Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2021-03-23 - AGENDA REPORTS - SIERRA WEST ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY MC 18-235 (2)
O Agenda Item: 9 P CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARINGS CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:1 DATE: March 23, 2021 SUBJECT: SIERRA WEST ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY, MASTER CASE 18- 235 DEPARTMENT: Community Development PRESENTER: Mike Marshall RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council: 1. Receive the staff report, presentation, and conduct the public hearing. 2. Adopt a resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project and approving Master Case 18-235 (Ridgeline Alteration Permit 18-002, Conditional Use Permit 18-011, Hillside Development Review 19-001, Oak Tree Permit 18-013, Minor Use Permit 18-021, Development Review 18-024, Architectural Design Review 20-022, and Initial Study 19-003) for the proposed residential health care facility (Assessor's Parcel Number: 2827-005-048), subject to the final Conditions of Approval. BACKGROUND On November 19, 2018, the applicant, Norris Whitmore, submitted an application requesting the approval of an 83-unit, 61,736 square -foot residential health care facility located in the Mixed Use -Corridor (MX-C), Ridgeline Preservation, and Planned Development Overlay Zones, approximately 680 feet south of the intersection of Sierra Highway and Newhall Avenue (Project). The Project was deemed complete on December 19, 2018. Development Review Committee meetings were conducted on January 30, 2019, June 20, 2019, and May 8, 2020. PROJECT SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project would include an 83-unit, 61,736-square-foot senior living facility, which would consist of independent, assisted living, and memory care units. The proposed development area Page 1 Packet Pg. 43 O would be concentrated on an approximately 1.1-acre, flat portion of the 3.99-acre Project site located adjacent to Sierra Highway. The proposed building would include a total of six levels, five which would be aboveground and one which would be subterranean. Due to existing varied topography, five levels would be visible aboveground on the eastern elevation and four levels would be visible aboveground on the western elevation. The proposed building would consist of the following, as shown in Table 1: Table 1: Building Floor Usage Building Level Use Subterranean Level Employee & Guest Parking Spaces, Clean -Air Vehicle Parking Spaces, Laundry, Storage, and Equipment Rooms Level One Resident Parking Spaces, Bike Storage, Mail Room, Office Space, Salon, and Gymnasium Level Two All 29 Memory Care Units, Resident Dining Facilities and Kitchen, Outdoor and Common Areas Level Three 19 Assisted/Independent Living Units, Common Area Level Four 19 Assisted/Independent Living Units, Common Area Level Five 16 Assisted/Independent Living Units, Common Area, Rooftop Deck In total, the proposed building would include 29 studio (325 square -foot) memory care units, 51 one -bedroom (650 square -foot) independent/assisted living units, and three two -bedroom (845 square -foot) independent/assisted living units, for a total of 83 units. Of the 54 oak trees on site, the proposed Project would include the removal of one heritage oak and four non -heritage oak trees. The balance of the oak trees on the Project site (49 oaks) would be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan. Grading of the development area would result in approximately 10,000 cubic yards of cut and 400 cubic yards of fill, resulting in 9,600 cubic yards of soil to be exported from the site. Vehicular traffic would access the site through two driveways: an existing driveway located on Sierra Highway, and a new driveway located approximately 180 feet from the existing driveway. A truck -loading space and fire turn -around access would be located on the south side of the building. Approximately 81 percent of the site would consist of natural open space and new landscaping. PROPOSED ENTITLEMENTS The following is a list of the entitlements required for the construction of the proposed 83-unit residential health care facility: Ridgeline Alteration Permit 18-002 Required for the encroachment into the 100-foot vertical Ridgeline Protection Overlay Zone. In accordance with Section 17.26.130 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), the Planning Commission is required to hold a public hearing and forward their recommendation to the City Council. Page 2 Packet Pg. 44 O Conditional Use Permit 18-011 Required for the operation and maintenance of a residential health care facility in the MX-C zone, for the development of a property in the Planned Development Overlay Zone, and for the construction of a building in excess of 50 feet in height. In accordance with Section 17.25.100 of the UDC, a Conditional Use Permit application is required to ensure the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of the UDC. Because of their unusual characteristics, certain land uses require special consideration so that they may be located properly with respect to the objectives of the UDC and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. In order to achieve this, the approving authority is empowered to grant approval with conditions for uses in zones, as prescribed by the UDC, and to impose reasonable conditions upon the granting of Conditional Use Permits. Hillside Development Review 19-001 Required for development activity on natural slopes in excess of 10 percent slope. In accordance with Section 17.25.130 of the UDC, a Hillside Development Review application is required to ensure the Project complies with all provisions of the UDC as they apply to the development and alteration of hillside areas, to minimize the adverse effects of hillside development. To achieve this, the review authority is empowered to grant approval with conditions for uses in zones, as prescribed by the UDC. Oak Tree Permit 18-013 Required for the removal of five oak trees (one heritage and four non -heritage), and the encroachment into an additional nine oak trees (two heritage and seven non -heritage). In accordance with Section 17.23.170 of the UDC, an Oak Tree Permit application is required to ensure that the Project complies with the procedures and requirements established to protect and preserve oak trees in the City. In order to achieve this, the approving authority is empowered to grant approval with conditions for uses in zones, as prescribed by the