 0 O N O N wa o 0 j N m� Ild O O O N O O `$ F a O O o 0 O O 0 in o 0 0� 0 0 0 wa o R 0 T 0 m� O O O O N O O O O O O O U o 0 o o 0 0 x p 0 0 Z o 0 0 0 0 C7 0 p o 0 � T 0 0 0 0 m p v m >> O r o m0 m z w `o d � z y :° O n Q � O O N O O O U o o O 0 p N 0 O Z O O 0 0 O O 0 0 � U 0 o 0 0 r r N O U m o o 0 0 0 r 0 0 N pU O o b O o O 0 m d d Z O O N p U o O o 0 o 0 b m o 0 0 0 O N O N wa o 0 j N m� Ild O O O N O O $ F a O O o 0 O O 0 in o 0 0� 0 0 0 0 wa o 0 T 0 m� O O O O N O O O O O O O U o 0 o o 0 0 x p 0 0 Z o 0 0 0 0 C7 0 p o 0 � 0 0 0 0 w 00 0 0 0 N N N n R C C Q C 0 O U R O U L d) O O N r m N c m Q R w d J C N E N O s] M w >. o O (� Y co U p o 0 o 0 0 0 p NO Y N N U r r - 0 W v cO G o 0 W 0 W W o 0 O N N O R D U 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 _T V N Z O R o � J 5 w > v o` w � Z N 0aI R W w W O n W Y R U Cl) 10 7 w o O 0 O N O O O p o 0 o 0 0 0 p NO Z 0 O 0 r r - 0 0 v o 0 2 0 0 p o 0 O 0 0 N O O p � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 _T V N Z b 0 E o v 5 w v o` w � Z N O n w o O 0 O N O O O p o 0 o 0 0 0 p N Z O 0 O 0 r r - 0 0 v o 0 2 0 0 p o 0 O 0 0 N O O p � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 _T V N Z b 0 E o v 5 w v `o w � Z N O n 00 I 16 C Q C 0 O U (n 0 O L_ 0 O) ) n O (1) V m c T a 6 w a J N E N O M 0 N O 73 W W m C) O 0 O LU W W m C) 5, N v ;v N O O 0t7 SON U N p Np ,Np 1 o ,o o 0 O 10 p ry Z O 10 O 10 _ I -h v p O �O o 0 to 2 O 0 0 O O O O 10 10 o ,o Z _, � •f EI EI N O o00 loco m mo Imo •f ry 1 O O b U p Oo ,00 0 0 00 loo I m , , d) . N d o to Imo mo oO to loo O� F I1 1 'i i N O N Ip O O 1 O o Io Imo mo Z o 1 L. NN N O IO 1 x O 0 ,ja o to , v N ' , N m�2 1 I LL LL I I -h 1 1 o 'o 2 F a O 0 o ,o O , 10� 1 xa w 2. o o to o to , 10 10 ma ja ' LL O ' , O ,O O 10 p m O 10 O 10 LL a I I 0 00 ,00 U �o ,moo 1 N ,N O �F o to l0 0 0 00 'moo Z ---- 4---- 4---- DO IDO r"o_ 1 1 w �m 0 o to l0 00 'moo I� M IM 0 ,a a m w v m - 1 1 m E ---- N O •O •ON 00 O O O N p N p U o •o _ p 0 0 0 1 1 o ,o ,0 O 0 ry O O O O 10 10 O O Z O i0 i0 O _F _F 2 0 0 0 to l0 0 p o 0 , , d) N d o to Imo mo oO to loo O� F I1 1 'i i N O O 'O IO O 0 o Io Imo mo Z o 1 L. N 1 1 1 1 �F O �O �O O 1 1 10 10 ja O O LL a I I o to to O �F o to l0 0 ---- 4---- 4---- r"o_ 1 1 10� o to l0 0 O1 a 1 1 ---- N I IO O O 1 10 O m o p v I Ioa 1 loo a, ga 00 I IN N � Z v I ION I loo a, ON o� 1 loo o� 1 -------------- - coN N t7 {7 i i T N m m v E • 6 m• t Tei- � u � m m Uo w m " o a EU •`oa `m N Q p 00 I N n 16 Q C 0 O U (n R O U L 0 O) ) n O (1) LD m V c Q m w a J Y C N N O M N O �O SON 00 O (D hp O N p o O O , o ,o ,0 O ry O O O O 10 10 O O Z W O i0 i0 O W p _F _F U W w O O O , o ,o ,0 O 0 R o U p (n o 0 , d) (V 0 V, I^ d U o Io Iom o to Imo O oO LU R R W G1 LU yd R 6 Q (i N O O 10 Imo 00 m0 C6 N O �O SON 00 O O �O �Np hp p o O O , o ,o ,0 o 0 ry O O O O 10 10 O O Z O i0 i0 O _F _F v O O O , o ,o ,0 O 0 2 0 0 0 to l0 0 p o 0 , d) N d U o Io Iom o to Imo o^ mo oO to loo 00 F I1 I 'i N O IO IOm O O O 10 Imo 00 m0 Z O L. N 1 I 1 I N �F O 10 0 O �O �O O O 1 I _ df2 10 ,ja O O O dN I I LL a I I o to to 0 �F oo to to 00 1 I R� o to l0 0 >0 1 I Ola 1 _F _F N I IO O O 1 IO O m _F _F p p I I d I lov 1 loo d ooa 00 I IN N � Z I I w I ION 1 loo w ON 00 1 Iqo 00 1 I� 1 I w jw jw p Ip t7 IpN w O{7 p O K oo Imo loo m I N l ul �o vi G Gi GG GG GG U '=oo a `oa F a U 0 0 0 N N N n R C C Q C 0 O U R O U L O O n O N O m N c m Q R to d J to C N E N O s] M M O N cO G W W R U I_ O N 0 O LU W W m U N o O 0 O N O U O o o O O 0 o jo O 10 O N Z O 10 O 0 o to - 2 O �O O 10 p N O U o to s r o to 0 0 N 0 D I o - a° °o ca C O u co �U p o to o 0 s 6 m o o Ip F we I O n ,a v v m - m ;E N a f� 7 w o O 0 O N O U O o o O O 0 p N 0 O Z O 0 O 0 r - v 2 p o O o 0 O o O 0 O 0 0 N O U O 0 o s r o O 0 0 N 0 D p rn o - a° °o ca C O u co �U N � zy m o we O n Q 0 0 0 N N N n R C C Q C 0 O U R O U L O O O N r m N c m Q R w d J C N E N O s] M w o O M N O p O •O O o o O O 0 p N 0 O Z O O 0 N v 2 p o O o 0 O o 0 0 O 0 0 cO G O 0 0 s r LU o O 0 W N m 8 ° a° o ca W o w co U D o 0 zy m o o �o O �, r � R O o � J i >. 0 .0 O LU LU j R (6 C) N +' n w o O 0 O N O p O •O O o o O O 0 p N 0 O Z O 0 O 0 r v 2 p o O o 0 O o 0 0 O 0 0 N O p � O 0 0 s r o O 0 5 w 0 D `o N m 8 ° a° o ca o w co o 0 zy m o o �o �, r O o 'a a 'v 'j m j5 m A N O O •O p o •o o jo O Z O 10 o �o 2 O �O O O p o �o o �o N O O �O o 0 6 s o �o 'a a 'v 'j m j5 m 00 0 0 O N N N n mo Q C x O U R O U L O O O N co m N x m Q R w d J C N E N O s] M w o O 0 O N O p O o o O O 0 p N 0 O Z O O O N V x p O O o 0 O o O O O 0 0 cO G O 0 o 0 r W 0 o 0 W y m N w `o U D w O_ C � J O o N > A L 0 O W W r 73 q R W W � r C) N � w o O 0 O N O p O o o O O 0 p N 0 O Z O O O O V x p O O o 0 O o O O O 0 0 N O p � O 0 o 0 r 0 o 0 a v o x `o m N �O w `o w zy `w m o c O o 4 w o O 0 O N O p O o o O O 0 p N 0 O Z O O O O V x p O O o 0 O O 0 0 J—,O,BO o a v 0 o `o m N �O v `o d Zy m O n 4 u O 00 0 0 O N N N n mo Q x O U 0 O U L 0 O O O N d m N x Q m w d J C N E N O M O co C (D O N � r O d N LU E W_ C. C C) a W o L N �0 > C 0 0 Ow L R LU w N W m o v� 0 m O C N N N C 0 � 0 O v� m Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station Appendix VIII Appendix VIII. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Prepared by JHA Environmental dated February 28, 2017 HA 2646 Palma Drive, #450 Ventura, CA 93003 Environmental P: 805-654-9611 F: 805-654-9613 February 28, 2017 Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. 300 E. Esplanade Drive, Suite 1660 Oxnard, CA 93036 Attn: Ms. Susan Tebo, President REPORT Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Proposed Santa Clarita Valley Sheriffs Station City of Santa Clarita Public Works Department, City Project No. F3023 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report provides the results of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) performed by JHA Environmental, Inc., (JHA) of approximately 7.9 -acres of land located along the west side of Golden Valley Road south of Centre Pointe Parkway, Santa Clarita, California (Site, Plate 1). The Site is currently and temporarily occupied by Los Angeles County Fire Station 104 with the address of 26201 Golden Valley Road, Santa Clarita, California 91350. This ESA addresses the project footprint which extends fifty feet north, west, and south of the current property boundaries identified with Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) 2836-012-905 and 2836-016-909. The objective of the Phase I ESA is to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs), historical recognized environmental conditions (HRECs), and controlled recognized environmental conditions (CRECs) at the Site. As defined in the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Designation E 1527-13, RECs include "the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) do to release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. De minimis conditions are environmental conditions that generally do not present a threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies, are not recognized environmental conditions". HRECs include "a past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting `unrestricted' use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to any required controls". CRECs include "a recognized environmental condition resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority, with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls. A CREC shall be listed in the findings section and as a REC in the conclusion section of the report. ASTM E 1527-13 is also the standard to satisfy the federal All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) standard. ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION SERVICES Contractor's License: CA 995017 A HAZ Ms. Susan Tebo February 28, 2017 Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Page 2 The ESA was performed in accordance with the scope of work provided in JHA's proposal dated September 12, 2016 and with the ASTM scope of work for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments - E 1527-13. In general, the investigation included a review of current federal, state and county databases of known and potential environmentally impacted properties, a review of available city and county records, a review of available historical aerial photographs and historical maps, a review of an environmental lien search report, interviews with persons knowledgeable about the Site history, and a Site reconnaissance to observe present conditions. Past Site owners and Site uses have been identified and are discussed in other sections of this report. There were no data gaps encountered during the assessment. In summary, based on the information reviewed and summarized in this report, this assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions, as previously defined, and there are no mitigation measures required for hazardous materials at the Site. I declare that, to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in 40 CFR Part 312.10. I have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the subject property. I have developed and performed the all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The Site is located in the north half of the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 25, Township 04 North, Range 16 West, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian. JHA understands that the intended future use of the Site is as a county sheriff station. Photographs showing the current development of the Site and vicinity are provided in Attachment A. 2.1 Physiographic Description The Site is located in the Santa Clarita Valley, within the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province of California. The Valley is bordered by the Lake Piru area, including the community of Val Verde, Los Padres National Forest, and Castaic Lake to the northwest, Sierra Pelona Mountains and Angeles National Forest to the north and northeast, San Gabriel Mountains to the east and southeast, and Santa Susana Mountains to the south and southwest, and Ventura County and the Santa Clara River Valley to the west. The Site elevation is approximately 1,398 feet above mean sea level (msl) as recorded on the USGS Newhall and Mint Canyon 7.5 -Minute Topographic Maps (2012). The general topographic gradient at the Site slopes downward to the north-northwest at approximately 0.019 feet per foot. 2.2 Geology/Hydrogeology The Site is located in the Santa Clara River Valley Groundwater Basin and is underlain by continental Pliocene to Pleistocene age mostly unconsolidated sandstone, shale, and gravel deposits (Geology of the Conterminous U.S. at 1:2,500,000 Scale — a digital representation of the 1974 P.B. Kind and H.M. Beikman Map, USGS Digital Data Series DDS —11, 1994). The alluvial deposits overlie crystalline bedrock. According to the California GeoTracker database, the depth to groundwater at a property approximately 2.0 miles northwest of the Site is approximately 62.3 feet below ground surface (bgs). The well at which depth to groundwater JHA Environmental, Inc. Ms. Susan Tebo February 28, 2017 Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Page 3 was measured is approximately 100 feet lower in elevation than the Site, so groundwater beneath the Site can be expected to be approximately 162 feet bgs. 3.0 INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS JHA reviewed available reports, maps, photographs, and government databases regarding the history and development of the Site, and performed a reconnaissance of the Site and the Site vicinity. 3.1 Federal and State Database Review A government database report, prepared by Environmental Data Resources (EDR) of Milford, Connecticut of available federal, state and county agency databases was reviewed to identify government regulated properties having known recognized environmental conditions and potential environmental concerns within the vicinity of the Site. The radii of investigation for the Federal and State agency lists were selected in accordance with the ASTM Standards. The various government databases reviewed are described in detail in the EDR report. Also included in the EDR report are maps illustrating the locations of listed properties relative to the Site. A copy of the EDR Summary Report, dated January 6, 2017, is provided in Attachment B. A summary of properties that could not be mapped by EDR but were identified as being potentially within the Site vicinity (orphan properties) is also included in the EDR report. Of the two listed unmappable properties, neither is identifiable as being in the immediate Site vicinity. The other pertinent findings of the government database review are summarized as follows: The Site was identified on the Los Angeles County Hazardous Materials System (IIMS) and the Hazardous Waste Information System (HAZNET). Captain John Ahten of the Santa Clarita Los Angeles County Fire Department (LAFD) 104 (current occupant of the Site), when asked if he had any knowledge of hazardous materials or petroleum products on -Site said that the Department maintains a drum of engine oil for vehicle maintenance. He is unaware of any other substances on -Site that would warrant the above -listed distinctions. The Site is not located within 1.0 mi of a federal Superfund site. The Whittaker Bermite property, located approximately 0.4 mi south-southwest of the Site, is an inactive 996 -acre facility formerly used for the manufacture and testing of munitions. Operations at Whittaker Bermite ceased in 1987 but is currently listed on the DTSC's data management system (EnviroStor), Hazardous Waste and Substance Site List (HIST CORESE), the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incident Reports (CA LUST), and the Local Lists of Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Sites (CA HIST). Given the distance between the two properties, there is a low probability that Whittaker Bermite has impacted the Site. JHA Environmental, Inc. Ms. Susan Tebo Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. February 28, 2017 Page 4 There are seven EnviroStor sites within 1.0 mi of the Site. The closest is Whittaker Bermite, discussed above. Two properties are listed as RCRA Small Quantity Generators (SQG) of hazardous waste within 0.25 mi of the Site. The closest of which is Blue Cross Laboratories located 0.13 mile north-northeast of the Site. The other, Hi -Shear Technology, is located 0.25 mile north of the Site. Both are downgradient from the Site. Designation as a RCRA SQG does not imply that a release to the environment has occurred. Merle Norman Cosmetics, located 0.25 mile+ north of the Site, is a CA Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System (SWEEPS) Underground Storage Tank (UST) site. It is the only such listing within 0.25 mi of the Site. Two facilities within 0.5 mi of the Site are listed as CA LUST properties. Santa Clarita LLC, 0.41 mile south-southwest is the closest. The other CA LUST property is Whittaker Bermite discussed above. Based on the database review, the Site is listed in Los Angeles County HMS and HAZNET databases as LA County Fire Station 104. The Site is not located within 1.0 mile of a federal Superfund Property. There is a low probability that the Site has been impacted from other listed properties because of either/or their down -gradient locations, their status (case closed), or their distances from the Site. 3.2 Oil and Gas Development According to the California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources database, the Site is not within the boundary of a designated Oil Field. The northern end of the North Placerita Oil Field is approximately 0.4 -mile south of the Site. The closest dry hole to the Site is identified as the Thermo Company T.B. #2 well located approximately 0.2 -mile southwest of the Site. The well was drilled to a depth of 6006 feet in September 1988 and abandoned as a dry hole in January 1989. Based on the oil and gas well review, the Site has not been impacted by oil or gas production. 3.3 Agency Records Review The City of Santa Clarita Building and Safety Division maintains building permits and other documents for properties within the City. JHA reviewed the files for the Site address. The building permit for "fire station and ramps" and "new metal building 40 x 60 single story for future fire station" on the southern portion of the Site was issued October 18, 2004 to Dumarr Corporation of Placerita, California. The building permit for the fire station is provided in Attachment C. Building permits for "(1) temp. power pole and (3) sub poles for homeless shelter" dated November 26, 2007 and "foundation and ramps for temporary homeless shelter" dated November 30, 2007 for the former homeless shelter that, according to Santa Clarita JHA Environmental, Inc. Ms. Susan Tebo Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. February 28, 2017 Page 5 Building and Safety Division staff, occupied the northern portion of the Site from January 8, 2008 to December 7, 2010 at the street address 26301 Golden Valley Road. According to Captain John Ahten of the LAFD, the shelter consisted of several temporary modular trailers that were removed around 2010. Based on the building permits, the Site was originally constructed in 2004 and has been occupied by the Los Angeles County Fire Station 104 since that time. In 2008 a homeless shelter consisting of several temporary buildings was operating the northern portion of the Site. The shelter closed in 2010 and its structures removed prior to 2012. 