UDC. Minor Use Permit 18-021 Required for the reduction of the required minimum number of residential units in an MX-C zone. In accordance with Section 17.24.120 of the UDC, a Minor Use Permit application is required to ensure the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of the UDC. In order to achieve this, the approving authority is empowered to grant approval with conditions for uses in zones, as prescribed by the UDC, and to impose reasonable conditions upon the granting of Minor Use Permits. Development Review 18-024 In accordance with Section 17.23.120 of the UDC, a Development Review application is required to ensure that the Project complies with all of the provisions of the UDC, the General Plan, and other applicable requirements. In order to achieve this, the review authority is empowered to grant approval with conditions for uses in zones, as prescribed by the UDC. Architectural Design Review 20-022 In accordance with Section 17.23.110 of the UDC, an Architectural Design Review is required to ensure the architecture complies with the provisions of the UDC, the General Plan, and other applicable requirements. In order to achieve this, the review authority is empowered to grant approval with conditions for uses in zones, as prescribed by the UDC. Page 3 Packet Pg. 45 O SIGNIFICANT RIDGELINE The Ridgeline Preservation Overlay Zone classification was established in an effort to achieve the City's objective to preserve the ridgelines within the City of Santa Clarita (City) limits for the public health, safety, and welfare for the long-term benefit of the community, maintenance of the unique visual characteristics, resources and ridgeline integrity, and to achieve a higher quality of life for its residents. As shown in Figure 1 below, a designated significant ridgeline parallels the northern boundary of the property highlighted in yellow. Figure 1: Significant Ridteline Figure 2 shows the existing condition of the Project site looking west from Sierra Highway, with the significant ridgeline located in the background. Figure 2: Existing Condition With Significant Ridteline Page 4 Packet Pg. 46 O The precise ridgelines are defined as the line formed by the meeting of the tops of sloping surfaces of land. The Ridgeline Preservation Overlay Zone was established to protect the visual integrity of the area within 100 feet vertical and 100 feet horizontal from the ridgeline. The red line shown in Figure 3 identifies the location of the significant ridgeline. The shaded green area identifes the full extent of the 100-foot horizontal Ridgeline Preservation Overlay Zone and a portion of the 100-foot vertical Ridgeline Preservation Overlay Zone. The gold -colored shaded area identifies the remaining portion of the 100-foot vertical Ridgeline Preservation Overlay Zone located outside of the horizontal Ridgeline Preservation Overlay Zone. Figure 3 demonstrates that the proposed development activity would be located within both the horizontal and vertical portions of the Ridgeline Preservation Overlay Zone. Therefore, as stated in Section 17.38.070 of the UDC, the proposed use requires the approval of a Ridgeline Alteration Permit. Figure 3: Significant Ridteline Exhibit ,nrom 00 re . *m✓w^rrrru wma.€ � m r r,/ � � r lnir;�!'�� r *� �� e rpr�� 9 at«jwi.+lr O mro J k✓+�! � J. oo �r�ll� I�91 h Q'"Jfi 11 P ,.V its / F y rJ.. p "�dB,,Mi� f a 6! �m ury f w' '�A, M f e// rr�e 4,• J 4 hum,., ^'`""^" / ^' Jd �ircn ,� LEA °r � !p , �nwm rh a �1 011 1 r���irN�'� ! rm y1, slur. 1 `� / u r, The proposed Project would utilize creative site -design strategies to limit the majority of the development activity to the portion of the site that possesses the least amount of natural topography, therefore limiting required grading activity and reducing impacts to adjacent hillsides. The Project would conserve natural topographic features and appearances by means of contour grading and would mimic the existing topography to the greatest extent possible, so as to blend any manufactured slopes or required drainage benches into the natural topography. By placing the proposed building on a portion of the site with limited variation in topography surrounded by the adjacent natural hillside, the proposed development would utilize a relatively flat portion of the Project site and would therefore not alter prominent natural features of the ridgelines. Although the proposed building would partially obscure the designated significant ridgeline, a significant portion would still be visible from Sierra Highway and State Route 14. Page 5 Packet Pg. 47 O BUILDING HEIGHT AND ARCHITECTURE The maximum allowable building height in the MX-C zone without the approval of a CUP is 50 feet. As proposed, the five -story building would be 56 feet-3 inches in height. However, the varying horizontal planes at the upper extent of the building facade are recessed back from the vertical face of the building to provide for visual variation as shown in Figures 4 and 5 below. All new construction within the City is subject to the Santa Clarita Community Character and Design Guidelines (SCCDG). The SCCDG has established specific design criteria for the community of Newhall. The City's on -call architectural consultant, RRM Design Group, reviewed the proposed building design for compliance with the SCCDG, specifically the portions relating to the community character of Newhall and multi -family development. It was the determination of the consultant that the proposed Project is consistent with the "Contemporary Western" style specified for the community of Newhall. Figures 4 and 5 include the proposed architectural renderings for the Project. Figure 4: Sierra West Assisted Living Architectural Renderings Figure 5: Sierra West Assisted Living Architectural Renderings Page 6 Packet Pg. 48 O PARKING Section 17.42.010(11) of the UDC requires that 0.5 parking spaces be provided on site for each unit or bed. The proposed residential health care facility consists of 83 units, which requires a minimum of 42 on -site parking spaces. The proposal includes 77 on -site parking spaces and provides a surplus of 35 on -site parking spaces, in excess of the minimum required by the UDC. A total of 73 parking spaces would be provided within the two -level parking structure, while four spaces would be provided as surface parking spaces, for a total of 77 spaces. Table 2 below demonstrates how the parking is distributed on site and includes a provision for guest parking spaces and clean air/vanpool/electric vehicle parking spaces. Table 2: Parking Space Distribution Parking Level Resident Parking Guest Parking Employee Parking Unassigned Clean Air/ Electrical Vehicle/ Vanpooi Parking Total Basement Level 21 * l l * 1 * 33 Level 1 40** 40 Surface Parking 4 4 Total 40 21 15 1 77 *Includes 1 Clean Air/Vanpool/Electric Vehicle Parking Space, for a total of three on the basement level **Includes 5 Clean Air/Vanpool/Electric Vehicle Parking Spaces on Level 1 OAK TREES The Project would result in the removal of five oak trees and the encroachment into the protected zone of an additional nine oaks. Of the five oak trees to be removed, one is a heritage status oak. Further, of the nine oak trees to be encroached upon, two are heritage status oaks. Figure 6 is the Protected Tree Plan and shows the proposed removals in red and the proposed encroachments in blue. Those trees designated as heritage oaks are outlined in yellow. Tree numbers 1, 2, and 3 would be removed, as they are in the footprint of the proposed building. Trees 31 and 32 would be removed as a result of the construction of proposed walls. All proposed encroachments would occur as a result of minor grading activity associated with the construction of the same walls used to create open space area for residents and street improvements along Sierra Highway. Per Condition SD24 in the attached Conditions of Approval, the applicant shall mitigate for the International Society of Arboriculture tree value of $268,500. Mitigation shall be determined by the City and can be an acceptable combination of replacement oaks planted on the site and the balance of the replacement value paid into the City Oak Tree Fund. Page 7 Packet Pg. 49 O Figure 6: Protected Tree Plan FIR,C)TECTIED TREE IPLAN GIP;Tree #1 wwww wwwwww Tree #2 ,.��19 1UW mmuuwu 'Tree #3 � m ry Tree #32 � V Proposed non -heritage oaik encroachments mi ar / s %Proposed non -heritage oak I�°er ovql Nei/ W � %4II�� WI �"JW4 r I h r it ge M�encroachments� � � Time � ENVIRONMENTAL An Initial Study was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Initial Study determined that impacts related to biological resources, cultural resources, and tribal and cultural resources, as it relates to the proposed Project, are considered to be less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of CEQA. The Initial Study was circulated from January 26, 2021, to February 16, 2021. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On February 16, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Project. The Planning Commission, by a 5-0 vote, adopted a resolution recommending the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Project and approve Master Case 18-235 for an 83-unit residential health care facility, with added Conditions of Approval that include the following: • Provide eight fully -operational Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations prior to occupancy. • Provide a minimum of ten handicap -accessible parking spaces (4 required by code). • Provide enhanced and mature -sized trees and other plantings along the project frontage. • Provide mitigation oak tree plantings on site to the extent the site would allow for Page 8 Packet Pg. 50 O successful growth. Provide architectural enhancements on the Sierra Highway elevation that could include additional awnings. For safety purposes, provide a sign going northbound on Sierra Highway and approaching the intersection with Eternal Valley, warning motorist of a U-turn movement ahead (deemed infeasible by staff). NOTICING On March 2, 2021, a notice of public hearing was sent to all property owners within a 1,000-foot radius of the Project site (173) in accordance with Section 17.06.110(B) of the UDC. A legal notice advertising the public hearing was placed in The Signal, and a sign was posted on the Project site. As of this writing, the Community Development Department has received three comment letters regarding the proposed Project (attached). ALTERNATIVE ACTION Other actions as determined by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT The Project would not have a negative fiscal impact on the City's General Fund. The applicant would be required to pay various development impact fees. ATTACHMENTS Public Hearing Notice Resolution with Exhibit A Plan Sets (Site Plan, Elevations, Grading Plan, Landscape Plan) Comment Letters (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) Planning Commission Staff Report 2-16-2021 (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) Planning Commission Resolution P21-01 (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) Page 9 Packet Pg. 51 9.a PROJECT TITLE: Sierra West Assisted Living APPLICATION: Master Case 18-235; Ridgeline Alteration Permit 18-002; Conditional Use Permit 18-011; Hillside Development Review 19-001; Oak Tree Permit 18- 013; Minor Use Permit 18-021; Development Review 18-024; Architectural Design Review 20-022 PROJECT APPLICANT: Norris Whitmore PROJECT LOCATION: Assessor's Parcel Number 2827-005-048, located along the west side of Sierra Highway, approximately 600 feet south of Newhall Avenue, immediately north of the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary. The City of Santa Clarita City Council will conduct a public hearing on this matter on the following date. The City Council meeting will be conducted remotely, consistent with public health orders issued by the State of California and the County of Los Angeles. DATE: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 TIME: At or after 6:00 p.m. LOCATION: City Hall, Council Chambers 23920 Valencia Blvd., First Floor Santa Clarita, CA 91355 WEBSITE: http://santaclaritaciiyca.igm2.com/Citizens/default.aspx PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting the approval of a Ridgeline Alteration Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Hillside Development Review, Oak Tree Permit, Minor Use Permit, Development Review and an Architectural Design Review for the construction of a five -story, 83-unit residential health care facility consisting of independent living, assisted living and memory care units with ancillary services provided on site. The subject property is in the Mixed Use Corridor (MX-C) zone and within the Ridgeline Preservation and Planned Development (PD) overlay zones. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: At their regularly scheduled meeting on February 16, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and voted 5-0 to adopt Resolution P21-01, recommending the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project and approve Master Case 18-235. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the proposed project and was available for a period of public review, during which time the City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department received comments, beginning at 12:00 p.m. on January 26, 2021, and ending at 12:00 p.m. on February 16, 2021. During the public review period, a copy of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and all supporting documents was located at the City Clerk's Office located in the City Hall Building at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 120, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. If you wish to challenge the action taken on this matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearings described in this notice, or written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Clarita at, or prior to, the public hearings. Packet Pg. 52 9.a For further information regarding this proposal, you may contact the project planner at the City of Santa Clarita, Permit Center, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 140, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Telephone: (661) 255- 4330. Website: www.santa-clarita.com/planning. Send written correspondence to: 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Project Planner: Mike Marshall, Associate Planner, mmarshall�>,santa-clarita.com. Mary Cusick, MMC City Clerk Published: The Signal, March 2, 2021 Packet Pg. 53 9.b RESOLUTION NO. 2 1 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING MASTER CASE 18-235 (RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 18-002, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 18-011, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 19-001, OAK TREE PERMIT 18-013, MINOR USE PERMIT 18-021, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 18-024, ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW 20-022, AND INITIAL STUDY 19-003) TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN 83-UNIT RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF SIERRA HIGHWAY, SOUTH OF NEWHALL AVENUE (APN: 2827-005-048) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact: A. An application for Master Case 18-235 (Ridgeline Alteration Permit 18-002; Conditional Use Permit 18-011; Hillside Development Review 19-001; Oak Tree Permit 18-013; Minor Use Permit 18-021; Development Review 18-024; Architectural Design Review 20-022; and Initial Study 19-003) (hereinafter "Project") was filed by Norris Whitmore (hereinafter "Applicant") with the City of Santa Clarita (City) on November 19, 2018. The property for which this application was filed is located west of Sierra Highway and south of Newhall Avenue Assessor's Parcel Number (APN): 2827-005-048 (hereinafter "Subject Site"); B. The Project consists of a five -story, 83-unit, 61,736 square -foot senior -living facility, including independent living, assisted living, and memory care units consistent with the residential health care facility land use designation; C. The application was deemed complete on December 19, 2018; D. Development Review Committee meetings were conducted on January 30, 2019, June 20, 2019, and May 28, 2020; E. The zoning and General Plan designation for the subject site is Mixed Use -Corridor (MX-C) and is located in the Ridgeline Preservation and Planned Development Overlay Zones; F. The property is bound by Sierra Highway to the east, a mortuary and memorial park to the south, an auto -tuning workshop to the north, and undeveloped hills to the west; G. On February 16, 2021, a duly noticed public hearing was held virtually before the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita; H. At this public hearing, the Planning Commission considered the staff report, the staff presentation, the Applicant's presentation, and public testimony. The Planning Packet Pg. 54 9.b Commission unanimously adopted Resolution P21-01 recommending that the City Council adopt the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve Master Case 18-235, with the incorporation of additional Conditions of Approval (conditions PC1- PC6 in Exhibit A); On March 23, 2021, a duly noticed public hearing was held virtually before the City Council at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita; and At this public hearing, the City Council considered the staff report, the staff presentation, the Applicant's presentation, and public testimony. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby finds as follows: A. An Initial Study and a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this Project have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); B. The Initial Study has been circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public, and all comments received, if any, have been considered. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted and advertised on January 26, 2021, in accordance with CEQA. The public review period was open from January 26, 2021, through February 16, 2021; C. There is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment with the required mitigation. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City; D. The documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision of the Planning Commission is made is the Master Case 18-235 project file, located within the Community Development Department and is in the custody of the Director of Community Development; and E. The City Council, based upon the findings set forth above, hereby finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration for this Project has been prepared in compliance with CEQA. SECTION 3. GENERAL FINDINGS FOR MASTER CASE 18-235. Based on the foregoing facts and findings for Master Case 18-235, the City Council hereby finds as follows A. That the proposal is consistent with the General Plan; The proposed Project is consistent with the City's General Plan. Specifically, the General Plan Land Use Element, Objective 3.1 and Policy 3.1.6 state: Objective 3.1: Provide for a diversity ofhousing types available to provide safe and suitable homes for all economic levels, household sizes, age groups and special needs groups within the community. Packet Pg. 55 9.b Policy 3.1.6: Promote development ofhousing suitable to residents with special needs, including, but not limited to senior citizens and persons with disabilities. The proposed Project would construct an 83-unit residential health care facility. The facility would provide an active environment for senior citizens and provide on -site services including medical supervision. A