3.4 Sanborn Map, Topographic Map, and Aerial Photograph Review Certified Sanborn Fire Maps were not prepared for the Site vicinity. Historical topographic maps for the years 1900/1903, 1929/1932, 1933, 1940, 1941, 1943, 1945, 1952, 1969, 1974, 1988, 1995, and 2012; and, historical aerial photographs for the years 1928, 1940, 1947,1952,1969,1972,1981, 1989,1994, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2010, and 2012, available through EDR, were reviewed by JHA for historical land use identification. Based on the review of available maps and aerial photographs, the historical development of the Site and vicinity was evaluated and is summarized below. The 1900/1903 topographic map (Santa Susana, 1903, 15 -Minute Quadrangle and Fernando, 1900, 15 -Minute Quadrangle) shows the Site on a north -south -trending dirt road (approximate location of the Future Golden Valley Road) approximately two miles north of Placerita Canyon. The mainline railway right-of-way for the Sierra Pacific Railroad is present approximately 0.5 mi north of the Site with a parallel road (future Soledad Canyon Road). The dirt road terminates 0.25 -mile southeast of the Site. The 1929/1932 topographic map (Saugus, 1929, 7.5 -minute, Humphreys, 1932, Sylmar, 1929, and Newhall, 1929, 7.5 -minute quadrangles) shows the undeveloped Site along a north -south trending road. The north -south -trending road no longer terminates just southeast of the Site but is continuous across the mapped area. Approximately 1.5 -miles northwest of the Site is Baker Ranch. The neighborhood of Honby is about 1.0 -mile north of the Site; some likely farm roads occur there. The 1933 topographic map (Saugus and Newhall 7.5 -minute quadrangles) shows little change from the previous map. The Site remains undeveloped. The 1940/1941 topographic map (Santa Susana, 1941, and San Fernando, 1940 15 - minute quadrangles) shows some new development at Honby, Baker Ranch is now Bonelli Ranch, and some new roads have been built at an area called Monogram Ranch located along Placerita Creek 2 -miles south of the Site. The Site itself remains undeveloped. The 1943/1945 topographic map (Santa Susana, 1943, and San Fernando, 1945 15 - minute quadrangles) shows little change from the previous map. JHA Environmental, Inc. Ms. Susan Tebo Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. February 28, 2017 Page 6 The 1952 topographic map (Newhall, 1952,7.5 -minute quadrangle) shows development in the Placerita Creek area including the appearance of Saxonia Park approximately 1.5 - miles southwest of the Site. No development is evident at the Site. The 1969/1974 topographic map (Newhall, 1969, and Mint Canyon, 1974 7.5 -minute quadrangles) shows the Site to remain undeveloped. Further residential development appears to have occurred around Placerita Creek south of the Site and in the neighborhood of Honby to the north. On the 1988 topographic map (Newhall, 1988, and Mint Canyon, 1988 7.5 -minute quadrangles), the former north -south -trending dirt road that provides access to the site is shown to be paved at the Site and points north for the first time. South of the Site the road remains unpaved. Several new structures appear on the east side of the road across from (east) the Site. A network of small roads is present approximately one mile east of the Site. The 1995 topographic map (Newhall, 1995 and Mint Canyon, 1995 7.5 -minute quadrangles show some new buildings approximately a tenth of a mile north of the Site along the developed Golden Valley Road, but no development at the Site itself. Further development of the network of small roads approximately one mile east of the Site has occurred. On the 2012 topographic map (Newhall, 2012 and Mint Canyon, 2012 7.5 -minute quadrangles) shows Golden Valley Road paved and continuous across the map for the first time. Structural development of the Site or surrounding areas cannot be determined from this map as it does not show buildings. Based on the topographic maps, the Site was undeveloped from prior to 1900 through at least 1995. Dirt roads and railroad tracks were present in the Site vicinity in the early 1900s. Roads first occur in the area prior to 1929. Their expansion and development continued through 1995. Except for the paving of the adjacent Golden Valley Road between 1995 and 2012, no development of the Site is shown on the topographic maps. No unusual features, such as pits or ponds, excavations, or significant fills were observed on the topographic maps on the Site or in the Site vicinity. The 1928 aerial photograph (USGS, 1`500') shows little development in the Site vicinity. The Site is vegetated and undeveloped just southwest of an approximate 500 - foot by 1000 -foot graded area with a few small structures on its northern end. Several dirt roads are present throughout the photograph. One dirt road extends from the graded area along the Site's eastern boundary, terminating near the Site's southern extent. The Los Angeles Aqueduct is visible trending north -south in the northwest quadrant of the photo. The 1940 aerial photograph (USDA, 1`500'), shows plowed fields north of the graded area approximately 1,500 feet north of the Site. JHA Environmental, Inc. Ms. Susan Tebo Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. February 28, 2017 Page 7 The 1947 aerial photograph (USGS, 1`500') shows the graded area to have been expanded southward along the Site's eastern boundary to approximately 200 feet south of the Site's southern extent. Dirt roads to the northwest have been extended southeastward to within 200 feet of the Site's western boundary. The 1952 aerial photograph (USDA, 1`500') shows dirt roads now trend along the Site's northern and eastern boundaries. An area of farm land is approximately 100 feet north of the Site. The 1969 aerial photograph (USGS, 1`500') shows several commercial buildings on the graded pad just east of the Site. A well-developed dirt road extends to the commercial buildings from the north through the formerly plowed field, no longer in use as farm land. Numerous new dirt roads are shown in the southwestern quadrant including a well-developed road along the Site's western and southern boundaries, extending to the western and southern edge of the photograph, respectively. Several small structures are shown along the dirt roads in the southwestern quadrant. The 1972 aerial photo (EDR Proprietary Brewster Pacific, 1"=500') shows the road to the commercial buildings to be paved. Three buildings are shown on the former farm land adjacent to the north of the Site. The 1981 aerial photograph (EDR Proprietary Brewster Pacific, 1 "=500') shows further development of the graded pad located northeast of the Site including commercial buildings occupied by Merle Norman Cosmetics Co. The 1989 aerial photograph (USDA, 1`500') shows new dirt roads along the Southern portion of the Site. The 1994 aerial photograph (USGS/DOQQ, 1"=500') shows little change since the last photo. The Site is still vegetated and undeveloped land with small valleys and hills. The 2002 aerial photograph (USDA, 1`500') shows Golden Valley Road to be paved. The Site is still vacant but now a graded pad of bare, level soil. The 2005 aerial photograph (USDA/NAIP,1 "=500') shows many commercial buildings along City Pointe Parkway and a network of new streets northwest of the Site. A baseball field is visible at the southeastern corner of the photograph. The buildings and parking lot that comprise the temporary Fire Station are shown on the Site. The 2009 aerial photograph (USDA/NAIP, 1`500') shows the building and parking lot of the Fire Station on the graded pad at the southern edge of the Site. The temporary structures that made up the homeless shelter are present on the northern end of the Site. The 2010 aerial photograph (USDA/NAIP, 1 `500'), shows little change from previous photos. The Site is unchanged. JHA Environmental, Inc. Ms. Susan Tebo Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. February 28, 2017 Page 8 The 2012 aerial photograph (USDA/NAIP, 1`500') shows little has changed in the Site vicinity since the 2010 photograph, but the temporary structures used as a homeless shelter are gone from the northern portion of the Site. The temporary Fire Station and parking area remain the same. Based on the historic aerial photographs, the Site was undeveloped prior to 1994. By 2002 the Site was graded and Golden Valley Road had been constructed. By 2005, the structures that make up the temporary Fire Station have been erected. In 2009, both the Fire Station and the temporary structures that made up the homeless shelter are visible at the Site. By 2012, the homeless shelter structures have been removed, only the Fire Station and parking area remain. The remainder of the Site is undeveloped land. Copies of the historical aerial photographs are provided in Attachment D. 3.5 City Directory Abstract A City Directory abstract dated January 9, 2017, prepared by EDR was reviewed for the Site and adjacent properties. The directory listings were provided at approximate five-year intervals from 1971 through 2013. There were no addresses listed for the Site, or for the blocks 26100, 26200, or 26300 Golden Valley Road in the Site vicinity in the Cole Information Services or Hanes Criss - Cross Directories. Based on the directory abstract, addresses for the Site and the immediate Site vicinity were not listed from prior to 1971 through 2013, indicating that no significant development was present on the Site or in the Site vicinity during that time. 3.6 Environmental Lien Search Report An Environmental Lien Search Report, available from EDR, was reviewed by JHA. The Site's two Assessor Parcel Numbers were searched. Title for the 7.9 -acre parcel (APNs 2836-012-905 and 2836-016-909) is vested in the City of Santa Clarita. Title was received from Spirit Properties, LTD in July 2001. No Environmental Liens or other Activity and Use Limitations (AULs) were found for the Site. A copy of the Lien Search Report is provided in Attachment E. 3.7 Site Reconnaissance On January 17, 2017, two representatives from JHA visited the Site to observe current conditions. Captain John Ahten of the County of LAFD, Fire Station 104, the current occupant, was on -Site and made himself available for an interview. During the interview, Captain Ahten stated that, to the best of his knowledge, other than a drum of engine oil utilized for vehicle maintenance, there was never any hazardous material or petroleum products on -Site. When asked about fueling procedures at the fire station, Captain Ahten stated that the trucks fuel -up at other fire stations, never on -Site. JHA Environmental, Inc. Ms. Susan Tebo February 28, 2017 Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Page 9 The Site was observed to be mostly vacant grass -covered land. The Fire Station was fenced along the western, northern, southern, and eastern (along Golden Valley Road) boundaries. Gopher holes and other animal burrows were observed on the vacant land. JHA noted the presence of stakes labeled "infiltration test' that indicate that geotechnical percolation testing has taken place. The active Fire Station consists of two apparatus bays, a residence in modular trailers, a paved parking lot, and access road. A paved footprint and access road was observed on the north end of the Site where the former homeless shelter existed. A 2,600 - gallon above -ground storage tank (AST) was observed just north of the fire station parking area. The tank contains potable water according to Captain Ahten. No trash or debris, underground storage tanks, open pits, ponds, stained soil, or stressed vegetation were observed on the Site at the time of the Site visit. Current Photographs 1 through 7 are presented in Attachment A. 3.8 Adjacent Property Reconnaissance Adjacent properties in the immediate Site vicinity were observed by JHA for evidence of recognized environmental conditions. To the north of and downgradient from the Site is an industrial property owned by Chemring Energetic Devices, Inc. There are several structures and fire bunkers visible on the property. According to Captain Ahten, the Chemring facility is used for storage only and that the bunkers contain small quantities of chemicals, some of which are hazardous. The bunkers are, according to Captain Ahten, subject to regular inspections by fire department personnel. The Chemring property is not listed in the EDR Summary or the City Directory Abstract but is identified by signage and Captain Ahten. To the south and west of the Site is undeveloped land. To the east is Golden Valley Road with commercial buildings east of the Road. No recognized environmental conditions were observed by JHA on the adjacent properties from the Site boundary or from the public right-of-way. 4.0 SUMMARY The following is a summary of the findings presented in this report. Based on the EDR Radius Report, the Site was identified on the Los Angeles County HMS and HAZNET databases. The Site is not within 1.0 mile of a federal Superfund Property. The nearest property listed in the databases in the Site vicinity (Whittaker Bermite) has a low probability to have impacted the Site. Based on the historical aerial photographs, topographic maps, and directory abstracts, the Site was first cleared of vegetation and graded as level ground by 2002. The Los Angeles County Fire Station 104, consisting of modular trailers and a two -bay metal apparatus garage, was assembled on the southern portion of the Site in 2004 and is still in use today. A temporary homeless shelter consisting of several modular trailers were located on the northern portion of the Site from 2008 to 2010, but have since been removed. JHA Environmental, Inc. Ms. Susan Tebo Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. February 28, 2017 Page 10 No environmental liens or other activity and use limitations (AULs) were found for the two Site parcels. On January 17, 2017, two representatives from JHA visited the Site to observe current conditions. An active Fire Station consisting of a garage, trailers, and an above -ground storage tank containing potable water occupied the southern portion of the Site. The remainder of the Site was otherwise vacant. No trash or debris, underground storage tanks, open pits, ponds, stained soil, or stressed vegetation were observed on the Site at the time of the Site visit. No recognized environmental conditions were observed on the adjacent properties from the boundaries of the Site or from the public right-of-way. Based on the history of the Site and the Site vicinity, soil vapor intrusion is not a concern. 5.0 CONCLUSION Based on the information reviewed and summarized in this report, it is the professional opinion of JHA Environmental, Inc. that this assessment has revealed no evidence of RECs, HRECs or CRECs, as previously defined, at the Site. There are no mitigation measures required for hazardous waste at the Site. The Curriculum Vitae of the Environmental Professional who prepared this report is provided in Attachment F. 0 0 0 JHA Environmental, Inc. Ms. Susan Tebo Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. 6.0 LINIITATIONS February 28, 2017 Page 11 This report has been prepared for Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. and the City of Santa Clarita as a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment at an approximate 7.9 -acre property located at 26201 Golden Valley Road in Santa Clarita, California. Parties not designated by Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. or the City of Santa Clarita should not rely on the information in this report without the written consent of JHA. In performing the professional services, JHA has applied present engineering and scientific judgment and used a level of effort consistent with the standard of practice measured on the date of this report and in the locale of the project Site for similar type of studies. Inferences with respect to potential subsurface contamination are based on a review of readily available government and historical records and a Site reconnaissance. It should be recognized that subsurface contamination can vary laterally and with depth below a given Site. Yours very truly, 4W Shelby T. Dawson, PG, QSD Professional Geologist No. 9346 JHA Environmental, Inc. Attachments: Plate 1 — Site Location Map Plate 2 — Site and Site Vicinity Map A - Current Site Photographs B — EDR Summary Report C — Building Permit D—Historical Aerial Photographs E - Environmental Lien Search Report F - Curriculum Vitae of the Environmental Professional JHA Environmental, Inc. PLATES ATTACHMENT A Current Site Photographs Ms. Susan Tebo Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Photo 1 Southeast -facing Two -bay metal garage. Photo 2 South -facing Residential trailer and parking area. February 28, 2017 Page 14 JHA Environmental, Inc. Ms. Susan Tebo Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. February 28, 2017 Page 15 Photo 3 Southeast -facing Potable water AST. Golden Valley Road in the background. Photo 4 South -facing Site topography and sparse vegetation. AST and fire station in the background. JHA Environmental, Inc. Ms. Susan Tebo Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. February 28, 2017 Page 16 East -facing Paved pad and access road for former homeless shelter. Photo 6 North -facing Chemring storage facility and fire bunkers viewed from northern Site boundary. JHA Environmental, Inc. Ms. Susan Tebo Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Photo 7 South -facing Western portion of the Site. 0 February 28, 2017 Page 17 JHA Environmental, Inc. ATTACHMENT B EDR Sununary Radius Report ATTACHMENT C Building Permit ATTACHMENT D Historical Aerial Photographs ATTACHMENT E Environmental Lien Search Report ATTACHMENT F Curriculum Vitae of the Environmental Professional Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station Appendix IX Appendix IX. Hydrology Study Prepared by Hunsaker & Associates dated May 25, 2017 Hydrology Study Proposed Santa Clarita Sheriff Station Santa Clarita, California Hunsaker Project No: 0083-019-001 Prepared: May 25, 2017 Prepared by: Hunsaker & Associates, Los Angeles, Inc. 26074 Avenue Hall Suite 23 Valencia CA 91355 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Report Summary This report summarizes the engineering hydrologic analysis for the proposed project site. The 50 -year and 85h percentile and volumes were calculated for the project site. The methodology assumptions used for this analysis are described in the following sections. 1.2 Project Description This report presents hydrology and storm water quality calculations for the proposed Santa Clarita Sheriff Station proposed at 26201 Golden Valley Road in the City of Santa Clarita. The 7.65 -acre site is located on the west side of Golden Valley Road, between Center Pointe Parkway and Robert C. Lee Parkway. The location of the site and its relationship to the surrounding areas is shown in Figure 1 below. Figure 1 The site is currently in use as the temporary location of Los Angeles County Fire Station #104. The existing site is zoned for business park. The topography of the site can be described as relatively flat in the southern and central areas of the site to steeply sloping in the northern portions of the site. The site currently drains from the southwest to the northeast to an existing catch basin, with a portion of the site draining north along Golden Valley Road. 2.0 METHODOLOGY Storm water runoff rates from the project site were determined based on the methods described in the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) Hydrology Manual, dated January 2006. The project site includes one subarea which covers a total of approximately 7.65 acres. The Rational Method of Hydrology was chosen in this analysis; using the HydroCalc Program. Analyses for the 50 -year and 85th percentile are included in this report. 3.0 DESIGN CRITERIA Los Angeles County dictates that several design criteria be followed when using the Rational Method to determine the storm water runoff for the project site. The 50 -year storm and 85th percentile rainfall isohyets used in the hydrologic calculations were obtained from the Los Angeles County Hydrology Manual's Hydrologic Maps. The soil type within the project site was also determined from the hydrologic map as 97. The project falls within the debris potential area of DPA -8. The following is a summary of the criteria used: Hvdrologv Method: Rational Method Design Storm: 50 -year, 85u' percentile Isohyet: 7 inches, 50 -year 0.93 inch, 85th % (Appendix B 2006 LACDPW Hydrology Manual — Maps 1-HL44) Soil Type: 97 DPA Zone 8 Imperviousness: 78.5% 3 4.0 RATIONAL METHOD OF HYDROLOGY (HYDROCALC output) The hydrologic analysis for the project site was performed with the help of the LACDPW approved HydroCalc program. A hydrologic summary is shown in the following table. 5.0 PRE-TREATMENT DEVICES AND INFILTRATION TRENCH Stormwater from the project site is proposed to be treated using biofiltration in lined trench areas. The site has been divided into 4 separate stormwater mitigation subareas because of on- site topography and use. Each area contains its own biofiltration area. The location of each area and related biofiltration are as shown in Exhibit 1 below. Each biofiltration trench will be filled with a porous organic compost material and a min. 6" perforated storm drain pipe will run through its base. The depth of each trench was set at a maximum of 3 feet using the 85th percentile storm to calculate the volume of storm water that requires bioinfiltration. See Exhibit 2 for infiltration trench details. 4 Tc- Flow Volume Area Soil Length Slope Isohyet %imp Frequency calculated rate (acre - (acres) Type (ft) (ft/ft) (in.) (min.) (ds) ft) 7.65 75.5 50 97 1200 0.015 7.0 10 19.919 3.3432 7.65 75.5 85"% 97 1200 0.015 0.93 46 1.0889 0.4251 5.0 PRE-TREATMENT DEVICES AND INFILTRATION TRENCH Stormwater from the project site is proposed to be treated using biofiltration in lined trench areas. The site has been divided into 4 separate stormwater mitigation subareas because of on- site topography and use. Each area contains its own biofiltration area. The location of each area and related biofiltration are as shown in Exhibit 1 below. Each biofiltration trench will be filled with a porous organic compost material and a min. 6" perforated storm drain pipe will run through its base. The depth of each trench was set at a maximum of 3 feet using the 85th percentile storm to calculate the volume of storm water that requires bioinfiltration. See Exhibit 2 for infiltration trench details. 4 LLI J I 0O ---- / m \ W � \ U i \ Un z W Go 1 Won �W zQ C j WU-) \ . 0 W LL LLI L --------- --------J 1 O W O Q W D U z LJ LJ z 0 L— — — — — — — — — — -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — J (n W Q Z w� \ O U Z W El- O 0 >CD Z W Q W Q LLI 3: LL] El" zz I 1` LL O= Q (� W �' O (� O LLI > U QLJ LLI .1WT. J o 0 ----------- W- - o > W U W O W z O W z (-nQ > z Q �' I o0 00 n < W cn J 1 _ Q J O O I m z � I W� W I Q� W O I O 0 z I I I z� C) I I O LL] I I ��m UY z^O O� Y �I IOW W cn Q� L ----J WU U� QLO N �, Q U' I O II Y J I W W � I I J �QO I J < Ln I Q 1 OW z Q cW J I �� O 1 U 03Q z z � W 1 aY O O z z � o Y Ln o � W W (-n 1— Cco e o o e U Q N W I O-- W z r J 1 LL J O Q m W U� ❑ I z( -D J r ❑ [n Q o o > EL rr--) II �i 1 j W W O Ell, O o Y (-n oQ W °L� O° Q U Q 0 r W z Q Q Q Q W LLI W c j oW x'00 Wo Z 1 LO O 1 Q No o o D Q u-) (-n O 0 o W O L El,, ° ❑ WLLI � I O LLIK o F J OI z m z (-n QQ r El-< Q ❑ Q �p 1 W o 0 0 0 O z J Q Y Q o o LQ Q OW W r7 W z W CD >- U n Q J U O nLLI z W 1 AJUIUDP nq w066:L—LL06 96 ^oW UO Pa}}old oMPSVdaV NOIlVailldUIH LO-06OSSH\qx };Jays o}JoID NJos CO) • W U U Z L rn N L Z l� } 4 4— W O� V1-4� > U Lr) .� O cco wt cn U > Qw Z , J W M N W W Z f� N un 7: un W Z w = �o _ Q ■ °° U Zcc)N Z Ln Z Q� �oz�� Exhibit Pew ae (Not to Scale) RB CUT A Fav � t —ROW 1 _ -FLOW ,g ��u7♦[ Lid �. PARKING ���'-NN \\ LOT Section A - A' (Nat to Scale) BIORETENTION AREA PARKING LOT IRI BVTARY AREA 2..-p.. MULCH CURB )g^ _FLOW 4 . 2 3 I MIN 6Mlx VMIN 11w NOTES p ONERROW DEVICE VERTICAL RISER OR EOUIVALENT. p PERFORATED 6^ MIN vK PIPE UNDERORAIN SYSTEM (AS NEEDED). WHERE SOIL CdiOITOMS ALLOW.. OMIT THE UxOmOaAIN AND INSTALL AN DRAINAGE LAYER (TYPICALLY A WASHED 57 STONE) BENEATH THE PuxTING MEDIA FOR ENHANCED NFITATION. p OPTIONAL CHOKING GRAVEL LAYER. O 37MIH PLANLNO MIM; s BIORETEN TION 6.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Proposed onsite area drains will collect storm water as surface flow and drain to biofiltration areas. The Hydrologic summary table is shown in Section 4 above for the 85th % storm. The calculated flow rate/Qpm of the onsite area for the subject storm is 1.09 cfs and the associated runoff volume is 18,647 CF. As the in-situ on-site soils will not allow for infiltration the project must use "Alternative Compliance Measures" as outlined in the LA County LID manual to handle this stormwater quality design volume (SWQDv). The Alternative Compliance measure chosen for this project is "on-site biofiltration of 1.5 times the volume of the S WQDv that is not reliably retained on-site". Based on the Hydrocalc output based on the site parameters noted in Section 3 above, the required treatment volume will be 18,646 CF x 1.5 = 27,969 CF. The peak treatment flow rate for the site is 1.63 cfs (1.5 x Q pm). Below are the biofiltration areas that have been provided onsite: Sub area 1 contains 6,246 SF of biofiltration Sub area 2 contains 1,118 SF of biofiltration Sub area 3 contains 477 SF of biofiltration Sub area 4 contains 168 SF of biofiltration Total: 8,009 s.f. Based upon a minimum treatment rate of 5 inches per hour (0.000116 cfs/s.f), a peak flow of 0.92 cfs can be treated with no storage required. However, since the peak treatment flow rate of 1.63 cfs has not be met within the area provided, 1,610 cubic feet of storage will be required within the biofiltration areas — which translates to 2.5 inches of storage depth. Therefore, the total provided biofiltration area of 8,009 SF, will be sufficient as long as 2.5 inches of storage area is provided in each location, as noted above. 7 7.0 REFERENCES • Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Hydrology Manual, January 2006. • County of Los Angeles Stormwater Best Management Practice Design and Maintenance Manual, August 2010. • County of Los Angeles Low Impact Development Standards Manual, February 2014 ATTACHMENTS - 85% HYDROGRAPH - 1.5 X Qpm HYDROGRAPH Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis File location: G:/Santa Clarita Sheriff Station/Storm/Hydrology/2017-03-10 Proposed HydroCalc/Project - 85th Percentile.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.2 Input Parameters Project Name Project Subarea ID Subarea 1A Area (ac) 7.65 Flow Path Length (ft) 1200.0 Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.015 85th Percentile Rainfall Depth (in) 0.93 - Percent Impervious 0.785 Soil Type 97 Design Storm Frequency 85th percentile storm Fire Factor 0 LID True Output Results Modeled (85th percentile storm) Rainfall Depth (in) 0.93 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.1955 Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.1 Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.728 c0 Time of Concentration (min) 46.0 Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 1.08 9 Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 24 -Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac -ft) 1. 0: 24 -Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu -ft) 186 9 r Hydrograph (Project: Subarea�1 1.2 l' I 0.8 1 � 06 i I qqWc') 0.4 Z J 1 �h4C 0.2 0.0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Time (minutes) "ll !/ rej `CJS 16 I O l, " b x Ln E CL C 0 m kn a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O -41 14 0 0 0 0 0 u,abs•i Initial Study —Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station Appendix XII Appendix XII. Noise Noise Measurement Data Existing Ambient Daytime Noise Levels — Project Site Vicinity M J H re Information Panel Name Start Time Stop Time Model Type Run Time Summary Data Panel SCV Sheriff Station 1 3/6/2017 SCV Sheriff Station 1 3/3/2017 9:06:02 AM 3/3/2017 9:21:02 AM Sound Pro DL 00:1500 Description _ Lmin Meter 1 Value 46.6 dB Leq 1 51.3 dB Exchange Rate 1 3 dB Weighting 1 A Logged Data Table Description _ Meter Value Lmax 1 72.8 dB Log Rate 1 60s Response 1 SLOW Date/Time Leq-1 Lmax-1 Lmin-1 3/3/2017 9:07:02 AM 48.9 54.5 47.2 9:08:02 AM 53.3 61.9 47.3 9:09:02 AM 50 55.1 47 9:10:02 AM 57.5 72.8 47.8 9:1102 AM 49.9 54.6 47 9:12:02 AM 49.6 54.4 47.2 9:13:02 AM 47.8 50.9 46.8 9:14:02 AM 51.1 58.6 47.7 9:15:02 AM 50.8 55.7 47.7 9:16:02 AM 49.6 54 47.7 9:17:02 AM 50.8 61.5 46.8 9:18:02 AM 48.8 55.4 46.6 9:19:02 AM 49.9 55.9 47.2 9:20:02 AM 50.1 52.2 48.7 9:2102 AM 50.2 58 47.1 Page 1 Logged Data Chart SCV Sheriff Station 1: Logged Data Chart 72 0 66- 60- 54- 4A - ^1 660544A Date/-Fime 9M AM 9:12 AM 9:16 AM 9:20 AM 2017 Mara 2017 Mar 2017 Mar 2017 Mar Statistics Chart SCV Sheriff Station 1: Statistics Chart 9 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 8 dB Calibration History Date Calibration Action LOMI 3/3/20179:03: 06 AM Calibration 114.0 Page 2 3M Information Panel Name Start Time Stop Time Model Type Run Time Summary Data Panel SCV Sheriff Station 2 3/6/2017 SCV Sheriff Station 2 3/3/2017 9:34:25 AM 3/3/2017 9:49:25 AM Sound Pro DL 00:1500 Description _ Lmin Meter 1 Value 50.2 dB Leq 1 69.5 dB Exchange Rate 1 3 dB Weighting 1 A Logged Data Table Description _ Meter Value Lmax 1 78.3 dB Log Rate 1 60s Response 1 SLOW Date/Time Leq-1 Lmax-1 Lmin-1 3/3/2017 9:35:25 AM 70.6 78.3 59.7 9:36:25 AM 67.7 73 51.9 9:37:25 AM 71 74.1 51.9 9:38:25 AM 65.1 72.2 50.6 9:39:25 AM 69.6 74.6 53 9:40:25 AM 65.7 71.9 50.2 9:4125 AM 68.9 74.6 50.9 9:42:25 AM 72.1 77.7 58.1 9:43:25 AM 70.8 75.1 52.1 9:44:25 AM 70.2 76.6 62.9 9:45:25 AM 69.8 75.7 53.5 9:46:25 AM 68.8 76.4 52.6 9:47:25 AM 70.4 74.4 55 9:48:25 AM 63.3 72.3 50.6 9:49:25 AM 70.8 74.6 52.4 Page 1 3M Logged Data Chart SCV Sheriff Station 2: Logged Data Chart O 72 _max -1 m 64 / Lmir1-I Date/-Fime 111111IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 111111 I IIIIrI 114111,11111) llllll llllllll lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll1111 9:36 AM 9x10 AM 9A4 AM 9:48 AM 2017 Mar 3 2017 Mar 3 2017 Mar 3 2017 Mar 3 Statistics Chart SCV Sheriff Station 2: Statistics Chart 9 50 52 54 56 58 6D 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 8 dB Calibration History Date Calibration Action LOMI Cal, Model Tae Serial Number Cert. Dee Date 3/3/20179:32: 38 AM Calibration 114.0 Page 2 Information Panel Name Start Time Stop Time Model Type Run Time Summary Data Panel SCV Sheriff Station 3 3/6/2017 SCV Sheriff Station 3 3/3/2017 10:06:07 AM 3/3/2017 10:21:07 AM Sound Pro DL 00:1500 Description _ Lmin Meter 1 Value 45.8 dB Leq 1 51.5 dB Exchange Rate 1 3 dB Weighting 1 A Logged Data Table Description _ Meter Value Lmax 1 71.4 dB Log Rate 1 60s Response 1 SLOW Date/Time Leq-1 Lmax-1 Lmin-1 3/3/2017 10:07:07 AM 58.1 71.4 50.5 10:08:07 AM 51.4 56.1 49.4 10:09:07 AM 53.6 61 49.6 10:10:07 AM 52.3 57.5 49.5 10:1107 AM 51.6 53.9 50.3 10:12:07 AM 51.3 56.4 50 10:13:07 AM 51.4 54.6 49.8 10:14:07 AM 50.1 53.6 48.3 10:15:07 AM 49 49.8 47.9 10:16:07 AM 49.3 56.6 47.1 10:17:07 AM 48.4 56.3 46.2 10:18:07 AM 47.3 50 46.5 10:19:07 AM 47.4 51.2 46 10:20:07 AM 46.7 50.7 45.8 10:2107 AM 47.4 52.1 46.3 Page 1 3M Logged Data Chart SCV Sheriff Station 3: Logged Data Chart /2 0 66 m 60 a � Leq-1 Lmm-1 / Lmirrl ~ Date/-Fime rrrniirnrrii i�rniiirrrrri iirrrriiirrrrn irrrrriinrr�iiirrrrrinrrrriiirrrrii nrrniiinrri i rrrrriinrrri iirrrriinrrrniirrrriinr�niirrrrrii nrrni 10:08 AM 10:12 AM 10:16 AM 10-.20 AM 2017 Mara 2017 Mar 2017 Mara 2017 Mar Statistics Chart SCV Sheriff Station 3: Statistics Chart e 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 8 dB Calibration History Date Calibration Action LOMI 3/3/201710:0329AM Calibration 114.0 Page 2 3M Information Panel Name Start Time Stop Time Model Type Run Time Summary Data Panel SCV Sheriff Station 4 3/6/2017 SCV Sheriff Station 4 3/3/2017 10:32:33 AM 3/3/2017 10:47:33 AM Sound Pro DL 00:1500 Description _ Lmin Meter 1 Value 46.2 dB Leq 1 59.2 dB Exchange Rate 1 3 dB Weighting 1 A Logged Data Table Description _ Meter Value Lmax 1 69.3 dB Log Rate 1 60s Response 1 SLOW Date/Time Leq-1 Lmax-1 Lmin-1 3/3/2017 10:33:33 AM 58.3 66 49.6 10:34:33 AM 62.9 69.3 55.8 10:35:33 AM 58.6 65.1 50.2 10:36:33 AM 56 62.5 50 10:37:33 AM 61.6 64.4 50.7 10:38:33 AM 58.3 61.8 50.9 10:39:33 AM 61.2 65.7 54.4 10:40:33 AM 61.3 67.1 50.7 10:4133 AM 56.4 60.5 47 10:42:33 AM 58.5 61.7 49.1 10:43:33 AM 58.8 63.2 54.3 10:44:33 AM 56.1 63.3 47.4 10:45:33 AM 59.5 64.8 53.6 10:46:33 AM 57.7 62.5 51.7 10:47:33 AM 53.2 59.1 46.2 Page 1 3M Logged Data Chart SCV Sheriff Station 4: Logged Data Chart /U U 65 m 60 a Lmax-1 Lmirfl Date/-Fime uuuumuuuiumunuu�uumnuuuu uuuiuumuuui i1uuu uuuiuuuuiuuunu wuii�ruuuuwuuuu nuwuumnur�n 1036 AM 1040 AM 10x14 AM 1048 j 2017 Mar 3 2017 Mar 3 2017 Mar 3 2017 M Statistics Chart SCV Sheriff Station 4: Statistics Chart e 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 7 dB Calibration History Date Calibration Action LOMI 3/3/201710:3124AM Calibration 114.0 Page 2 Information Panel Name Start Time Stop Time Model Type Run Time Summary Data Panel SCV Sheriff Station 5 3/6/2017 SCV Sheriff Station 5 3/3/2017 10:56:03 AM 3/3/2017 11:11:03 AM Sound Pro DL 00:1500 Description _ Lmin Meter 1 Value 46.6 dB Leq 1 55.4 dB Exchange Rate 1 3 dB Weighting 1 A Logged Data Table Description _ Meter Value Lmax 1 65.4 dB Log Rate 1 60s Response 1 SLOW Date/Time Leq-1 Lmax-1 Lmin-1 3/3/2017 10:57:03 AM 53.5 61.8 46.6 10:58:03 AM 59.8 65.4 55.6 10:59:03 AM 53 55.9 50 1100:03 AM 54.7 59.6 50.9 110103 AM 53 57.1 48.5 1102:03 AM 57.4 59.8 54.3 1103:03 AM 54.6 58.5 49.9 1104:03 AM 56 60.1 52.8 1105:03 AM 56.2 64.7 48.2 1106:03 AM 56.1 62.5 49.5 1107:03 AM 52.6 55.9 48.8 1108:03 AM 54.8 59.1 52.3 1109:03 AM 51.2 54.9 48.2 11:10:03 AM 56.4 59.6 51.9 11:1103 AM 55 59.1 49.9 Page 1 3M Logged Data Chart SCV Sheriff Station 5: Logged Data Chart 65 0 \ Leq-1 60 1 -max -1 m -min-1 Date/-Fime 111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII'1111111111111111141111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111'lll lillllllllllll 11111111111111111111 11-00 AM 1104 AM 11.08 AM 2017 Mar 3 2017 Mar 3 2017 Mar 3 Statistics Chart SCV Sheriff Station 5: Statistics Chart e 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 7 dB Calibration History Date Calibration Action LOMI 3/3/201710:5309AM Calibration 114.1 Page 2 Noise Measurement Data Existing Noise Levels — Existing Sheriff Station Operations Information Panel Name Start Tme Stop Time Model Type Run Tme SCV Sheriff Station Existing On -Site Operations - 1 Summary Data Panel SCV Sheriff Station Existing On -Site Operations - 1 3/8/2017 1:30:15 PM 3/8/2017 1:45:15 PM Sound Pro DL 00:1500 Descritp on Value Descritp on Meter Value Lmin 1 56.3 dB Lmax 1 83.8 dB Leq 1 64.4 dB Exchange Rate 1 3 dB Log Rate 1 60 s Weighting 1 A Response 1 SLOW Logged Data Table Date/Time Leq-1 3/8/2017 1:31:15 PM 59.2 68.9 57.4 1:32:15 PM Vehicle maintenance w/ pneumatic drill 65.6 70.2 58.3 1:33:15 PM public address loudspeaker 65.8 75.3 58.6 1:34:15 PM 62.1 67.6 58.4 1:35:15 PM 58.8 62 57.2 1:36:15 PM 58.6 67.5 56.6 1:3715 PM Mobile gun range unit start-up (HVAC & generator) 64.7 70.5 56.8 1:38:15 PM Mobile gun range shots fired 65.2 70.6 63.4 1:39:15 PM Vehicle maintenance lift/actixity 67.7 72.4 63.5 1:40:15 PM 65.6 71.3 63.7 1:41:15 PM Car pass -by directly next to noise meter 69.9 83.8 63.3 1:42:15 PM 62.8 65.6 56.3 1:43:15 PM Mobile gun range unit off 60.3 65.5 57.5 1:44:15 PM 60.6 62.9 58.4 1:45:15 PM 59.4 63.4 56.9 Page 1 Logged Data Chart SCV Sheriff Station Existing On -Site Operations - 1: Logged Data Chart R 0 DatefFime un 111,11111411111111,1uiuunuuumuunuun1iuunuuumunnnuunuuuni1uuuuauuuuuuuumuunuuluuuunnwuu 1:32 PM 136 PM 1A0 PM 1A4 PM 2017 Mar 8 2017 Mar 8 2017 Mar 8 2017 Mar 8 Statistics Chart SCV Sheriff Station Existing On -Site Operations - 1: Statistics Chart 9 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 9 dB Calibration History Calibration Action 3/8/20171:29: 11 PM Calibration Level Cal, Model Type Serial Number 114.0 Page 2 Existing SCV Sheriff Station Off -Site - 2 Information Panel Name Existing SCV Sheriff Station Off -Site - 2 StanTme 3/8/20172:02:51 PM Stop Time 3/8/2017 2:17:51 PM Model Type Sound Pro DL Run Tme 00:1500 Summary Data Panel Descri tp on Meter Value Descri tp on Meter Value Lmin 1 52.7 dB Lmax 1 99.7 dB Leq 1 77 dB Exchange Rate 1 3 dB Log Rate 1 60 s Weighting 1 A Response 1 SLOW Logged Data Table Date/7Time Leq-1 Lmax-1 Lmin-1 3/8/2017 2:03:51 PM 67.9 74.2 55.8 2:04:51 PM 68.2 74.9 57.3 20551 PM 70.5 78.3 59.7 20651 PM 65.4 74.1 57.6 20751 PM 66.7 73 56 20851 PM 64 72.9 52.8 20951 PM 70.4 78.9 52.7 2:1051 PM 73.2 80.9 61.3 2:11:51 PM 88.1 99.7 54.7 2:1251 PM 68.3 75.4 60.6 2:1351 PM 66.4 72.2 54.5 2:14:51 PM 70.7 77.3 59.1 2:1551 PM 68.7 75.2 59.1 2:1651 PM 68.4 74.8 53.9 2:1751 PM 65.5 72.1 53.9 Page 1 Logged Data Chart Existing SCV Sheriff Station Off -Site - 2: Logged Data Chart 100 0 - leq-1 Lrtux-1 co 80 M Date/Time uuun�uununuuuiuuuuunusnuni�unnwuunnwiuun uunuuulwunuuuuunun uun uunun�uuniun uun uunu 2.04 PM 2:08 PM 2:12 PM 2:16 PM 2017 Mar 8 2017 Mar 8 2017 Mar 8 2017 Mar 8 Statistics Chart Existing SCV Sheriff Station Off -Site - 2: Statistics Chart 9 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 1( dB Calibration History Calibration Action Ley -el Cal, Model Type Serial Number Cert, Due Date 3/8/20171:29: 11 PM Calibration 114.0 Page 2 Noise Measurement Data Helicopter (Airbus AS35013) Overflights SCV Sheriff Station - Helicopter Noise Location 1 3/15/2017 Information Panel Name Helicopter Noise - Location 1 Start Tme E3/14/20174:58:51 3/14/20174:52:34 PM Stop Time PM Model Type Sound Pro DL Run Tme 000617 Summary Data Panel Descri tp on Meter Descri tp on Meter Value , Lmin 1 58.5 dB -max 1 96.3 dB Leq 1 79.9 dB SEL 1 105.7 dB Ll 1 93.6 dB L10 1 80.4 dB L50 1 67.4 dB L90 1 60.3 dB Exchange Rate 1 3 dB Log Rate 1 60 s Weighting 1 A Response 1 SLOW Leq 2 79.9 dB Lmin 2 57.3 dB -max 2 98.1 dB SEL 2 105.7 dB Exchange Rate 2 3 dB Response 2 FAST Weighting 2 A Logged Data Table &/Time Leq-1 -max-1 ' -min-1 -10-1 Lmax-2 Lmin-2A 3/14/2017 60.8 62.7 58.9 62.1 59.5 60.8 63.9 58.1 4:53:34 PM 4:54:34 PM 1 64.9 68.8 58.6 68.1 60.1 64.9 71.6 57.8 4:55:34 PM 83.6 94.5 58.5 89.3 61.5 83.6 97.2 57.3 4:56:34 PM 69.4 75 64.5 71.5 66.1 69.2 78.2 62.2 4:5734 PM TV 96.3 59.7 "1111111 63.1 _ 4:58:34 PM 71.9 82A 63.3 75 64.9 71.2 80.8 61.7 Highlighted text represents the peak mintre of observed helicopter overflight. Page 1 Logged Data Chart Helicopter Noise - Location 1: Logged Data Chart O R aD DatefFime irunnrnnlnn�nun nn nu l 11104111111,11111111r111111111111111111111111111 soil nn III III n nn un nn 4:54 PM 4:55 PM 4:56 PM 4:57 PM 4:58 PM 2017 Mar 14 2D17 Mar 14 2017 Mar 14 2017 Mar 14 2017 Mar 14 Statistics Chart Helicopter Noise - Location 1: Statistics Chart el 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 1( dB Calibration History Calibration Action Lay -al 3/14/2017 A 03 AA PM Calibration 114.0 Page 2 SCV Sheriff Station - Helicopter Noise Location 2 Information Panel Name Start Tme Stop Time Model Type Run Tme Summary Data Panel Helicopter Noise Location 2 3/14/2017 5:00:36 PM 3/14/2017 5:04:06 PM Sound Pro DL 000330 Lmin 1 55.8 dB Leq 1 74.2 dB L10 1 72.6 dB L90 1 58.1 dB Exchange Rate 1 3 dB Weighting 1 A Leq 2 74.2 dB Lmin 2 54.8 dB Exchange Rate 2 3 dB Weighting 2 A Logged Data Table &Time Leq-1 -max-1 -min-1V 3/14/2017 58.7 60.3 57.5 5:01:36 PM 50236 PM 74.8 87.3 56 50336 PM 77.9 88 55.8 Descri tp on Lmax Meter 1 88 dB Ll 1 87.1 dB L50 1 59.6 dB SEL 1 97.4 dB Log Rate 1 60 s Response 1 SLOW Lmax 2 89.9 dB SEL 2 97.4 dB Response 2 FAST -10-1 L90-1 Leq-2 Lmax-2 Lmin-2 59.7 57.9 58.7 61.6 56.4 76.9 58.9 74.8 89.2 55 84.2 59 77.9 89.9 54.8 Highlighted text represents the peak minute of observed helicopter overflight. Page 1 Logged Data Chart Helicopter Noise Location 2: Logged Data Chart R 0 / Lirme-r Date/fime 1111111111111111114 11 to 111111111111 milli 11111111111111111 IIJIIII 111111111111111111,1111111111111111111111111114 11111111111111111 5:02 PM 5U3 PM 2017 Mar 14 2017 Mar 14 Statistics Chart Helicopter Noise Location 2: Statistics Chart 9 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 9 dB Calibration History Calibration Action 3/14/2017 A 03 AA PM Calibration Leyel Cal, Model Type Serial Number 114.0 Page 2 Noise Modeling Data TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS AND NOISE CONTOURS Project Name: SCV Sheriff Station Background Information Modal Description'. FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD77-103) with California Vehicle Noise(CALVENO) Emission Levels Source of Traffic Volumes SCV Sheriff Station Traffic Study ,StentacConsulting Services, Inc., March 20, 2017 Community Noise Descriptor ted CNEL X Assumed 24 -Hour Traffic Distribution Day Evening Night TOTAL Automobile 7551% 1257% 034% 0742% Medium Duty Trucks 1.50% 000% 0.10% 184% Heavy -Duty Trucks 0.04% 002% 000% 074% Factor Trucks TOTAL 100% Distribution Par table 2 of Technical Appendix OVOV Noise Element 05 CNEL Analysis Condition Design Vehicle MIX Di stain to from Cents dina ofReaaway Roadway Name Median ADT Speed Alpha Medium Heavy CNELat Distance to Contour Roadway Segment Lands Width Volume (mph) Factor Trucks Trucks 70 Feat 70 CNEL 05 CNEL 00 CNEL Existing Traffic Noise Golden Valley Road north of Project Site 4 25 41,000 50 05 184% 074% 725 103 222 470 south of Project Site 4 25 41,000 50 05 184% 074% 725 103 222 470 north of Siena Hwy 4 25 42,000 50 05 184% 074% 726 105 225 405 Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Golden Valley Road north of Project Site 4 25 41,000 50 05 184% 074% 726 104 224 402 south of Project Site 4 25 41,000 50 05 184% 074% 726 104 224 402 north of Siena Hwy 4 25 42,000 50 05 184% 074% 727 100 227 400 Interim Year No Project Traffic Noise Golden Valley Road north of Project Site 4 25 55,000 50 05 184% 074% 738 125 270 501 south of Project Site 4 25 50,000 50 05 184% 074% 730 127 273 500 north of Siena Hwy 4 25 01,000 50 05 184% 074% 742 134 200 022 Interim Year With Project Traffic Noise Golden Valley Road north of Project Site 4 25 55,000 50 05 184% 074% 738 120 272 505 south of Project Site 4 25 50,000 50 05 184% 074% 730 120 275 502 north of Siena Hwy 4 25 01,000 50 05 184% 074% 743 135 201 020 Distance isfrom the Canmdina afine roadway segment to the nearest receptor location. - = contour IS located within the roadway Ianas. Traffic Noise Levels PEST April 2017 SCV Sheriff Station Noise Levels Vehicle Maintenance Activities Distance to Barrier Estimated Noise Receptor Activity(R)' Insertion Loss Levels dBA' Nearest Off -Site Use 290 0 52.43 Nearest Sensitive Use 950 0 42.12 Notes. 