portion of the units would be dedicated to memory care. B. The proposal is allowed within the applicable underlying zone and complies with all other applicable provisions of the City's Unified Development Code (UDC); The proposed use is allowed within the applicable underlying zone, MX-C, via the Conditional Use Permit process. The proposed Project is consistent with all General Plan goals, objectives, and policies for architecture and site design, and meets the applicable UDC provisions identified in Sections 17.34, 17.42, 17.51, 17.53, and 17.57 for residential and commercial developments, as identified in the Conditions of Approval generated for the proposed Project. C. The proposal will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, or be materially detrimental or injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located; and An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were completed for the proposed Project. With the required mitigation, the Project will produce either no impact or less than significant impacts in all areas identified by the Initial Study. The Project will not handle or use commercial quantities or types of hazardous materials, will have less than significant impact on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, will not generate noise beyond that contemplated by the City's Noise Ordinance, is not subject to landslide hazards or flood hazards, will have less than significant impact on water quality, will not divide any existing community, and will have less than significant impact on population and housing. D. The proposal is physically suitable for the site. The factors related to the proposal's physical suitability for the site shall include, but are not limited to, the following: 1) The design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics are suitable for the proposed use; The proposed Project is an 83-unit residential health care facility that is located on a previously disturbed vacant parcel in the MX-C zone. The subject property is approximately 3.99 acres in size, with an approximate 1.1-acre development area. The proposed Project is consistent with all applicable UDC provisions identified in Sections 17.34, 17.42, 17.51, and 17.55. The proposed facility complies with the City's Community Character and Design Guidelines and is consistent with the massing and density of development allowed in the area. Further, the residential health care facility has operational characteristics such as reduced vehicle trip generation that reduces the potential for adverse impacts, making the use suitable for the proposed location. Packet Pg. 56 9.b 2) The highways or streets that provide access to the site are ofsufcient width and are improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such proposal would generate; The proposed Project is fronted by Sierra Highway, a major arterial highway. Over 16,200 daily trips occur on the segment of Sierra Highway that fronts the subject site. The proposed Project would generate approximately 216 new daily trips, which would increase the total daily trips on the adjacent segment of Sierra Highway by slightly greater than one -tenth of one percent. Finally, all ingress and egress from the Project will be right -turn in and right -turn out only. No traffic leaving the site will be allowed to perform a left turn across traffic. These design features comply with all applicable requirements for commercial development by the Traffic & Transportation Planning Division. 3) Public protection services (e.g., Fire protection, Sheriprotection, etc.) are readily available; and The proposed Project would not create any significant adverse impacts to public services, nor would it necessitate the construction of new facilities for fire, police, school services, or parks. Although the proposed use could result in an increase in the number of local trips for medical purposes, because a portion of population at the proposed use would be derived from the current City population, these would not be new trips. Further, because the proposed Project only contains 83 units, the number of actual new trips would be low and well within the current capacity of existing emergency services. 4) The provision of utilities (e.g., potable water, schools, solid waste collection and disposal, storm drainage, wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal, etc) is adequate to serve the site. The proposed Project is required, via the Conditions of Approval, to establish all needed utilities prior to the issuance of building permits. SECTION 4. RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT FINDINGS FOR RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 18-002. Based on the foregoing facts and findings for Ridgeline Alteration Permit 18-002, the City Council finds as follows: A. The use or development will not be materially detrimental to the visual character of the neighborhood or community, nor will it endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare. The Project would not be materially detrimental to the visual character of the site, as the residential health care facility use would be appropriate in relation to adjacent uses and the development of the community, as is evidenced by development allowed on parcels adjacent to the intersection of Sierra Highway and Newhall Avenue. The proposed buildings would utilize materials and design elements consistent with the Community Character and Design Guidelines for the community of Newhall, and the built- 4 Packet Pg. 57 9.b environment of all proposed development would be consistent in scale and massing with allowable development on surrounding properties. Mitigation measures recommended in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and compliance with all local codes, ensure that the Project would not endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare. B. The appearance of the use or development will not be substantially different than the appearance ofadjoining ridgeline areas so as to cause depreciation ofthe ridgeline appearance in the vicinity. The proposed buildings would utilize materials and design elements consistent with the Community Character and Design Guidelines for the community of Newhall, and the built -environment of all proposed development would be consistent in scale and massing with allowable development on surrounding properties. Furthermore, the Project maintains views of the site's prominent ridgeline for pedestrians and travelers along Sierra Highway and Newhall Avenue. C. The establishment of