1. Distance measured from nearest point of receptor to nearest point of Project Site 2. Based on measured noise level of existing vehicle maintenance activity of 67.7 dBA at 50 feet. Public Address Loudspeaker Di stance to Barrier Estimated Noise Receptor Activity(R)' Insertion Loss Levels dBA' Nearest Off -Site Use 290 0 50.53 Nearest Sensitive Use 950 0 40.22 Notes. 1. Distance measured from nearest point of receptor to nearest point of Project Site 2. Based on measured noise level of existing vehicle maintenance activity of 67.7 dBA at 50 feet. Mobile Gun Range Distance to Barrier Estimated Noise Receptor Activity(R)' Insertion Loss Levels dBA' Nearest Off -Site Use 290 0 49.93 Nearest Sensitive Use 950 0 39.62 Notes. 1. Distance measured from nearest point of receptor to nearest point of Project Site 2. Based on measured noise level of existing vehicle maintenance activity of 67.7 dBA at 50 feet. Surface Parking Lot Distance to Barrier Estimated Noise Receptor Activity(R)' Insertion Loss Levels dBA' Nearest Off -Site Use 290 0 49.13 Nearest Sensitive Use 950 0 39.92 Note,. 1. Distance measured from nearest point of receptor to nearest point of Project Site 2. Based on measured noise level of surface parking activity of 64.4 dBA at 50 feet. Code 3 Siren Response Di stance to Barrier Estimated Noise Receptor Activity(R)' Insertion Loss Levels dBA' Nearest Off -Site Use 230 0 63.74 Nearest Sensitive Use 950 0 51.42 Notes. 1. Distance measured from nearest point of receptor to mid line of Golden Valley near Project Driveway. 2. Based on measured noise level with code 3 response during normal 15 minute traffic conditions, 77.0 dBA at 50 feet. Calculation assumes one code 3 siren per 15 minutes. Nelipad Operations Distance to Barrier Estimated Noise Receptor Activity(R)' Insertion Loss Levels dBA' Nearest Off -Site Use 450 0 85.60 Nearest Sensitive Use 950 0 77.90 Notes. 1. Distance measured from nearest point of receptor to helipad location. 2. eased on measured noise level of helicopter overflight at 450 feet and 950feet. Combined Noise From Non -Exempt SCV Sheriff Operations Estimated Noise Receptor Levels dBA1 Nearest Off -Site Use 55.97 Nearest Sensitive Use 45.56 Notes. 1. Combined noise exposure from all sources calculated per Table 6-11(Computing Total Noise Exposure) from the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006, see page 126. SCV Sheriff Station /1 LVIeFRPID April 2017 Initial Study—Santa Clarita Valley Los Angeles County Sheriff's Station Appendix XVI Appendix XVI. Sheriff Station Traffic Study Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. dated April 20, 2017 Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff Station Traffic Study ® Stantec Prepared for: City of Santa Clarita Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 38 Technology Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 April 20, 2017 Sign -off Sheet This report, entitled Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff Station Traffic Study, was produced by the following individuals: Prepared by: Maria Manalili, AICP, PTP iyllfiL�.t- . (949) 923-6072 Senior Transportation Planner Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Daryl Zerfass, PE, PTP (949) 923-6058 Principal, Transportation Planning and Traffic Engineering Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Reviewed by: Charlie Ho, PE (949) 923-6063 Transporta ion Engineer Stantec Consulting Services Inc. SANTA CLARITA VALLEY SHERIFF STATION TRAFFIC STUDY Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................1.1 1.1 PROPOSED PROJECT........................................................................................................1.1 1.2 STUDY AREA.......................................................................................................................1.1 1.3 METHODOLOGY...............................................................................................................1.1 1.4 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA................................................................................................1.5 1.5 DEFINITIONS.......................................................................................................................1.9 1.6 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................1.9 2.0 TRANSPORTATION SETTING..........................................................................................2.1 2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS.....................................................................................................2.1 2.1.1 Existing Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service..........................................2.1 2.2 FUTURE CONDITIONS........................................................................................................2.3 2.2.1 Future Land Use Development and Traffic Volumes ............................... 2.3 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.................................................................................................3.1 3.1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION............................................................................................3.1 3.2 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION............................................................................................3.2 3.3 SITE ACCESS.......................................................................................................................3.2 4.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS........................................................................................................4.1 4.1 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT...................................................................................................4.1 4.2 INTERIM YEAR CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS ...................................... • .............................. 4.3 4.3 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ANALYSIS..................................................4.4 5.0 CONCLUSIONS..............................................................................................................5.1 LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1 Level of Service Descriptions.....................................................................................1.6 Table 1-2 Intersection Performance Criteria...........................................................................1.8 Table 2-1 ICU and LOS Summary - Existing Conditions..........................................................2.1 Table 3-2 Trip Generation Summary..........................................................................................3.2 Table 4-1 Existing Plus Project ADT Volumes.............................................................................4.1 Table 4-2 ICU and LOS Summary - Existing Plus Project Conditions.....................................4.3 Table 4-3 Interim Year Cumulative Conditions ADT Volumes...............................................4.3 Table 4-4 ICU and LOS Summary - Interim Year Cumulative Conditions ...........................4.4 Table 4-5 Transit Trip Summary....................................................................................................4.7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 Project Location Map...............................................................................................1.2 Figure 1-2 Project Site Plan..........................................................................................................1.3 Figure 1-3 Study Area and Intersection Location Map..........................................................1.4 4 Stantec SANTA CLARITA VALLEY SHERIFF STATION TRAFFIC STUDY Figure 2-1 Existing Conditions: Lane Configurations, Peak Hour Volumes, and ADT Volumes..........................................................................................................................2.2 Figure 3-1 Project Trip Distribution..............................................................................................3.3 Figure 3-2 Project Only Peak Hour Volumes (Existing Conditions)........................................3.4 Figure 3-3 Project Only Peak Hour Volumes with Via Princessa Extension (Interim Year Cumulative Conditions)......................................................................................3.5 Figure 3-4 Site Access Lane Configurations and Intersection Controls...............................3.6 Figure 4-1 Existing Plus Project -Peak Hour Volumes.............................................................4.2 Figure 4-2 Interim Year Cumulative Conditions No Project -Peak Hour Volumes ............ 4.5 Figure 4-3 Interim Year Cumulative Conditions With Project -Peak Hour Volumes .........4.6 Figure A-1 Intersection Location Map..................................................................................... A.2 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A ICU WORKSHEETS....................................................................................... A.1 APPENDIX B INTERSECTION COUNT WORKSHEETS.........................................................B.1 APPENDIX C SANTA CLARITA VALLEY SHERIFF STATION TRAFFIC STUDY - TRIP GENERATION AND CASE STUDY DATA MEMORANDUM...........................................C.2 (3� Stantec SANTA CLARITA VALLEY SHERIFF STATION TRAFFIC STUDY Introduction April 2017 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the findings of a traffic study carried out to determine the impacts of the proposed Sheriff Station located in the City of Santa Clarita in Central Santa Clarita Valley. This traffic study is prepared in support of the project's environmental compliance documentation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is prepared consistent with the requirements of the City of Santa Carica. 1.01 PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed project is the construction and operation of a new Sheriff Station that would be built on approximately 7.9 acres of land. The project site is located in the City of Santa Clarita, more specifically on the west side of Golden Valley Road just south of Centre Point Parkway. The site was previously graded as part of the Golden Valley Road extension. The project location is shown in Figure 1-1. The proposed project consists of the construction of an approximately 44,900 square foot Sheriff Station Main Building, a 4,000 square foot Vehicle Maintenance Building, and an additional 8,000 square foot building, for a total of 56,900 square feet. The site includes a secure parking area for Sheriff Department vehicles separate from the public parking area, totaling 366 parking stalls (33 visitor stalls, 329 staff parking stalls and 4 oversize vehicle parking stalls) . The project also includes approximately 7 lockers for bicycle parking and other site amenities such as covered warbag locker area, emergency generator, communications tower, helipad, vehicle car wash and detail area, vehicle fueling and fuel storage tank and secured trash enclosure. The land is mostly undeveloped, except for a portion in the south east corner of the site that is temporarily occupied by Fire Station 104. The fire station is planned to be relocated prior to the start of construction. The project site plan is shown in Figure 1-2. 1.2 STUDY AREA The study area, along with intersection locations addressed in this traffic study was defined based on the volume of traffic to be generated by the project and with consultation with the City's transportation department. This study area is shown in Figure 1-3 and includes intersections adjacent to the project site and one other intersection east of the project site. 1.3 METHODOLOGY The traffic study evaluates the proposed project utilizing the established guidelines of the City of Santa Clarita. The following scenarios are addressed in this traffic study: Sta ntec mm v:\2073\active\2073013410\report\rpt_sheriff_station_20170420.docx 0 U e v Aot,/qjod aal 0 {pagob O CD O 'O oG O p� C 6 G p. SO N � Golden Valley Road_ j T o. z, w, Aj EXH ow s ;g JF- jml 1' IlL P rw N Project Project Site LEGEND OStudy Intersection ---- Future Road, 0 Figure 1-3 Study Area and Intersection Location Map 1.4 SANTA CLARITA VALLEY SHERIFF STATION TRAFFIC STUDY Introduction April 2017 - Existing Conditions - Existing Conditions plus Project - Interim Year Cumulative Conditions without Project - Interim Year Cumulative Conditions with Project Thus, this analysis addresses two settings: the hypothetical existing plus project scenario, which assumes immediate buildout of the full project; and the interim year cumulative conditions. The interim year cumulative conditions includes full buildout of the project and other cumulative development in the area. The impact methodology for each setting is discussed in the next section. The Santa Clarita Valley is a growing area with numerous proposed, approved and pending projects (i.e., "Related Projects"), and to forecast the complex interaction of vehicle trips between existing and future land uses, the Santa Clarita Valley Consolidated Traffic Model (SCVCTM) is utilized. The SCVCTM was developed jointly by the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works and the City of Santa Clarita and is the primary tool used for forecasting traffic volumes for the Santa Clarita Valley. The SCVCTM has the ability to provide traffic volume forecasts for a long- range setting, which represents buildout conditions (generally considered as year 2035 or later), as well as interim year forecasts that are based on a defined list of planned, approved, and pending projects. The SCVCTM is regularly updated with known cumulative projects and the buildout version of the model is based on the currently approved General Plans of the County and City of Santa Clarita. 1.4 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA Defined performance criteria are utilized to determine if a proposed project causes a significant impact. In most traffic studies, performance criteria are based on two primary measures. The first is "capacity", which establishes the vehicle carrying ability of a roadway and the second is "volume." The volume measure is either a traffic count (in the case of existing volumes) or a forecast for a future point in time. The ratio between the volume and the capacity gives a volume/capacity (V/C) ratio and based on that V/C ratio, a corresponding level of service (LOS) is defined. Traffic LOS is designated A through F with LOS A representing free flow conditions and LOS F representing severe traffic congestion. Traffic flow quality for each LOS is described in Table 1-1. Both the V/C ratio and the LOS are used in determining impact significance. Certain LOS values are deemed unacceptable by the City and increases in the V/C ratio which cause or contribute to the LOS being unacceptable are defined as a significant impact. Sta ntec mm v:\2073\active\2073013410\report\rpt_sheriff_station_20170420.docx 1.5 SANTA CLARITA VALLEY SHERIFF STATION TRAFFIC STUDY Introduction April 2017 Table 1-1 Level of Service Descriptions Sta ntec mm v:\2073\active\2073013410\report\rpt_sheriff_station_20170420.docx 1.6 ICU Value Level of Service Description p Signalized A Minimal or no vehicle delay <_ 0.61 B �� +` Slight delay to vehicles 0.61 -0.70 �f C �� ��� Moderate vehicle delays, traffic flow remains stable 0.71 -0.80 D ClI ne, at More extensive delays at intersections 0.81 -0.90 4 E " Long queues create lengthy delays 0.91 -1.00 i F us aiM*L", 001 � OWN oil. ua "Be -U - Cie aa 0X..ammm C]4- ul�- Severe delays and congestion > 1.00 Source: Trans ortation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual 2010. Exhibit 15-3, pg 15-7. Sta ntec mm v:\2073\active\2073013410\report\rpt_sheriff_station_20170420.docx 1.6 SANTA CLARITA VALLEY SHERIFF STATION TRAFFIC STUDY Introduction April 2017 In establishing V/C based performance criteria, there are certain items that need to be addressed to obtain suitable V/C estimates and relate them to LOS. For instance, while average daily traffic (ADT) is a useful measure to show general levels of traffic on a facility and to provide data for other related aspects such as noise and air quality, highway congestion is largely a peak hour or peak period occurrence and ADT does not reflect peak period conditions very effectively. Because of this, ADT is not used here as the basis for capacity evaluation but instead this evaluation focuses on those parts of the day when such congestion can occur, specifically the AM and PM peak hours. For the arterial system, the peak hour is the accepted time period used for impact evaluation and a number of techniques are available to establish suitable V/C ratios and define the corresponding LOS. These definitions and procedures are established by individual local jurisdictions, such as the City of Santa Clarita, or by regional programs such as the Congestion Management Program (CMP). The analysis of the arterial roadway system is based on intersection capacity since this is the defining capacity limitation on an arterial highway system. There may be exceptions where certain facilities have long distances between signalized intersections, but within the traffic analysis study area, peak hour intersection performance is the most representative measure for evaluating the arterial roadway system. Levels of service for arterial roadway intersections are determined based on operating conditions during the AM and PM peak hours. For signalized intersections, the intersection capacity utilization (ICU) methodology is applied, providing a planning level basis for determining V/C and LOS. This methodology sums the V/C ratios for the critical movements of a signalized intersection and is the preferred procedure for intersection analysis by the City of Santa Clarita. The ICU methodology is generally compatible with the intersection capacity analysis methodology outlined in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010). The ICU methodology and associated impact criteria for the study area arterial system are summarized in Table 1-2. The City of Santa Clarita strives to maintain LOS D for existing and future conditions. However, the City's Circulation Element states that while the City strives to maintain a LOS D or better on most roadway segments and intersections to the extent practical, in some locations, a LOS E may be acceptable, or LOS F may be necessary, for limited durations during peak traffic periods'. For CMP designated routes, such as Sierra Highway, the County CMP specifies that LOS "E" is the acceptable threshold for arterial intersections. 1 Policy C 2.2.4 on Page C-67, City of Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element, June 2011. (I Sta ntec mm v:\2073\active\2073013410\report\rpt_sheriff_station_20170420.docx 1.7 SANTA CLARITA VALLEY SHERIFF STATION TRAFFIC STUDY Introduction April 2017 Table 1-2 Intersection Performance Criteria V/C Calculation Methodology Level of service to be based on peak hour intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values calculated using the following assumptions: Saturation Flow Rate: City Methodology: 1,750 vehicles/hour/lane for all lanes Clearance Interval: 0.10 Performance Standards City: LOS D or existing LOS, whichever is greater. Impact Thresholds An intersection is considered to be adversely impacted if: City Threshold: Compared to the ICU in the no -project alternative, the ICU in the with -project alternative increases the ICU by the following: With -Project ICU Project Increment .81 - 90 (LOS D) greater than or equal to .02 .91 or more (LOS E & F) greater than or equal to .01 Abbreviations: V/C - Volume/Capacity Ratio LOS - Level of Service ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization Sta ntec mm v:\2073\active\2073013410\report\rpt_sheriff_station_20170420.docx 1.8 SANTA CLARITA VALLEY SHERIFF STATION TRAFFIC STUDY Introduction April 2017 1.05 DEFINITIONS Certain terms used throughout this report are defined below to clarify their intended meaning: ADT Average Daily Traffic. Generally used to measure the total two -directional traffic volumes passing a given point on a roadway. ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization. A measure of the volume to capacity ratio for an intersection. Typically used to determine the peak hour level of service for a given set of intersection volumes. LOS Level of Service. A scale used to evaluate circulation system performance based on intersection ICU values or volume/capacity ratios of arterial segments. Peak Hour This refers to the hour during the AM peak period (typically 7 AM - 9 AM) or the PM peak period (typically 3 PM - 6 PM) in which the greatest number of vehicle trips are generated by a given land use or are traveling on a given roadway. V/C Volume to Capacity Ratio. This is typically used to describe the percentage of capacity utilized by existing or projected traffic on a segment of an arterial or intersection. 1.6 REFERENCES 1. "Highway Capacity Manual 2010," Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 2010. 2. "Preliminary Traffic Impact Report Guidelines," City of Santa Clarita, August 1990. 3. "City of Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element," City of Santa Clarita, June 2011. 4. "Guidelines for CMP Transportation Impact Analysis," from the 2010 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 2010. 5. "Castaic Junction Sheriff Station Traffic Study - Trip Generation Case Study Results Memorandum to LA County Department of Public Works Traffic and Lighting Division," Stantec Consulting Services Inc., March 2015. 6. "Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Athens Sheriff's Station, Centinela Area Probation Office Replacement, and New County Building," Prepared for Los Angeles County Department of Public works by David Evans and Associates, August 2006. Sta ntec mm v:\2073\active\2073013410\report\rpt_sheriff_station_20170420.docx 1.9 SANTA CLARITA VALLEY SHERIFF STATION TRAFFIC STUDY Transportation Setting April 2017 2.0 TRANSPORTATION SETTING This chapter describes the transportation setting for the traffic analysis. Existing conditions are first discussed, followed by a discussion of the derivation of future traffic volumes and the planned roadway improvements near the Project's site. 2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS Golden Valley Road from Centre Point Parkway to Sierra Highway is currently a 4 -lane roadway, with raised landscaped medians within the study area, and a posted speed limit of 50 mph. The City of Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element identifies Golden Valley Road from Newhall Ranch Road to SR -14 as a 6 -lane major highway, that when fully improved, can accommodate approximately 54,000 vehicles per day at level of service (LOS) "E". The segment of Golden Valley Road in the study area currently includes a Class I bike path on the east side of the roadway. 2.1. i Existing Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service As previously discussed in Section 1.2, the study area includes roadway segments and intersections adjacent to the project site. Intersection turning movement volumes for the three study area intersections were obtained from City staff and utilized in this study. The intersection counts consist of 15 -hour turning volumes collected in May 2016. Of those, the AM peak hour (7:30-8:30) and the PM peak hour (5:00-6:00) were identified and used for this study's impact analysis. Existing intersection lane configurations, AM peak hour and PM peak hour intersection turning volumes, and average daily traffic (ADT) volumes are provided in Figure 2-1. Printouts of the traffic count worksheets are provided in Appendix B. The results of the LOS analysis for the study area intersections under existing conditions are shown in Table 2-1 (detailed ICU worksheets are provided in Appendix A) . The table shows that of the three study area intersections, two currently have an ICU value that corresponds to LOS "D" or better while the Golden Valley Road/Sierra Highway intersection currently has an ICU value that corresponds with LOS "E". Table 2-1 ICU and LOS Summary - Existing Conditions Intersection Jurisdiction AM Peak Hour ICU LOS PM Peak Hour ICU LOS Count Date 1. Golden Valley Rd & Centre Point Pkwy City 0.70 B 0.89 D 5/5/2016 2. Golden Valley Rd & Robert C. Lee Pkwy City 0.70 B 0.62 B 5/5/2016 3. Golden Valley Rd & Sierra Hwy City 0.98 E 0.75 C 5/10/2016 See Figure 1 -1 - for intersection locations. Sta ntec mm v:\2073\active\2073013410\report\rpt_sheriff_station_20170420.docx 2.1 ¢ ._m_o_.� \ z � _ < > _-_,R °� « a, , »o? f> (�O \ \ / a . « < | ,< | «d113 -.d257 - _ xZ A2I _ Rdb-erC. I M \a M\_ „ Pea „ an I _ \_. ©T m To ye N / / / ( r}) : \ \{ \\ 7 ¢ ._m_o_.� \ \J _-_,R °� (�O SANTA CLARITA VALLEY SHERIFF STATION TRAFFIC STUDY Transportation Setting April 2017 2.2 FUTURE CONDITIONS The City of Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element identifies new arterial roadways that are planned to increase both connectivity and capacity in the City. Of those, one is the Via Princessa gap closure between its current westerly terminus near Oak Ridge Drive and its current easterly terminus near Isabella Parkway. The extension of Via Princessa would intersect Golden Valley Road, just south of the proposed project, and would be classified as a 6 -lane major arterial at buildout. For purposes of this analysis, the interim year impact analysis assumes that the Via Princessa extension would be constructed in an interim configuration as a 4 -lane roadway. As previously mentioned in Section 2.1, Golden Valley Road is classified as a 6 -lane major arterial in the City's Circulation Element. For this impact analysis, Golden Valley Road is assumed to remain as a 4 -lane roadway for interim year cumulative conditions. 2.2.1 Future Land Use Development and Traffic Volumerw Future land development is anticipated for the Santa Clarita Valley as quantified in the SCVCTM. As previously discussed in Section 1.3.1, the SCVCTM includes a land use database prepared by Los Angeles County and the City of Santa Clarita that is based on the approved General Plans of each jurisdiction. This database is regularly updated as specific projects are proposed and thus is a comprehensive listing of cumulative projects. In addition, the land use database has also been updated based on the One Valley One Vision (OVOV) Area plan. Trips to and from the Santa Clarita Valley, as well as "through -trips", are included in the forecasts; thus, regional growth, which is traffic volume increases occurring outside of the SCVCTM area, is incorporated into the model.6 The proposed project is expected to buildout over a four-year time period. Therefore, an interim year version of the SCVCTM, which includes both known related project and interpolated growth projections, was utilized to evaluate cumulative impacts. Sta ntec mm v:\2073\active\2073013410\report\rpt_sheriff_station_20170420.docx 2.3 SANTA CLARITA VALLEY SHERIFF STATION TRAFFIC STUDY Project Description April 2017 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This section describes the proposed project in terms of its transportation characteristics. Trip generation is summarized and the distribution of the proposed project trips on the adjacent roadway system is presented. Site access is also addressed in this section. The proposed project is the construction and operation of a new Sheriff Station that would be built on approximately 7.9 acres of land. The proposed project site is located in the City of Santa Clarita, more specifically on the west side of Golden Valley Road just south of Centre Point Parkway. The site was previously graded as part of the Golden Valley Road extension. The proposed project consists of the construction of an approximately 44,900 square foot Sheriff Station Main Building, a 4,000 square foot Vehicle Maintenance Building, and an additional 8,000 square foot building, for a total of 56,900 square feet. The site includes a secure parking area for Sheriff Department vehicles separate from the public parking area, totaling 366 parking stalls (33 visitor stalls, 329 staff parking stalls and 4 oversize vehicle parking stalls) . The project also includes approximately 7 lockers for bicycle parking and other site amenities such as covered warbag locker area, emergency generator, communications tower, helipad, vehicle car wash and detail area, vehicle fueling and fuel storage tank and secured trash enclosure. The land is mostly undeveloped, except for a portion in the south east corner of the site that is temporarily occupied by Fire Station 104. The fire station is planned to be relocated prior to the start of construction. 3.1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Currently, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual does not include trip data specific to a Police or Sheriff Station type of land use. Therefore, in 2015 Stantec conducted a literature review of other police and sheriff station traffic studies, and prepared a case study of the Athens (South Los Angeles) Sheriff Station located on Imperial Highway just east of Normandie Avenue. The literature review and case study were reviewed by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (DPW), Traffic and Lighting Division, for use in a traffic study for a proposed Sheriff Station of similar size and function previously proposed to be located in an unincorporated area of the Santa Clarita Valley. The same literature review and case study was presented to City of Santa Clarita transportation staff to establish a set of trip generation rates suitable for use in the City project's traffic study (see Appendix C). The Athens Sheriff Station has been described by the Sheriff's Department as similar in size and function to the proposed new Santa Clarita Station. Peak hour trip generation estimates for the proposed project are based on the specific findings from the case study of the comparably sized Athens Sheriff Station facility. Average daily traffic (ADT) estimates are derived using trip rates presented in the traffic study for the Athens Sheriff's Station. For purposes of this analysis, it is estimated that the proposed project would be (I Sta ntec mm v:\2073\active\2073013410\report\rpt_sheriff_station_20170420.docx 3.1 SANTA CLARITA VALLEY SHERIFF STATION TRAFFIC STUDY Project Description April 2017 approximately 34 percent larger (56.9 TSF versus 42.6 TSF) than the Athens Sheriff's Station. Therefore, a 34 percent increase was applied to the Athen's case study traffic counts (peak hour estimates) to account for the size difference between the Athens Sheriff Station and the proposed project. Table 3-2 summarizes the trip generation estimates for the proposed project. Table 3-2 Trip Generation Summary Amount/ AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Description ADT Unit In Out Total In Out Total Sheriff Station 56.9 TSF 59 50 109 27 35 62 1,268 Notes: Peak hour estimates are based on case study data from the South Los Angeles County Sheriff Station ADT estimates are derived using the Athens Sheriff Station ADT Trip Generation Rate (22.29 ADT/TSF) A 34% increase was applied to the Athen's case study traffic counts (peak hour estimates) to account for the size difference between the Athens Sheriff's station and the proposed project 3.2 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION Trip distribution patterns for the proposed project were developed based on the location of the project site in relation to the areas served by the station. The station would primarily serve current and future developments in the City of Santa Clarita. The distribution of project trips is reflective of the areas that the station will be serving, as well as the likely origin of trips made by the facility staff. The trip distribution for the propose project is presented in Figure 3-1. For purposes of this traffic study, it is assumed that the trip distribution would remain the same for existing plus project conditions, and interim year cumulative conditions. Figure 3-2 shows estimated project only trips at the project site driveways and at the intersections in the study area without the Via Princessa extension. Figure 3-3 shows the estimated project only trips with the Via Princessa extension. 3.3 SITE ACCESS Three driveways would provide access to the site; staff would utilize the northernmost driveway; the public would utilize the center driveway; and emergency vehicles and staff would utilize the southernmost driveway. Preliminarily, the northerly staff only driveway would be restricted to right/in-right/out-left/in movements (i.e., no left/out allowed), the public driveway would be restricted to right/in-right/out movements (i.e., no left/in-left/out allowed), and the emergency/staff driveway would be a full access intersection. Note that although a full access intersection, the southerly emergency/staff driveway left -turn out to Golden Valley Road would be restricted for emergency vehicle use only (i.e., staff would not be permitted to make a left - turn out of the driveway) . The lane configurations and intersection control at the three driveways are shown in Figure 3-4. Sta ntec mm v:\2073\active\2073013410\report\rpt_sheriff_station_20170420.docx 3.2 e a A< A o may acs 5�° 1 \5�1 U U 0 Project Site 0 0 d /d 110 0o U O 0�J 33% O\ X33%1 h� LEGEND Z �O x% Inbound Dis}ribution� � (x%) (Outbound Distribution Z 4) Study Intersection Figure 3-1 ® Sta ntec Project Trip Distribution 3.3 0 OA 0 0 00 0 ✓�� Lp � � 132 ✓�i� Zp �-� Ila ,12 =3° o �a mm r5 m y P > 3py Golden m y 21 y Golden E Valley - c Valley <� 0y�� gMNe y 12Z Rood 0 �� o-��� gMye 'Ti j SZ Rood g � iel n %r moo - � S � � a $; �%r o - r (�v°'-i�o8 (�v', wo Wo m m E E Re O op imU>� 0 O 0m nGo, J m 3 f 42 - m J m 3 125 o jU Robert Os >re 32y Golden O >� Robert 0 j� tgy Golden C Lee p rr�R p t2 Valley Z o Q Lee R p R Valley U5 rn y R t Pkwy 7 Z Road Y R t Pkwy 0 Z n Road O �0 ry 9� O 00 — 9 (9d n3 o i (9m (9d a3 Q d mJ> mJ> FF3 m m —F3 m a � oa `o a 0 m t3 0 125 0 t2 O �1] 0 toJ�X20 I r12 > X14 t5 4 r3 =s 6 m J�4 r2 _s CF3 0 0 f Golden j t 7y Golden j o 01 Golden j gy Golden R 23y 1tP Volley R2 12 r Volley R �tr Volley R2 Volley mR k 5 Z o Rood mR o Rood mR k t�Z o Rood mR 5 Rood 0 Gt;? 3 0 �� 3 y�yo� Aomyod 891,Z) uagoN N �m I C a 0 m O o d N Road Golden Valley � O � Z � w O 0 0 25 X17 12 6 m ii 3 > > 7y Golden > o Golden n oIaad Road o m o �ry9 0 ° 0 ° 0 ✓�� t° 0 o o,jy o ° °Zti~ hR�° o 0, N >m 2V >m a� ° d >m pV I >m as ° ac+jo 0 1`ISo/no Dial O ama s 0 as OrrtYma s o °c y5e O p S Z =a d o p m U, 0 6 0 Go, 0 Q �� r32 If �� �5 T d m , 2 = m 5 >V Robert Pkwey OZ I� >�S '�i �A reolGoledY^ >U P.kLe OZ l� >W �T 21 Golden Valley �� 4 I ��3 I^ Road a� n ate= �S �_ a� —0°`> �8 c�& c�°6 €mv 0. c�°6 €mv wo Wo I t 20 �i �. III f 124 n T J♦4 r3 m m f42 m YIY r2 m m X25 >> �� Goten>_ Got en 6s �trGalden >_ s� Golden 23y Valley �p 12Z G Valley �Gy Valley �p 6 VaIle y k pZ Dom Road o Road mUk 6Z oo Road o Z n Road o�� o� 0 a3 �f 0 o 0 Ll a� R O � T O ' Z g� w O 1 O � i 4M qw u d O i U � c o w� a c 0 U p U N ou a � � r � � H O Q N C N N � 0 z� Cw SANTA CLARITA VALLEY SHERIFF STATION TRAFFIC STUDY Impact Analysis April 2017 4.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS This chapter presents the impact analysis for existing plus project conditions and interim year cumulative conditions under both without and with project scenarios. Traffic impacts of the proposed project are addressed using the criteria outlined in Section 1.4. 