the proposed use or development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties, nor encourage inappropriate encroachments to the ridgeline area. Implementation of the Project would not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property, nor encourage inappropriate future encroachments into the ridgeline areas. Overall, the Project would not alter the visual integrity of the ridgeline, as the majority of the ridgeline will remain visible by pedestrians and vehicle traffic on Sierra Highway and development of the site would not restrict the views of other ridgelines located off the Project site. D. The proposed use or development demonstrates creative site design resulting in a Project that will complement the community character and provide a direct benefit to current and future community residents ofnot only the proposed use or development, but the residents of the City as a whole. The proposed residential health care facility would incorporate design elements consistent with the Community Character and Design Guidelines for the community of Newhall, and would utilize creative site design strategies to limit the majority of the development activity to the portion of the site that possesses the least amount of natural topography, reducing impact to adjacent hillsides and limiting grading activity. Further, the proposed use would be a direct benefit to residents of the community, as it provides employment opportunities and serves an aging population and those in need of ongoing memory care services. E. The use or development minimizes the effects ofgrading to the extent practicable to ensure that the natural character of the ridgeline is preserved. The entirety of the Project site is located within the 100-foot vertical Rddgeline Protection Overlay Zone. However, the proposed Project would utilize creative site design strategies to limit the majority of the development activity to the portion of the site that possesses Packet Pg. 58 9.b the least amount of natural topography, reducing impact to adjacent hillsides and limiting required grading activity. F. The proposed use or development is designed to mimic the existing topography to the greatest extent possible through the use of landform contour grading. While limited grading would occur within the Ridgeline Protection Overlay Zone, the Project would still be consistent with Conservation and Open Space Element Policies. The Project would conserve natural topographic features and appearances by means of landform grading, so as to blend any manufactured slopes or required drainage benches into the natural topography. The proposed building would be located on a portion of the site with limited variation in topography and surrounded by natural hillside, thereby conserving the significant ridgeline located outside the subject property boundaries. G. The proposed use or development does not alter natural landmarks and prominent natural features of the ridgelines. By placing the proposed building on a portion of the site with limited variation in topography surrounded by the adjacent natural hillside, the proposed development would utilize a relatively flat portion of the Project site and would therefore not alter prominent natural features of the ridgelines. While grading would occur at the base of the Ridgeline Protection Overlay Zone, the Project would still be consistent with Conservation and Open Space Element Policies because the Project would only alter a limited portion of the ridgeline. Further, there are no public scenic overlooks on or adjacent to the Project site. Therefore, the proposed Project would not alter natural landmarks. SECTION 5. SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (CLASS 4) 19-001. Based on the foregoing facts and findings for Hillside Development Review 19-001 the City Council finds as follows: A. That the natural topographic features and appearances are conserved by means of landform grading to blend any manufactured slopes or required drainage benches into the natural topography; While limited grading would occur within the Ridgeline Protection Overlay Zone, no portion of the existing ridgeline would be graded, and therefore the proposed Project would be consistent with Conservation and Open Space Element Policies. The Project would conserve natural topographic features and appearances by means of landform grading, so as to blend any manufactured slopes or required drainage benches into the natural topography. The proposed building would be located on a portion of the site with limited variation in topography and surrounded by natural hillside, thereby conserving the significant ridgeline located outside the subject property boundaries. B. That natural, topographic prominent features are retained to the maximum extent possible; The grading plan would involve an estimated cut of 10,000 cubic yards and a fill of 400 cubic yards, resulting in 9,600 cubic yards of soil to be exported from the site. The total Packet Pg. 59 9.b development footprint would cover approximately 1.11 acres. The Project includes grading within the Ridgeline Preservation Overlay Zone for the construction of retaining walls to create the final building -pad area. The Project site contains hillsides with an average cross -slope in excess of 10 percent, requiring the approval of a Hillside Development Review in accordance with the UDC. The grading will blend into the neighboring hillsides, utilize appropriate contour grading techniques to soften the impacts associated with the grading, and will comply with Hillside Development standards of the UDC. C. That clustered sites and buildings are utilized where such techniques can be demonstrated to substantially reduce grading alterations of the terrain and to contribute to the preservation of trees, other natural vegetation and prominent landmark features and are compatible with existing neighborhood; The proposed development consists of a single five -story building that is situated within a relatively flat portion of the subject property that, however, includes grading into the adjacent slopes for the purposes of retaining walls to complete the remainder of the building -pad area. Of the 54 onsite and adjacent oak trees, 49 will remain in place and approximately 2.88 acres of the 3.99-acre Project site will remain undeveloped in its natural state. Therefore, the proposed design of the Project will contribute to the preservation of trees to the greatest extent possible, other natural vegetation, prominent features and would be compatible with surrounding