4.1 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT This section provides an analysis of project traffic impacts by comparing pre -project existing traffic conditions and project buildout traffic conditions. This CEQA impact analysis documents project -related trips and their addition to the existing, observed traffic count data (i.e., existing conditions) in order to identify potential traffic impacts. This analysis is referred to as the existing plus project scenario. As noted in Section 1.3, the existing plus project scenario necessarily assumes immediate buildout of the full project, in this case immediate buildout of the 56,300 square foot full service Sheriff Station. This scenario is hypothetical in that it does not take into consideration additional traffic growth attributable to other related development projects and, therefore, potentially understates impacts by assuming more capacity than actually would be available. Existing plus project ADT volumes on roadway segments adjacent to the project site are shown in Table 4-1. Table 4-1 Existing Plus Project ADT Volumes Roadway Segment Description Project Only 2017 ADT Count Existing Plus Project Golden Valley Road north of Project Site 630 41,000 41,600 Golden Valley Road south of Project Site 630 41,000 41,600 Golden Valley Road north of Sierra Hwy 630 42,000 42,600 Existing plus project intersection lane configurations and peak hour intersection turning volumes are shown in Figure 4-1. The corresponding LOS analysis is summarized in Table 4-2. (2 Sta ntec mm v:\2073\active\2073013410\report\rpt_sheriff_station_20170420.docx 4.1 O ry,YO Qi O O 4jb/� O v Q ms riy t, �1s4s ✓jy �e T� 11524 j o c SOD [ 1SS� o m 12 0 3 DgZ�u �0 jet g m 5 _� > m59 ti > 1469~ Golden > m< y > 19;5:~ Golden ValleValle 1L ao,a o�� �,yOya �; 127 Road o� ��r/�'�,yOya 3 S reoaa0 'M nom °'oo`3�Tov,�ov,m3 O 06 w° w° V O opdIb2 a>°OO o1556 -m m 3 ♦1531>Uo ♦ >0 1491~ Valleen S >reober1383J ( >� 1903~ Golden I 122 Y QLee187 I1� 6 Valley IL o reoad Y R Pkwy Z o Z Road o'o 9(9d n3 1 ( 0 (9d R3 ti Q u W mo' mo' FF3 m m —o3 m Oa`o Oay 0 nvat29t 0 ♦1539 0 aon t6218 0 11523 X901 r12 > 1997 r X 45 m ii 6 3 m215 5 � 215 0 3 > d° 1311 Golden > 3 1g06y Golden > d Golden 0 3 Golden Valley R 2 Valley R 1�]� Vlley 2 1895 Valley 0 d 1039 Road mR 1 12 o Road mR k 11632 M Raaad mR y Road 1154 AanWad 6l yegob N 70 mwuAL, 4 C W 41 c mJ m cc a n ,4w T N Golden Valley Road O � Z � 0 O SANTA CLARITA VALLEY SHERIFF STATION TRAFFIC STUDY Impact Analysis April 2017 Table 4-2 ICU and LOS Summary - Existing Plus Project Conditions As shown in the table, all study area intersections generally have an ICU value that corresponds with LOS `D' or better, with the exception of one location. The Golden Valley Road/Sierra Highway intersection would have an ICU value that corresponds with LOS E, which is the same LOS under existing conditions and the project does not have a measurable impact at this location. Therefore, the project does not cause a significant impact at this location. Based on the impact criteria set forth by the City of Santa Clarita (see Section 1.4 for criteria) the proposed project would not cause a significant impact at any study area intersections under this scenario. 4.2 INTERIM YEAR CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS As previously discussed in Section 2.2.1, interim year cumulative conditions traffic volumes presented in this analysis are derived by the SCVCTM. Project trips from the proposed project are then added onto the interim year cumulative baseline traffic volumes in order to identify project impacts in the cumulative setting. Interim year cumulative volumes for roadway segments adjacent to the project site are shown in Table 4-3. Table 4-3 Interim Year Cumulative Conditions ADT Volumes Roadway Existing 2016 Existing plus Project Golden Valley Road AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak south of Project Site 56,000 56,600 Hour Hour Hour Hour Difference ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS AM PM Intersection 1. Golden Valley & Centre Pointe 0.70 B 0.89 D 0.71 C 0.89 D 0.01 0.00 2. Golden Valley & Robert C. 0.70 B 0.62 B 0.72 C 0.63 B 0.02 0.01 Lee 3. Golden Valley & Sierra Hwy* 0.98 E 0.75 C 0.98 E 0.75 C 0.00 0.00 4. Golden Valley & Staff Dwy NA NA NA NA 0.54 A 0.65 B NA NA 5. Golden Valley & Public Dwy NA NA NA NA 0.54 A 0.65 B NA NA 6. Golden Valley & Emergency/Staff Dwy NA NA NA NA 0.55 A 0.66 B NA NA NA - Not applicable *CMP arterial (see Section 4.3 for CMP discussion) See Figure 1-3 for intersection location As shown in the table, all study area intersections generally have an ICU value that corresponds with LOS `D' or better, with the exception of one location. The Golden Valley Road/Sierra Highway intersection would have an ICU value that corresponds with LOS E, which is the same LOS under existing conditions and the project does not have a measurable impact at this location. Therefore, the project does not cause a significant impact at this location. Based on the impact criteria set forth by the City of Santa Clarita (see Section 1.4 for criteria) the proposed project would not cause a significant impact at any study area intersections under this scenario. 4.2 INTERIM YEAR CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS As previously discussed in Section 2.2.1, interim year cumulative conditions traffic volumes presented in this analysis are derived by the SCVCTM. Project trips from the proposed project are then added onto the interim year cumulative baseline traffic volumes in order to identify project impacts in the cumulative setting. Interim year cumulative volumes for roadway segments adjacent to the project site are shown in Table 4-3. Table 4-3 Interim Year Cumulative Conditions ADT Volumes Roadway Segment Description Interim Year Cumulative No Project Interim Year Cumulative With Project Golden Valley Road north of Project Site 55,000 55,600 Golden Valley Road south of Project Site 56,000 56,600 Golden Valley Road north of Sierra Hwy 61,000 61,600 (2 Sta ntec mm v:\2073\active\2073013410\report\rpt_sheriff_station_20170420.docx 4.3 SANTA CLARITA VALLEY SHERIFF STATION TRAFFIC STUDY Impact Analysis April 2017 Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3 illustrates the peak hour intersection turning volumes for the interim year cumulative conditions without the project and with project, respectively. A LOS analysis was conducted and the results of the analysis are summarized in Table 4-4. Table 4-4 ICU and LOS Summary - Interim Year Cumulative Conditions As can be seen in Table 4-2, the following intersections have an ICU value that corresponds with LOS E or worse: • Golden Valley Road & Centre Pointe Parkway • Golden Valley Road & Sierra Highway • Golden Valley Road & Via Princessa However, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact any of the three locations since the addition of project traffic does not trigger the City's threshold of significance (V/C increase of 0.01 when LOS E or F) . Therefore, the proposed project does not cause a significant impact at any of the study area intersections. 4.3 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ANALYSIS Sierra Highway from Newhall Avenue (formerly San Fernando Road) to State Route 14 at Red Rover Mine Road is designated as a CMP roadway. As such, the Los Angeles CMP requires that a proposed development address two major subject areas with respect to traffic impacts: (1) the Project's impacts on the CMP highway system and (2) the Project's impacts on the local and regional transit systems. Sta ntec mm v:\2073\active\2073013410\report\rpt_sheriff_station_20170420.docx 4.4 Cumulative No Project Cumulative With Project AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Hour Hour Hour Hour Difference ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS AM PM Intersection 1. Golden Valley & Centre Pointe 1.00 E 1.08 F 1.00 E 1.08 F 0.00 0.00 2. Golden Valley & Robert C. 0.79 C 0.87 D 0.80 C 0.87 D 0.01 0.00 Lee 3. Golden Valley & Sierra Hw 0.98 E 1.01 F 0.98 E 1.01 F 0.00 0.00 4. Golden Valley & Staff Dwy NA NA NA NA 0.80 C 0.79 C NA NA 5. Golden Valley & Public Dwy NA NA NA NA 0.80 C 0.74 C NA NA 6. Golden Valley & Emergency/Staff Dw NA NA NA NA 0.81 D 0.74 C NA NA 7. Golden Valley & Via Princessa 0.96 E 0.99 E 0.96 E 0.99 E 0.00 0.00 NA - Not applicable; * CMP arterial (see Section 4.3 for CMP discussion) See Figure 1-1 for intersection location As can be seen in Table 4-2, the following intersections have an ICU value that corresponds with LOS E or worse: • Golden Valley Road & Centre Pointe Parkway • Golden Valley Road & Sierra Highway • Golden Valley Road & Via Princessa However, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact any of the three locations since the addition of project traffic does not trigger the City's threshold of significance (V/C increase of 0.01 when LOS E or F) . Therefore, the proposed project does not cause a significant impact at any of the study area intersections. 4.3 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ANALYSIS Sierra Highway from Newhall Avenue (formerly San Fernando Road) to State Route 14 at Red Rover Mine Road is designated as a CMP roadway. As such, the Los Angeles CMP requires that a proposed development address two major subject areas with respect to traffic impacts: (1) the Project's impacts on the CMP highway system and (2) the Project's impacts on the local and regional transit systems. Sta ntec mm v:\2073\active\2073013410\report\rpt_sheriff_station_20170420.docx 4.4 0 m 0 r2 r2 0 � oo L20 0-- 0o t30 N< m3 ��f1e�o m3 ��tano ]01 en g 50 1 Golden 2 2330~ Valley 2140~ Valley (9 Road (9 Road O O o O s ✓iy �> T os r vF a oRtm s ° °A O Jr h tosg>9 > j Z > 00 s5 O 0 oma tYmn nod ''8/s go Moo t > �j �a c�> 'da > c� baa c0> 'da O p S Z d O p mw U� 0 6 O p m0 U> race 00 ♦1990 6 00 00 ♦2200 0j Robert 0 `O Golden 0(5 Robert 3901 > 2180~ Golden O C. Le 530 r 0-2320~ Valley U Q Lee Z R ii Valley t p 270 Road t p„y z0a Road a� a=z �8 an a=z �8 cj& cj°o €mv cj& - cj wo Wo t 350 o t 250 11120 �i >. (1520 x440 m m 11890 0 r300 0 m 12200 >d ,301 �rr Golden >� 2320~ Golden > Golden o� Golden _ vauey p vauey 1801 Vale~ p 2180 � vauey 00 12002 Road Road m0 x 1220 Road 0 Road n o ii Z m 00 t] 0 0T 0(0 " (9d n3 0(0 0 a3 L6 Lb �J�d Fe1'�YFWtl N O 0 O O N R � 1 w O 1 20 30 / / z / /�z2187 j\R ( \ ` Golden Valley {Road 0 >( tt >( °�_ ,\ yam.\� 3 ~ ° r/\� J w 2!» _ a& /> /, ><,//\� y > < �0 \S° �\ \i z:` Robert »4 e /(�J!/ �} >< e 1 1 Golden Valley / \ /}/\e ® 0. \ 0Road }dT ): _ }): > ` /\ }0 ƒ - y 12225 2 gra /2< « ^ < /gra g w6a<alley 2%® Volden In ®yma -y!Road §{ \O| SANTA CLARITA VALLEY SHERIFF STATION TRAFFIC STUDY Impact Analysis April 2017 The CMP intersection nearest to the project is Golden Valley Road at Sierra Highway. The proposed project does not add more than 50 trips during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours at the intersections and does not add 150 or more trips to any mainline freeway locations during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours. Therefore, a CMP analysis of the Golden Valley Road at Sierra Highway intersection is not required. The second component of the CMP impact analysis is a review of transit impacts; public transit in the Santa Clarita Valley includes both bus and commuter rail service. While there are no existing bus stops in the immediate vicinity of the project site, the closest bus stop is located approximately 'h mile to the north on Golden Valley Road and also on Centre Pointe Parkway with service to Santa Clarita Transit (SCT) route 5 (Stevenson Ranch/Vasquez Canyon) and route 6 (Stevenson Ranch/Shadow Pines). Bus stops on Golden Valley Road approximately 1 mile south of the Project Site provide service to and from local schools. The Santa Clarita Metrolink Transit Station is also located approximately 2 miles away, northwest of the project site, on Soledad Canyon Road. Based on the methodology outlined in the CMP, transit trips were estimated and is shown in Table 4-5. Table 4-5 Transit Trip Summary Description Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips 11255 107 60 Person Trips 11757 150 84 Factor to transit trips 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% Total Transit trips 60 5 3 Person trips = vehicle trips x 1.4 Source: Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County, 2002, 2004, and 2010 As shown in the table, it is estimated that the proposed project generates approximately 60 daily transit trips and a negligible amount of transit trips in the AM and PM peak hours (5 and 3, respectively) . Based on these estimates, the proposed project would not significantly impact transit services. Sta ntec mm v:\2073\active\2073013410\report\rpt_sheriff_station_20170420.docx 4.7 SANTA CLARITA VALLEY SHERIFF STATION TRAFFIC STUDY Conclusions April 2017 5.0 CONCLUSIONS This traffic study was conducted to evaluate potential impacts associated with a Sheriff Station (proposed project) in the City of Santa Clarita. Two scenarios were evaluated for project impacts and the findings of each scenario were presented. Based on the results of the LOS analyses and the criteria set forth by the City of Santa Clarita, the results of this study conclude the following: Existing Plus Project Conditions • The proposed project would not cause a significant impact at any study area locations based on the City's impact threshold. • All intersections would have an ICU value that corresponds with an acceptable LOS D or better, except for one intersection. • Golden Valley Road/Sierra Highway intersection would have an LOS E in the AM peak hour. Interim Year Cumulative Conditions • The proposed project would not cause a significant impact at any study area locations based on the City's impact threshold. • Three intersections (1) Golden Valley Road/Centre Point Pkwy (2) Golden Valley Road/Sierra Highway and (3) Golden Valley Road/Via Princessa would have an ICU value that corresponds with LOS E or worse. However, the project does not trigger the City's threshold of significance, therefore the intersections are not considered to be significantly impacted. CMP Analysis • The proposed project would not add more than 50 trips during either the AM or PM weekday peak hour and would not add 150 or more trips to any mainline freeway locations. Therefore, a CMP analysis is not warranted. • It is estimated that the proposed project would generate a negligible amount of transit trips in the AM and PM peak hours and therefore would not significantly impact transit services. Three driveways would provide access to the site: the northerly staff only driveway would be restricted to right/in-right/out-left/in movements (i.e., no left/out allowed), the center public driveway would be restricted to right/in-right/out movements (i.e., no left/in-left/out allowed), and the southerly emergency/staff driveway would be a full access intersection with an emergency vehicle signal. Although a full access intersection, the southerly emergency/staff driveway left -turn out to Golden Valley Road would be restricted for emergency vehicle use only (i.e., staff would not be permitted to make a left -turn out of the driveway) . For vehicles travelling northbound on Golden Valley Road, a U-turn can be made at the northerly staff driveway intersection to access the center public driveway. Sta ntec mm v:\2073\active\2073013410\report\rpt_sheriff_station_20170420.docx 5.1 SANTA CLARITA VALLEY SHERIFF STATION TRAFFIC STUDY Appendix A ICU Worksheets April 2017 Appendix A ICU WORKSHErTS Peak hour intersection volume/capacity ratios are calculated by means of intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values. ICU calculations were performed for the intersections shown in Figure A-1. The procedure is based on the critical movement methodology, and shows the amount of capacity utilized by each critical move. A "de -facto" right -turn lane is used in the ICU calculation for cases where a curb lane is wide enough to separately serve both through and right -turn traffic (typically with a width of 19 feet from curb to outside of through -lane with parking prohibited during peak periods) . Such lanes are treated the same as striped right -turn lanes during the ICU calculations, but they are denoted on the ICU calculation worksheets using the letter "d" in place of a numerical entry for right -turn lanes. The methodology also incorporates a check for right -turn capacity utilization. Both right -turn -on - green (RTOG) and right -turn -on -red (RTOR) capacity availability are calculated and checked against the total right -turn capacity need. If insufficient capacity is available, then an adjustment is made to the total capacity utilization value. The following example shows how this adjustment is made. Example of Right -turn Capacity Utilization For Northbound Right 1. Right -Turn -On -Green (RTOG) If NBT is critical move, then: RTOG = V/C (NBT) Otherwise, RTOG = V/C (NBL) + V/C (SBT) - V/C (SBL) 2. Riaht-Turn-On-Red (RTOR If WBL is critical move, then: RTOR = V/C (WBL) Otherwise, RTOR = V/C (EBL) + V/C (WBT) - V/C (EBT) 3. Right -Turn Overlap Adjustment If the northbound right is assumed to overlap with the adjacent westbound left, adjustments to the RTOG and RTOR values are made as follows: RTOG = RTOG + V/C (WBL) RTOR = RTOR - V/C (WBL) (3� Stantec A.1 e a C) 0 o �a C) PaC� a � e Project Site yd do ,-d 3 0 d 21 U N 4 O U 3 LEGEND Study Intersection — — Future Roadway Figure A-1 ® Stantec Study Area and Intersection Location Map A.2 SANTA CLARITA VALLEY SHERIFF STATION TRAFFIC STUDY Appendix A ICU Worksheets April 2017 4. Total Right -Turn Capacity (RTC) Availability For NBR RTC = RTOG + factor x RTOR Where factor = RTOR saturation flow factor (typically 75%) 5. Right -turn Adjustment for ICU Calculation Right -turn adjustment is then as follows: Additional ICU = V/C (NBR) -RTC A zero or negative value indicates that adequate capacity is available and no adjustment is necessary. A positive value indicates that the available RTOR and RTOG capacity does not adequately accommodate the right -turn V/C, therefore the right -turn is essentially considered to be a critical movement. In such cases, the right -turn adjustment is noted on the ICU worksheet and it is included in the total capacity utilization value. When it is determined that a right -turn adjustment is required for more than one right -turn movement, the word "multi" is printed on the worksheet instead of an actual right -turn movement reference, and the right -turn adjustments are cumulatively added to the total capacity utilization value. In such cases, further operational evaluation is typically carried out to determine if under actual operational conditions, the critical right -turns would operate simultaneously, and therefore a right -turn adjustment credit should be applied. Shared Lane V/C Methodology For intersection approaches where shared usage of a lane is permitted by more than one turn movement (e.g., left/through, through/right, left/through/right), the individual turn volumes are evaluated to determine whether dedication of the shared lane is warranted to any one given turn movement. The following example demonstrates how this evaluation is carried out: Example of Shared Lane Utilization for Shared Left/Through Lane 1. Average Lane Volume (ALV) ALV = Left -Turn Volume +Through Volume Total Left +Through Approach Lanes (including shared lane) 2. ALV for Each Approach ALV (Left) _ Left -Turn Volume Left Approach Lanes (including shared lane) ALV (Through) = Through Volume Through Approach Lanes (including shared lane) (3� Stantec A.3 SANTA CLARITA VALLEY SHERIFF STATION TRAFFIC STUDY Appendix A ICU Worksheets April 2017 3. Lane Dedication is Warranted If ALV (Left) is greater than ALV then full dedication of the shared lane to the left -turn approach is warranted. Left -turn and through V/C ratios for this case are calculated as follows: V/C (Left) _ Left -Turn Volume Left Approach Capacity (including shared lane) V/C (Through) = Through Volume Through Approach Capacity (excluding shared lane) Similarly, if ALV (Through) is greater than ALV then full dedication to the through approach is warranted, and left -turn and through V/C ratios are calculated as follows: V/C (Left) _ Left -Turn Volume Left Approach Capacity (excluding shared lane) V/C (Through) = Through Volume Through Approach Capacity (including shared lane) 4. Lane Dedication is Not Warranted If ALV (Left) and ALV (Through) are both less than ALV, the left/through lane is assumed to be truly shared and each left, left/through or through approach lane carries an evenly distributed volume of traffic equal to ALV. A combined left/through V/C ratio is calculated as follows: V/C (Left/Through) = Left -Turn Volume +Through Volume Total Left +Through Approach Capacity (including shared lane) This V/C (Left/Through) ratio is