existing development. D. That building setbacks, building heights and compatible structures and building forms that would serve to blend buildings and structures with the terrain are utilized; The proposed building is consistent with the setback requirements of the UDC. The colors, materials, massing, and other architectural elements utilized in the proposed building are consistent with the Community Character and Design Guidelines. Further, the proposed Project utilizes landform grading to blend any slopes or drainage benches into the natural topography. Therefore, building setbacks, building heights, and compatible structures and building forms that would serve to blend buildings and structures with the terrain have been utilized. E. That plant materials are conserved and introduced so as to protect slopes from slippage and soil erosion and to minimize visual effects ofgrading and construction on hillside areas, including the consideration of the preservation ofprominent trees and, to the extent possible, while meeting the standards of the Fire Department; The proposed development area consists of a relatively flat 1.11-acre portion of the 3.99- acre Project site. As a result, approximately 2.88 acres of the overall Project site would be left in its natural condition, conserving existing plant material. The proposed Project would retain 49 of the 54 oak trees existing on or immediately adjacent to the subject property. Further, the landscape plan would include a plant palette consisting of native species that would have best chances of thriving in their environment. Therefore, the proposed Project would serve to prevent erosion activity and minimize the visual effects of grading on the Project site. F. That street design and improvements that serve to minimize grading alterations and emulate the natural contours and character of the hillsides are utilized; Packet Pg. 60 9.b The proposed Project includes the construction of one five -story, 61,736 square -foot residential health care facility with two driveways located immediately adjacent to Sierra Highway, an existing major highway. All proposed vehicular circulation would be facilitated at that portion of the Project site most adjacent to Sierra Highway, a relatively flat portion of the Project site. Further, no additional roadways are proposed as a part of the Project. Therefore, the street design and improvements would serve to minimize grading alterations and emulate the natural contours and character of the hillsides. G. That grading designs that serve to avoid disruption to adjacent properties are utilized; and The proposed Project does not include off -site grading of any kind. Further, all proposed grading would be concentrated with the development footprint which is located on a relatively flat portion of the subject property. Therefore, the proposed grading would not disrupt adjacent properties. H. That site design and grading that provide the minimum disruption of view corridors and scenic vistas from and around any proposed development are utilized. The Project is not located within any scenic vistas and is not anticipated to have a significant impact to the visual character of the site. The Project includes development within the Ridgeline Protection Overlay Zone of an identified Significant Ridgeline in the City's General Plan Conservation Element. No portion of the existing ridgeline would be graded as a part of the proposed Project and therefore the Project would still be consistent with Conservation and Open Space Element Policies. Based on the evaluations of existing conditions, including the fact that the ridgeline on the Project site is not a character -defining feature of the Newhall community, the Project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. SECTION 6. OAK TREE PERMIT FINDINGS FOR OAK TREE PERMIT 18-013. Based on the foregoing facts and findings for Oak Tree Permit 18-013 the City Council hereby finds as follows: A. The approving authority shall make one (1) or more of the following findings before granting an oak tree permit: 1) The condition or location of the oak tree(s) requires cutting to maintain or aid its health, balance, or structure; 2) The condition ofthe tree(s) with respect to disease, danger offalling, proximity to existing lots, pedestrian walkways or interference with utility services cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable preservation and/or preventative procedures and practices; 3) It is necessary to remove, relocate, prune, cut or encroach into the protected zone of an oak tree to enable reasonable use of the subject property which is otherwise prevented by the presence of the tree and no reasonable alternative can be accommodated due to the unique physical development constraints of the property; or Packet Pg. 61 9.b 4) The approval of the request will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of the code. The Project site contains 54 oak trees that are protected by the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. The Project consists of the removal of one heritage oak tree and four non -heritage oak trees, the potential encroachment of up to nine oak trees, two of which are considered heritage oak trees. The City would require replacement oak trees to be planted in the landscaped areas of the Project site to offset the loss of the removed oak trees. If planting on -site is not possible, the applicant may donate the replacement oak trees to the City or provide the equivalent monetary value of the replacement trees to the City's Oak Tree Fund. Further, compliance with the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance, including the Standards for Performance of Permitted Work of the Oak Tree Preservation Guidelines, would ensure that the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and impacts. B. No heritage oak tree shall be removed unless one (1) or more of the above findings are made and the review authority also finds that the heritage oak tree's continued existence would prevent any reasonable development of the property and that no reasonable alternative can be accommodated due to the unique physical constraints of the property. It shall further be found that the removal ofsuch heritage oak tree will not be unreasonably detrimental to the community and surrounding area. The proposed project includes the removal of one heritage oak tree. The heritage oak tree is located in the only relatively flat portion of the project site where preservation of the tree would require additional grading into the Ridgeline