assigned as the V/C (Through) ratio for the critical movement analysis and ICU summary listing. If split phasing has not been designated for this approach, the relative proportion of V/C (Through) that is attributed to the left -turn volume is estimated as follows: If approach has more than one left -turn (including shared lane), then: V/C (Left) = V/C (Through) If approach has only one left -turn lane (shared lane), then: V/C (Left) _ (3� Stantec Left -Turn Volume Single Approach Lane Capacity A.4 SANTA CLARITA VALLEY SHERIFF STATION TRAFFIC STUDY Appendix A ICU Worksheets April 2017 If this left -turn movement is determined to be a critical movement, the V/C (Left) value is posted in brackets on the ICU summary printout. These same steps are carried out for shared through/right lanes. If full dedication of a shared through/right lane to the right -turn movement is warranted, the right -turn V/C value calculated in step three is checked against the RTOR and RTOG capacity availability if the option to include right -turns in the V/C ratio calculations is selected. If the V/C value that is determined using the shared lane methodology described here is reduced due to RTOR and RTOG capacity availability, the V/C value for the through/right lanes is posted in brackets. When an approach contains more than one shared lane (e.g., left/through and through/right), steps one and two listed above are carried out for the three turn movements combined. Step four is carried out if dedication is not warranted for either of the shared lanes. If dedication of one of the shared lanes is warranted to one movement or another, step three is carried out for the two movements involved, and then steps one through four are repeated for the two movements involved in the other shared lane. (3� Stantec A.5 1. Golden Valley Road & Center Point Pkwy Existing Counts (2016) TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .70 .89 Interim Year Cumulative No Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NEL 1 1750 440 .25* 370 .21* NET 2 3500 1120 .32 1570 .45 NBR 1 1750 350 .20 250 .14 SBL 1 1750 130 .07 180 .10 SET 2 3500 1810 .52* 1260 .36* SBR 1 1750 200 .11 120 .07 EBL 1 1750 60 .03 260 .15* EBT 1 1750 50 .03* 110 .06 EBR 1 1750 240 .14 590 .34 WBL 2 3500 360 .10* 340 .10 WET 1 1750 70 .08 110 .26* WBR 0 0 70 350 Clearance Interval .10* .10* Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for NBR EBR TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.00 1.08 Existing + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NEL 1 1750 345 .20* 215 .12* NET 2 3500 901 .26 997 .28 NBR 1 1750 291 .17 218 .12 SBL 1 1750 131 .07 177 .10 SET 2 3500 1014 .29* 1163 .33* SBR 1 1750 139 .08 63 .04 EBL 1 1750 25 .01 143 .08* EBT 1 1750 43 .02* 99 .06 EBR 1 1750 132 .08 462 .26 WBL 2 3500 342 .10* 271 .08 WET 1 1750 64 .07 100 .26* WBR 0 0 63 348 Clearance Interval .10* .10* Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for NBR EBR TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .71 .89 Interim Year Cumulative With Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NEL 1 1750 443 .25* 372 .21* NET 2 3500 1140 .33 1584 .45 NBR 1 1750 353 .20 252 .14 SBL 1 1750 130 .07 180 .10 SET 2 3500 1833 .52* 1270 .36* SBR 1 1750 200 .11 120 .07 EBL 1 1750 60 .03 260 .15* EBT 1 1750 50 .03* 110 .06 EBR 1 1750 243 .14 591 .34 WBL 2 3500 363 .10* 341 .10 WET 1 1750 70 .08 110 .26* WBR 0 0 70 350 Clearance Interval .10* .10* Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for NBR EBR TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.00 1.08 Stantec A.6 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NEL 1 1750 342 .20* 213 .12* NET 2 3500 881 .25 983 .28 NBR 1 1750 288 .16 216 .12 SBL 1 1750 131 .07 177 .10 SET 2 3500 991 .28* 1153 .33* SBR 1 1750 139 .08 63 .04 EBL 1 1750 25 .01 143 .08* EBT 1 1750 43 .02* 99 .06 EBR 1 1750 129 .07 461 .26 WBL 2 3500 339 .10* 270 .08 WET 1 1750 64 .07 100 .26* WBR 0 0 63 348 Clearance Interval .10* .10* Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for NBR EBR TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .70 .89 Interim Year Cumulative No Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NEL 1 1750 440 .25* 370 .21* NET 2 3500 1120 .32 1570 .45 NBR 1 1750 350 .20 250 .14 SBL 1 1750 130 .07 180 .10 SET 2 3500 1810 .52* 1260 .36* SBR 1 1750 200 .11 120 .07 EBL 1 1750 60 .03 260 .15* EBT 1 1750 50 .03* 110 .06 EBR 1 1750 240 .14 590 .34 WBL 2 3500 360 .10* 340 .10 WET 1 1750 70 .08 110 .26* WBR 0 0 70 350 Clearance Interval .10* .10* Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for NBR EBR TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.00 1.08 Existing + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NEL 1 1750 345 .20* 215 .12* NET 2 3500 901 .26 997 .28 NBR 1 1750 291 .17 218 .12 SBL 1 1750 131 .07 177 .10 SET 2 3500 1014 .29* 1163 .33* SBR 1 1750 139 .08 63 .04 EBL 1 1750 25 .01 143 .08* EBT 1 1750 43 .02* 99 .06 EBR 1 1750 132 .08 462 .26 WBL 2 3500 342 .10* 271 .08 WET 1 1750 64 .07 100 .26* WBR 0 0 63 348 Clearance Interval .10* .10* Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for NBR EBR TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .71 .89 Interim Year Cumulative With Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NEL 1 1750 443 .25* 372 .21* NET 2 3500 1140 .33 1584 .45 NBR 1 1750 353 .20 252 .14 SBL 1 1750 130 .07 180 .10 SET 2 3500 1833 .52* 1270 .36* SBR 1 1750 200 .11 120 .07 EBL 1 1750 60 .03 260 .15* EBT 1 1750 50 .03* 110 .06 EBR 1 1750 243 .14 591 .34 WBL 2 3500 363 .10* 341 .10 WET 1 1750 70 .08 110 .26* WBR 0 0 70 350 Clearance Interval .10* .10* Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for NBR EBR TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.00 1.08 Stantec A.6 2. Golden Valley Road & Robert C. Lee Pkwy Existing Counts (2016) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NEL 0 0 0 0 NET 2 3500 1257 .36* 1319 .38 NBR 1 1750 645 .37 273 .16 SBL 2 3500 320 .09* 115 .03 SET 2 3500 1195 .34 1420 .41* SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 2 3500 523 .15* 383 .11* WET 0 0 0 0 WBR 1 1750 257 .15 187 .11 Clearance Interval .10* .10* Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for WBR NBR TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .70 .62 Interim Year Cumulative No Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NEL 0 0 0 0 NET 2 3500 1580 .45* 2020 .58* NBR 1 1750 660 .38 280 .16 SBL 2 3500 330 .09* 270 .08* SET 2 3500 1860 .53 1920 .55 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 2 3500 530 .15* 390 .11* WET 0 0 0 0 WBR 1 1750 270 .15 200 .11 Clearance Interval .10* .10* Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for WBR NBR TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .79 .87 Existing + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NEL 0 0 0 0 NET 2 3500 1286 .37* 1332 .38* NBR 1 1750 645 .37 273 .16 SBL 2 3500 335 .10* 125 .04* SET 2 3500 1220 .35 1437 .41 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 2 3500 523 .15* 383 .11* WET 0 0 0 0 WBR 1 1750 257 .15 187 .11 Clearance Interval .10* .10* Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for WBR NBR TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .72 .63 Interim Year Cumulative With Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NEL 0 0 0 0 NET 2 3500 1609 .46* 2033 .58* NBR 1 1750 660 .38 280 .16 SBL 2 3500 330 .09* 270 .08* SET 2 3500 1885 .54 1937 .55 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 2 3500 530 .15* 390 .11* WET 0 0 0 0 WBR 1 1750 270 .15 200 .11 Clearance Interval .10* .10* Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for WBR NBR TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .80 .87 Stantec A.7 3. Golden Valley Road & Sierra Hwy Existing Counts (2016) WBL 1 1750 21 .01 27 .02* WET 2 3500 1005 .29* 294 .08 WBR 1 1750 458 .26 274 .16 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .12* Clearance Interval .10* .10* Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for SBR WBR NBR EBR TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .98 .75 Interim Year Cumulative No Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NEL 2 3500 210 .06 50 .01 NET 3 5250 1410 .27* 1160 .22* NBR 1 1750 30 .02 60 .03 SBL 2 3500 300 .09* 490 .14* SET 2 3500 990 .28 1060 .30 SBR 1 1750 1100 .63 760 .43 EBL 1 1750 370 .21* 860 .49* EBT 2 3500 170 .05 1010 .29 EBR 1 1750 40 .02 210 .12 WBL 1 1750 20 .01 30 .02 WET 2 3500 660 .19* 220 .06* WBR 1 1750 460 .26 280 .16 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .12* Clearance Interval .10* .10* Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for SBR WBR NBR EBR TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .98 1.01 Existing + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NEL 2 3500 167 .05 37 .01 NET 3 5250 1008 .19* 686 .13* NBR 1 1750 32 .02 61 .03 SBL 2 3500 297 .08* 486 .14* SET 2 3500 499 .14 700 .20 SBR 1 1750 937 .54 599 .34 EBL 1 1750 348 .20* 469 .27 EBT 2 3500 194 .06 1252 .36* EBR 1 1750 34 .02 178 .10 WBL 1 1750 21 .01 27 .02* WET 2 3500 1005 .29* 294 .08 WBR 1 1750 458 .26 274 .16 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .12* Clearance Interval .10* .10* Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for SBR WBR NBR EBR TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .98 .75 Interim Year Cumulative No Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NEL 2 3500 210 .06 50 .01 NET 3 5250 1410 .27* 1160 .22* NBR 1 1750 30 .02 60 .03 SBL 2 3500 300 .09* 490 .14* SET 2 3500 990 .28 1060 .30 SBR 1 1750 1100 .63 760 .43 EBL 1 1750 370 .21* 860 .49* EBT 2 3500 170 .05 1010 .29 EBR 1 1750 40 .02 210 .12 WBL 1 1750 20 .01 30 .02 WET 2 3500 660 .19* 220 .06* WBR 1 1750 460 .26 280 .16 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .12* Clearance Interval .10* .10* Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for SBR WBR NBR EBR TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .98 1.01 Existing + Project WBL 1 1750 21 .01 27 .02* WET 2 3500 1005 .29* 294 .08 WBR 1 1750 465 .27 277 .16 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .10* Clearance Interval .10* .10* Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for SBR WBR NBR EBR TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .98 .75 Interim Year Cumulative With Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NEL 2 3500 210 .06 50 .01 NET 3 5250 1429 .27* 1168 .22* NBR 1 1750 30 .02 60 .03 SBL 2 3500 306 .09* 494 .14* SET 2 3500 1006 .29 1071 .31 SBR 1 1750 1103 .63 762 .44 EBL 1 1750 373 .21* 861 .49* EBT 2 3500 170 .05 1010 .29 EBR 1 1750 40 .02 210 .12 WBL 1 1750 20 .01 30 .02 WET 2 3500 660 .19* 220 .06* WBR 1 1750 467 .27 283 .16 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .12* Clearance Interval .10* .10* Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for SBR WBR NBR EBR TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .98 1.01 Stantec A.8 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NEL 2 3500 167 .05 37 .01 NET 3 5250 1027 .20* 694 .13* NBR 1 1750 32 .02 61 .03 SBL 2 3500 303 .09* 490 .14* SET 2 3500 515 .15 711 .20 SBR 1 1750 940 .54 601 .34 EBL 1 1750 351 .20* 470 .27 EBT 2 3500 194 .06 1252 .36* EBR 1 1750 34 .02 178 .10 WBL 1 1750 21 .01 27 .02* WET 2 3500 1005 .29* 294 .08 WBR 1 1750 465 .27 277 .16 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .10* Clearance Interval .10* .10* Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for SBR WBR NBR EBR TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .98 .75 Interim Year Cumulative With Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NEL 2 3500 210 .06 50 .01 NET 3 5250 1429 .27* 1168 .22* NBR 1 1750 30 .02 60 .03 SBL 2 3500 306 .09* 494 .14* SET 2 3500 1006 .29 1071 .31 SBR 1 1750 1103 .63 762 .44 EBL 1 1750 373 .21* 861 .49* EBT 2 3500 170 .05 1010 .29 EBR 1 1750 40 .02 210 .12 WBL 1 1750 20 .01 30 .02 WET 2 3500 660 .19* 220 .06* WBR 1 1750 467 .27 283 .16 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .12* Clearance Interval .10* .10* Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for SBR WBR NBR EBR TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .98 1.01 Stantec A.8 4. Golden Valley Road & Staff Dwy Existing Counts (2016) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NEL 0 0 0 0 NET 2 3500 1514 .43* 1506 .43 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0 SET 2 3500 1459 .42 1884 .54* SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WET 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Clearance Interval .10* .10* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .53 .64 Interim Year Cumulative No Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NEL 0 0 0 0 NET 2 3500 1870 .54 2170 .63* NBR 0 0 20 30 SBL 1 1750 70 .04 50 .03* SET 2 3500 2340 .67* 2140 .61 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 1 1750 40 .02* 40 .02* WET 0 0 0 0 WBR 1 1750 40 .02 20 .01 Clearance Interval .10* .10* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .79 .78 Existing + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NEL 1 1750 18 .01* 8 .00 NET 2 3500 1539 .44 1523 .44 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0 SET 2 3500 1476 .43* 1892 .54* SBR 0 0 12 5 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 1 1750 20 .01 14 .01 WBL 0 0 0 0 WET 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .01* Clearance Interval .10* .10* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .54 .65 Interim Year Cumulative With Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NEL 0 0 18 {.01}* 8 NET 2 3500 1895 .55 2187 .64* NBR 0 0 20 30 SBL 1 1750 70 .04 50 .03* SET 2 3500 2347 .67* 2148 .62 SBR 0 0 12 5 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 20 14 WBL 1 1750 40 .02* 40 .02* WET 0 0 0 0 WBR 1 1750 40 .02 20 .01 Clearance Interval .10* .10* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .80 .79 Stantec A.9 5. Golden Valley Road & Public Dwy Existing Counts (2016) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NEL 0 0 0 0 NET 2 3500 1514 .43* 1506 .43 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0 SET 2 3500 1459 .42 1884 .54* SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WET 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Clearance Interval .10* .10* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .53 .64 Interim Year Cumulative No Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NEL 0 0 0 0 NET 2 3500 1890 .54 2200 .63* NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0 SET 2 3500 2380 .68* 2180 .62 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WET 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Clearance Interval .10* .10* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .78 .73 Existing + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NEL 0 0 0 0 NET 2 3500 1556 .44* 1531 .44 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0 SET 2 3500 1491 .43 1903 .55* SBR 0 0 12 6 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 1 1750 10 .01 7 .00 WBL 0 0 0 0 WET 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Clearance Interval .10* .10* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .54 .65 Interim Year Cumulative With Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NEL 0 0 0 0 NET 2 3500 1932 .55 2225 .64* NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0 SET 2 3500 2402 .69* 2199 .63 SBR 0 0 12 6 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 1 1750 10 .01 7 .00 WBL 0 0 0 0 WET 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .01* Clearance Interval .10* .10* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .80 .74 Stantec A.10 6. Golden Valley Rd & Emergency/Staff Dwy Existing Counts (2016) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NEL 0 0 0 0 NET 2 3500 1514 .43* 1506 .43 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0 SET 2 3500 1459 .42 1884 .54* SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WET 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Clearance Interval .10* .10* Existing + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NEL 1 1750 12 .01* 5 .00 NET 2 3500 1546 .44 1524 .44 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0 SET 2 3500 1489 .43* 1905 .55* SBR 0 0 12 5 EBL 0 0 10 {.01}* 7 EBT 1 1750 0 .01 0 .01* EBR 0 0 10 7 WBL 0 0 0 0 WET 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Clearance Interval .10* .10* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .53 .64 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .55 .66 Interim Year Cumulative No Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NEL 0 0 0 0 NET 2 3500 1890 .54 2200 .63* NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0 SET 2 3500 2380 .68* 2180 .62 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WET 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Clearance Interval .10* .10* Interim Year Cumulative With Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NEL 1 1750 12 .01* 5 .00 NET 2 3500 1922 .55 2218 .63 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0 SET 2 3500 2400 .69* 2201 .63* SBR 0 0 12 5 EBL 0 0 10 {.01}* 7 EBT 1 1750 0 .01 0 .01* EBR 0 0 10 7 WBL 0 0 0 0 WET 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Clearance Interval .10* .10* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .78 .73 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .81 .74 Stantec A.11 7. Golden Valley Road & Via Princessa Interim Year Cumulative No Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NEL 2 3500 430 .12* 310 .09* NET 2 3500 1600 .46 1960 .56 NBR 1 1750 50 .03 190 .11 SBL 2 3500 20 .01 70 .02 SET 2 3500 1880 .54* 1810 .52* SBR 1 1750 480 .27 300 .17 EBL 2 3500 240 .07* 200 .06* EBT 2 3500 270 .08 530 .15 EBR 1 1750 240 .14 590 .34 WBL 2 3500 190 .05 50 .01 WET 2 3500 470 .13* 370 .11* WBR 1 1750 50 .03 40 .02 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .11* Clearance Interval .10* .10* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .96 .99 Interim Year Cumulative With Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NEL 2 3500 430 .12* 310 .09* NET 2 3500 1629 .47 1973 .56 NBR 1 1750 50 .03 190 .11 SBL 2 3500 35 .01 80 .02 SET 2 3500 1905 .54* 1827 .52* SBR 1 1750 470 .27 300 .17 EBL 2 3500 240 .07* 200 .06* EBT 2 3500 270 .08 530 .15 EBR 1 1750 240 .14 590 .34 WBL 2 3500 190 .05 50 .01 WET 2 3500 470 .13* 370 .11* WBR 1 1750 50 .03 40 .02 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .11* Clearance Interval .10* .10* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .96 .99 Stantec A.12 SANTA CLARITA VALLEY SHERIFF STATION TRAFFIC STUDY Appendix B Intersection Count Worksheets April 2017 Appendix B INTERSECTION COUNT WORKSHEETS ()� Stantec IDS N m m U n m0 N J o N U J O T C CNC ) C p O di 0 O � mr O Ot U � O dm C N V v N 'O C U) N m H 2 5 d d H Z d W W W W U L H a o a 'w O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o a Z Y W Z O O c� s H Q d H � Z d W Z W U L H W H Q d O W Q Z W � O O O 2 H W E Q Q Q Q H Q Q Q Q H Q Q Q Q H Q Q Q Q H Q Q Q Q H Q Q Q Q H U U U U H U U U U H U eo eo eo o �r r r r o ro m m ro o m m m o o o o 0 0 N m M m zt d d d H d d d d H d d d d H d d d d H d d d d rv= m= _ eo m ry ry m m d d d d= o u� u� u� o = eo eo eo _= m m m S t9 Q~¢ U m 0 U Q U 0 0 0 0 M m _ U) (D O O N r O N E O WM 66 Z N 0 0 0 pOCZ m D O U�rnrna V m CENTRE POINT PKWV �W 99EE 9 gM.31 j 1700 949 2853 46 1701 949 2853 76 N 1 4 �S Qa 3 t � oQo -- H O O O O �� aim r h t r► a d 9204 9404 99ff 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 fLOI 9101 25904 0405 ZOZS 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS901 OI bS LbLS iwoi ui 1no al tivwd 1 NIOd aai mao V m 99EE 9 V m N m H 2 5 d d H Z O d W W W Z W U L H a a Q a Z Y W Z O O L H 2 5 a Y d H � Z d �Z W U L H H Q O d W Q Z W 0 O O t9 L H W z?c o o W o W 3 m s F Q Q Q Q s_1 W o a >M -_m mU Q QU QUo m o s m o W N m C U) (D O O N r O N E O WN Z N 0 -C8 0 pOCZ m D O U�inrna N m 0 N m 0 0 N_ (6 (6 0 Y (6 ^L LL N E c0 G .E 2 d Y a z O d W W W Z U L H a Q a Z Y W Z O o s H 2 5 a a H � Z d �Z U L H H Q O d W Q Z W � O O t9 L H W ?c z 9 o W o W 3 o E d a d a- m O - W- - O -6 t� ry ry a H W >1 ° -_m WmU Q QU QU � m a o W C U) (D O O N r O N E O Wr Z N 0 -C8 0 pOCZ m D O U�inrna CENTRE POINT PKWV �W j g3598.1 N 1 4 aS � as 3 t z O z 0 0 h t r► 4fL ZBf 60f 0 0 0 0 0 0 lEL LBE 6bE iwoL ui ono al tivwd 1 NIOd aaL mao ®0�0 ®000 M.9� �i 0 �i 0 0 (6 (6 0 Y (6 ^L LL N E c0 G .E 2 5 d d H Z d W W W Z w U L H a Q a Z Y W Z O O L H 2 5 a a H � Z d �Z w U L H H Q O d W Q Z W � O O t9 L H W ?c o z 9 o W o W 3 o E U U U U- m � O - W- - U -6m m W j - m m m U Q QU QU m a o W CENTRE POINT PKWV �W Out In Tobl 492 718 1210 0 0 0 0 0 0 092 718 1210 348 100 270 5 348 100 270 f_5 N 1 4 aS � as 3 t z O z 0 0 R oao >__ 0 IL 0 � Z �� h t r► a d 6L04 COL 9Lf 0 0 0 0 0 0 6L01 CH 9L9 iwoi ui 1no al tivwd 1 NIOd aai mao CK 66 490 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M �i O m 66 l9b 0 �i O m U a co N N m U m� ' N � J O N U J O T N N C N C U) C O di E 0 ° > C, U m� _� O U � C r G Ot U � o dm C v N C N H Q O a W a o Q Zr W Z 0 o F Y a a W � U > W > W m I W H Q O o W a Q Z W O m O s H Q Q Q Q H Q Q Q Q H Q Q Q Q H Q Q Q Q H Q Q Q Q H Q Q Q Q H U U U U H U U U U H U Y m eo eo eo eo m m m m o. m. m m m 0 o o o 0 0 N 0 > o m a o N m o U U U o H U U U U o H U U U U o H U U U U o H U U U U o H U U U U o H U U U U o H H s 1O U U o c o o U U H? Z a Q o N m U m 0 N N T N N ►mI U a 0 co N N H Q O a W a o Q Z r W Z 0 o F Y a a U > W > W m I H Q O o W N � Q Z W O m O s H E L ~ Q Q Q Q S o Z o m m Q o U m a O Cr N N T 0) 01 ROBERT c LEE PKWY [W Out n Toni 965 780 1745 0 0 0 0 0 0 965 780 1745 257 523 113 0 0 0 0 0 2 5] 523 115 R L P N 4 IL Q JS � as 3 t Q - 0 i N m U 0 co N N T Ed H Q O a W a o Q Z r W Z 0 0 2 m � Y a a U > W > W m I H Q O o W a o Q Z W O m O s H — Q o m m Q o T Ed U m 0 O (r N N T 0) 01 ROBERT c LEE PKWY [W Out n Toni 360 382 742 0 0 0 0 0 0 360 382 742 123 25924 0 0 0 0 0 1 23 258 25 R P N 4 > Q JS � as 3 t Q - IL 0 �i 0 0 N 0 IL (6 (6 0 2 Y IL C CN C co G 0 r 6] U a co N N O O 66 (6 (6 0 Y (6 ^L LL N E c0 G .E m Ed H Q O a W a o Q Z r W Z 0 0 2 c� F Y a a U > W > W m I H Q O o W a a Q Z W O m O s H E m U U o W W o o U U Y H o S o Z m m a o m m Q o m Ed U m a O co N T 0) 01 ROBERT c LEE PKWY [W Out n Toni 388 570 958 0 0 0 0 0 0 388 570 958 8] 383 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8] 383 88 R P N 4 JS as 3 t - 00 R „-- 0 0 a�IL �i m_ m m `) m m 0 m m U n N mE o N U ) U_ N Vl C O� d> C CN U) ".T . E C Q O di O U � C r O, G Ot U � O mm C v N C 0 m a 2 5 x � W W W s a� d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z W z 0 0 c� W QH d 5 S Q W W N s H W QH d O W j Z Q Z W o O O t9 s H W 2 2 2� 2 2 E2 Q Q Q Q H Q Q Q Q H Q Q Q Q H Q Q Q Q H Q Q Q Q H Q Q Q Q H d d d d H d d d d H m eo eo 0 o p. �. m. a. r r r r 0 o . .. a. . m m m 0 o p. �. m m 0 o O 0 0 o o�� o o o ry ry ry o o 0 o 0 m m C m CD —m m r r N.. N r .... � r.. r .... �� � o' -o m�aa �,�, as �� ... r r .� r � a� a 0"mo s o m Ln N N_ T N N SIERRA Hwv VV3I Out Toll 11382 10634 21016 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 11385 10634 22819 3682 6545 406 1 0 3682 6545 406 1 163 N 1 y IS tt lm --- Z r n h i d i 084[2 EVZZ4 LE6V4 0 0 0 0 0 0 S 0 l SLl6 6ELLl 9WYl Iwoy w mo leal nnnH vaaals H d 4 oc61 9Es9 zee 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 o E 1 o l OWY EE9 N m 9 lLL 0 N m N_ N N C N � 0 N O N N N O W N66 0 -C8 0 pOCZ m p N U�inrna N m QH d 2 5 � S Q a � W W W W s i d 0 w � E r z w z 0 0 w d 2 5 � � S Q �W N s H QH d O W E > o S Q Z 5 W � O O t9 s H W o - s s F Q Q Q Q off m ~ H d s o -6 r r a Q >m o Q >m QW o - m WW 1 m WU 0 a d 0 N m m U 'ee m u O � 0. sN � OT N C eE w C VI NQ �O C8.0 r Q U 0 0 E� m N MN U) U O mm N O,H Ln SIERRA Hwv VV3I Out Toll 523 1484 2007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 523 1484 2007 458 1005 21 0 0 458 1005 21 0 56 N 1 y IS JJ � Sd Sd a� z `o Q� ooQ r= r L_Z a r� h t rl 5892 9L5 6042 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5&9L 9L5 601E Iwoy w mo leal nnnH vaaals H d o etc 164 oc o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 0 0 0 0 0 0 90E 061 i V N m OE 0 i V N m QH 2 d 5 � S Q a W � W W W s i d 0 w � E z r w z 0 0 w i1 2 d 5 � � S Q MT s H QH d O W E > o S Q 5 Z W O O t9 s H W o o o W E - om 3 -6 oo� m m ~ H d s o ;. ry ry a Q >m o Q >m QW o - m WW 1 m WU 0 a d 0 SIERRA Hwv VV3I Out Toll 667 693 1360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 667 693 1360 356 302 35 0 0 356 302 35 0 16 N 1 y IS = ooat o , r= r n h i rl 90V4 ZL9 VEL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9001 LL9 YF1 Iwoy w mo leal nnnH vaaals H d 0 zVE e6z zE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EVE 96E G 0 0 N O EL (6 (6 O 2 Y EL C CN C 0 C L N N m LE 0 G 0 0 N O EL (6 (6 O 2 Y EL C CN C 0 C L N N m m N_ N N C N � 0 N O N N N O W N66 0 -C8 0 pOCZ m p N U�inrna N m QH 2 d 5 � S Q a W � W W W s i1 d 0 w z r w z 0 0 w 2 d 5 � � S Q s H QH d O W E > o S Q 5 Z W O O t9 2 H W o W E - o -6 m m d s ;. Q >m Qo >m QW o - m WW o mU WU 0 T d 0 N m N N_ T N N > SIERRA Hwv VV3I Out Toll 1799 595 2394 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1799 595 2394 274 294 27 0 0 274 294 27 0 0 N 1 y IS 10 = oa �Z a r� h t rl 6282 6684 OE6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 679E 6b91 OE5 Iwoy w mo leal nnnH vaaals H d 0 691 G zsn eu o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 690 LSZI 96 0 G Transportation Studies, Inc Totals 7.832 12.115 SPAM/o 48.4 49.4 Day Totals 19,947 Day Splits 49.0 8.357 51.6 Peak Hour 07:30 05:00 07:30 Volume 1.595 1.522 1.440 Factor 0.89 0.94 0.90 D1702024 20,784 51.0 12.427 16.189 50.6 40,731 24.542 05:00 07:30 05:00 1.775 3.035 3.297 0.95 0.94 0.95 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite L Tustin, CA. 92780 Location GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD Site: SANTA CLARET Segment S/O CENTRE POINT PARKWAY Date: 02/14/17 Client STANTEC Interval NB SB Canbmed Day: Tuesday Begin AM PM AM PM AM PM 12:00 40 120 238 1,085 58 152 314 1,144 98 272 552 2,229 12:15 26 274 38 249 64 523 12:30 23 279 24 278 47 557 1245 31 294 32 303 63 597 01:00 18 66 310 L162 18 87 278 L090 36 153 588 1252 01:15 12 278 25 252 37 530 01:30 14 262 22 280 36 542 01:45 22 312 22 280 44 592 02:00 10 69 372 1.377 17 85 292 1.318 27 154 664 2.695 02:15 23 318 18 298 41 616 02:30 12 358 28 332 40 690 0245 24 329 22 396 46 725 03:00 13 116 378 1.517 16 105 358 1.481 29 221 736 2.998 03:15 18 403 24 378 42 781 03:30 35 378 31 381 66 759 03:45 50 358 34 364 84 722 04:00 54 371 330 1,384 39 276 406 1,624 93 647 736 3,008 04:15 74 318 54 374 128 692 0430 117 368 74 443 191 811 0445 126 368 109 401 235 769 05:00 100 519 406 1,522 182 848 460 1,775 282 1,367 866 3,297 05:15 128 342 208 434 336 776 05:30 140 404 210 467 350 871 05:45 151 370 248 414 399 784 06:00 124 667 358 L281 310 L338 384 L275 434 1005 742 1556 06:15 139 320 302 338 441 658 06:30 174 296 370 269 544 565 0645 230 307 356 284 586 591 07:00 244 L287 274 L031 314 L432 256 886 558 1719 530 L917 07:15 282 272 324 224 606 496 07:30 351 241 394 220 745 461 0745 410 244 400 186 810 430 0800 450 L494 214 714 304 L142 185 684 754 1636 399 L398 08:15 384 179 342 176 726 355 08:30 346 168 256 162 602 330 0845 314 153 240 161 554 314 09:00 304 1,098 124 460 262 977 156 545 566 2,075 280 1,005 09:15 260 110 248 151 508 261 09:30 258 130 220 134 478 264 0945 276 96 247 104 523 200 10:00 240 974 112 355 222 988 95 352 462 1,962 207 707 10:15 258 76 252 99 510 175 10:30 244 82 260 86 504 168 1045 232 85 254 72 486 157 11:00 245 L051 68 227 226 927 74 253 471 L978 142 480 11:15 266 68 233 80 499 148 11:30 284 31 232 46 516 77 Totals 7.832 12.115 SPAM/o 48.4 49.4 Day Totals 19,947 Day Splits 49.0 8.357 51.6 Peak Hour 07:30 05:00 07:30 Volume 1.595 1.522 1.440 Factor 0.89 0.94 0.90 D1702024 20,784 51.0 12.427 16.189 50.6 40,731 24.542 05:00 07:30 05:00 1.775 3.035 3.297 0.95 0.94 0.95 Transportation Studies, Inc Totals 8.364 12.492 Split-/. 49.0 49.2 Day Totals 20.856 Day Splits 49.1 8.701 51.0 Peak Hour 07:30 0245 07:30 Volume 1.829 1.584 1.639 Factor 0.83 0.95 0.89 D1702025 21,617 50.9 12.916 17.065 50.8 42,473 25.408 05:00 07:30 05:00 1.892 3.468 3.400 0.94 0.88 0.96 2640 Walnut Avenue, Suite L Tustin, CA. 92780 Location GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD Site: SANTA CLARET Segment N/O SIERRA HIGHWAY Date: 02/14/17 Client STANTEC Interval NB SB Canbmed Day: Tuesday Begin AM PM AM PM AM PM 1200 44 122 254 1,172 62 158 278 1,228 106 280 532 2,400 12:15 24 294 42 366 66 660 12:30 25 296 24 282 49 578 1245 29 328 30 302 59 630 01:00 21 71 312 L218 22 89 300 L116 43 160 612 2334 01:15 12 284 22 288 34 572 01:30 14 284 24 256 38 540 01:45 24 338 21 272 45 610 02:00 10 69 392 1.497 16 81 345 1.353 26 150 737 2.850 02:15 23 326 22 316 45 642 02:30 10 372 22 344 32 716 0245 26 407 21 348 47 755 03:00 12 117 416 1.551 20 106 441 1.673 32 223 857 3.224 03:15 19 385 22 452 41 837 03:30 35 376 30 388 65 764 03:45 51 374 34 392 85 766 04:00 54 366 343 1,450 37 265 436 1,666 91 631 779 3,116 04:15 78 315 48 394 126 709 0430 114 396 74 438 188 834 0445 120 396 106 398 226 794 05:00 108 526 389 1,508 172 856 498 1,892 280 1,382 887 3,400 05:15 116 338 213 501 329 839 05:30 160 407 220 454 380 861 05:45 142 374 251 439 393 813 06:00 118 826 356 L292 274 L338 372 L276 392 1164 728 1568 06:15 148 302 301 350 449 652 06:30 220 302 367 282 587 584 0645 340 332 396 272 736 604 07:00 295 L708 268 L031 382 L553 253 895 677 3,261 521 L926 07:15 364 262 350 226 714 488 07:30 500 251 381 230 881 481 0745 549 250 440 186 989 436 08:00 396 L468 206 714 460 L344 170 656 856 1812 376 L370 08:15 384 194 358 176 742 370 08:30 338 157 282 152 620 309 0845 350 157 244 158 594 315 09:00 288 1,080 125 477 254 970 158 558 542 2,050 283 1,035 09:15 250 120 275 142 525 262 09:30 258 128 217 150 475 278 0945 284 104 224 108 508 212 1000 250 969 110 356 248 991 90 344 498 1,960 200 700 10:15 250 76 236 96 486 172 10:30 229 88 273 92 502 180 1045 240 82 234 66 474 148 11:00 246 L042 77 226 228 950 73 259 474 L992 150 485 11:15 270 56 242 85 512 141 11:30 268 35 250 42 518 77 Totals 8.364 12.492 Split-/. 49.0 49.2 Day Totals 20.856 Day Splits 49.1 8.701 51.0 Peak Hour 07:30 0245 07:30 Volume 1.829 1.584 1.639 Factor 0.83 0.95 0.89 D1702025 21,617 50.9 12.916 17.065 50.8 42,473 25.408 05:00 07:30 05:00 1.892 3.468 3.400 0.94 0.88 0.96 SANTA CLARITA VALLEY SHERIFF STATION TRAFFIC STUDY Appendix C Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff Station Traffic Study - Trip Generation and Case Study Data Memorandum April 2017 Appendix C SANTA CLARITA VALLEY SHERIFF STATION TRAFFIC STUDY - TRIP GENERATION AND CASE STUDY DATA MEMORANDUM ()� Stantec C.1 ® Stantec Memo To: Ian Pari From: Daryl Zerfass City of Santa Clarita Stantec File: 2073013410 Date: February 2, 2017 Reference: Santa Clarifa Valley Sheriff Station Traffic Study - Trip Generation and Case Study Data A traffic study is being prepared for the proposed County Sheriff Station in the City of Santa Clarita. To establish the vehicle trip generation rates to be used for the study, this memorandum summarizes a literature review and case study prepared by Stantec in 2015 for the County of Los Angeles in conjunction with the development of a new Sheriff Station facility proposed at that time for an unincorporated community in the Santa Clarita Valley. The intent of this memorandum is to provide background information to support the trip rates to be used in the City's study. Background In May, 2015, Stantec prepared a traffic study for the proposed Castaic Junction Sheriff Station in unincorporated Santa Clarita Valley. Since the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual does not provide trip generation rates for Police or Sheriff Stations, we conducted at that time a literature review of other police and sheriff station traffic studies and we also prepared a case study of the South Los Angeles Sheriff Station located on Imperial Highway just east of Normandie Avenue. The County Department of Public Works (DPW), Traffic and Lighting Division utilized the results of the literature review and the South Los Angeles case study to establish a set of trip generation rates suitable for use in the County project's traffic study. Literature Review A search of information related to trip generation estimates for police or sheriff stations indicated that very little data is available. The most comprehensive analysis of trip generation was found in a case study prepared in Portland, Oregon. That case study, entitled "Police Station PM Peak Hour Trip Generation in the Portland Metro Area"' was conducted in order to establish a standard trip generation rate by collecting and analyzing data from five police stations throughout the Portland Metro area. The study found a correlation between gross leasable area and trips. From the regression analysis an equation was formulated. The regression analysis found that the number of trips generated in the PM peak hour can be estimated using the following equation: PM Trips = 1.5 x TSF + 2.8672 (80% outbound/20% inbound) However, the Portland report focused only on PM peak hour trips and did not provide any data for the AM peak hour or for average daily trips (ADT). Another study prepared for a Los Angeles County project consisting of a Sheriff Station, Probation Office, and a County building2 was also reviewed in 1 Police Station PM Peak Hour Trip Generation in the Portland Metro Area, Portland State University, December, 2009. 2 Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Athens Sheriff's Station, Centinela Area Probation Office Replacement, and New County Building, DEA, August, 2006. Design with community in mind v:A2073\activeA2073013410AcorrespondenceAmemos\mem_trlp-gen_sherlff 20170202.docx C.2 ® Stantec February 2, 2017 Ian Pari Page 2 of 4 Reference: Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff Station Traffic Study - Trip Generation and Case Study Data the literature search. That study included a trip rate estimate for ADT, but did provide data for the peak hours. The Sheriff Station ADT trip rate used in that study is the following: ADT Trips = 22.29 x TSF South Los Angeles Case Study To determine if the Portland Metro Area trip rates are valid for a Los Angeles County Sheriff Station, a case study of a station comparable in size and function to the proposed Castaic Junction station was performed. The South Los Angeles Sheriff Station, which is located on Imperial Highway just east of Normandie Avenue, was recommended by the Sheriff's Department for the case study due to its size, number of deputies, and operational characteristics being very similar to the proposed Castaic station. Traffic counts of vehicles entering and exiting each of the station's driveways were collected during the AM and PM peak periods on a weekday in February, 2015. Table 1 summarizes the driveway data collected at the site. Table 1 South Los Angeles Sheriff Station Driveway Counts Time 15 Minute Count Hour Total in out Total AM 7:00 AM 6 2 8 50 7:15 AM 6 7 13 69 7:30 AM 4 2 6 70 7:45 AM 12 11 23 81 8:00 AM 14 13 27 67 8:15 AM 9 5 14 8:30 AM 9 8 17 8:45 AM 5 4 9 AM Pk Hr Volume 44 37 81 PM 4:00 PM 4 7 11 46 4:15 PM 3 5 8 39 4:30 PM 8 7 15 41 4:45 PM 5 7 12 41 5:00 PM 2 2 4 36 5:15 PM 2 8 10 5:30 PM 5 10 15 5:45 PM 4 3 7 PM PkHr Volume 1 20 1 26 1 46 Design with community in mind v:\2073\active\2073013410\correspondence\memos\mem_trip_ge n_sheriff_20170202.docx C.3 ® Stantec February 2, 2017 Ian Pari Page 3 of 4 Reference: Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff Station Traffic Study - Trip Generation and Case Study Data During the typical AM peak period, the South Los Angeles Sheriff Station experiences a peak volume of traffic between 7:45 and 8:45 AM. During the typical PM peak period, the station's peak traffic volumes occur between 4:00 and 5:00 PM. Table 2 compares these peak hour driveway counts to the estimated volume of trips based on the Portland trip rates. As shown, the Portland trip rates over estimated the number of trips generated by South Los Angeles Sheriff Station during the PM peak hour. Table 2 Trip Generation Comparison - South Los Angeles Sheriff Station AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Location In Out Total In Out Total Driveway traffic counts 44 37 81 20 26 46 Estimated trips based on Portland n/a n/a n/a 16 62 78 trip rates Because the Portland trip rates overstate the number of Sheriff Station trips in comparison to the driveway counts, County DPW Traffic & Lighting staff chose to utilize the Portland trip rates as a worst case assumption for the Castaic Junction Sheriff Station study. For the AM peak hour, where the Portland study does not include data, County staff chose to apply the Portland PM trip rate, but with opposite directionality (i.e., 80% inbound and 20% outbound). For ADT estimates, the analysis utilized the ADT rate from the Athens study. City of Santa Clarita Sheriff Station - Draft Trip Generation Estimates The proposed Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff Station consists of an approximate 44,000 square foot Sheriff Station main building and a 4,000 square foot vehicle maintenance building. Three different methods for estimating trip generation based on these square footages are summarized in Table 3. Table 3 Santa Clarita Sheriff Station Trip Generation Estimates (Draft) Description Amount/ Unit AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT In Out Total In Out Total Method 1 - Consistent with County Study 48 TSF 60 15 75 15 60 75 1,070 Method 2- Based on South Los Angeles Case Study 48 TSF 44 37 81 20 26 46 1,070 Method 3 - Portland Rate with Case Study Directionality 48 TSF 41 34 75 32 42 75 1,070 Notes: Portland PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Rate: 1.5 x TSF + 2.8672 (80%/20% directional split) Athens Sheriff Station ADT Trip Generation Rate: 22.29 x TSF As shown above, the method used for the County's Sheriff Station study results in the worst-case peak hour directional volume. Utilizing the case study results from the South Los Angeles Sheriff Station results in slightly higher AM peak hour totals, but lower PM peak hour totals. A third method Design with community in mind v:\2073\active\2073013410\correspondence\memos\mem_trip_ge n_sheriff_20170202.docx CA ® Stantec February 2, 2017 Ian Pari Page 4 of 4 Reference: Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff Station Traffic Study - Trip Generation and Case Study Data consists of utilizing the Portland trip rates for the total hourly volume, but with directionality based on the South Los Angeles case study. Each method results in a defensible analysis; however local considerations may result in a particular method being preferable. We will contact you to discuss the approach most appropriate for this specific project. STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. Daryl Zerfass Principal, Transportation Planning & Traffic Engineering Phone: (949) 923-6074 Daryl.Zerfass@stantec.com c. Susan Tebo Design with community in mind v:\2073\active\2073013410\correspondence\memos\mem_trip_ge n_sheriff_20170202.docx C.5