Protection Overlay Zone to create a sufficient building -pad area to facilitate any reasonable development of the site. Further, due to the property's unique constraints, including the immediately adjacent significant Ridgeline Protection Overlay Zone, the limited amount of relatively flat topography, and its immediate adjacency to Sierra Highway, no reasonable alternative can be accommodated. Removal of the heritage oak tree would not be unreasonably detrimental to the community and the surrounding area, as 49 of the existing 54 oak trees will remain onsite and the City would require replacement oak trees to be planted onsite to offset the loss of the removed oak trees. If planting onsite is not possible, the applicant may donate the replacement trees to the City or provide the equivalent monetary value of the replacement trees to the City's Oak Tree Fund. SECTION 7. The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approves Master Case 18-235 (Ridgeline Alteration Permit 18-002, Conditional Use Permit 18- 011, Hillside Development Review 19-001, Oak Tree Permit 18-013, Minor Use Permit 18-021, Development Review 18-024, and Architectural Design Review 20-022) to allow for the construction of an 83-unit residential health care facility located on the west side of Sierra Highway, south of Newhall Avenue (APN: 2827-005-048), subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A). SECTION 8. 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. Packet Pg. 62 9.b PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of March, 2021. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK DATE: 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 21- was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 23rd day of March 2021, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL,MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL,MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL,MEMBERS: 10 CITY CLERK Packet Pg. 63 9.b EXHIBIT A MASTER CASE 18-235 RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 18-002 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 18-011 HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 19-001 OAK TREE PERMIT 18-013 MINOR USE PERMIT 18-021 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 18-024 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW 20-022 INITIAL STUDY 19-003 DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (as adopted by Resolution No. 21- ) GENERAL CONDITIONS GC1. The approval of this project shall expire if the approved use is not commenced within two (2) years from the date of this approval, unless it is extended in accordance with the terms and provisions of the City of Santa Clarita's Unified Development Code (UDC). GC2. To the extent the use approved with this project is a different use than previously approved for the property, the prior approval shall be terminated along with any associated vested rights to such use, unless such prior approved use is still in operation, or is still within the initial pre -commencement approval period. Once commenced, any discontinuation of the use approved with this project for a continuous period of one hundred eighty (180) calendar days or more shall terminate the approval of this use along with any associated vested rights to such use. The use shall not be re-established or resumed after the one hundred eighty (180) day period. Discontinuation shall include cessation of a use regardless of intent to resume. GC3. The applicant may file for an extension of the conditionally approved project prior to the date of expiration. If such an extension is requested, it must be filed no later than sixty (60) days prior to expiration. GC4. The applicant shall be responsible for notifying the Director of Community Development, in writing, of any change in ownership, designation of a new engineer, or change in the status of the developer, within thirty (30) days of said change. GCS. Unless otherwise apparent from the context, the term "applicant" shall include the applicant and any other persons, corporation, or other entity making use of this grant. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Santa Clarita, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this project by the City, including any related environmental approvals. In the event the City becomes aware of any such claim, action, or proceeding, the City shall promptly notify the applicant. If the City fails to notify the applicant or if the City fails to cooperate fully ll Packet Pg. 64 9.b in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. Nothing contained in this condition prohibits the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, if both of the following occur: 1) the City bears its own attorneys' fees and costs; and 2) the City defends the action in good faith. The applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless the settlement is approved by the applicant. GC6. The property shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the approvals granted by the City. Any modifications shall be subject to further review by the City. GC7. The applicant and property owner shall comply with all inspections requirements as deemed necessary by the City of Santa Clarita. GCB. The owner, at the time of issuance of permits or other grants of approval agrees to develop the property in accordance with City codes and other appropriate ordinances including, but not limited to, the California Building Code (Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical, Green Building, and Energy Codes), Fire Code, Unified Development Code (Grading Code and Undergrounding of the Utilities Ordinance), Utilities Code (Sanitary Sewer and Industrial Waste Ordinance), and Highway Permit Ordinance. GC9. This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the applicant has filed with the Director of Community Development, their affidavit (Acceptance Form) stating that they are aware of, and agree to accept, all of the conditions of this grant. GC10. Details shown on the site plan are not necessarily approved. Any details which are inconsistent with the requirements of state or local ordinances, general conditions of approval, or City policies and not modified by this permit must be specifically approved. GC11. It is hereby declared and made a condition of this permit that if any condition hereof is violated, or if any law, statute, or ordinance is violated, the City may commence proceedings to revoke this approval. PLANNING PL1. The applicant is approved for the construction of a five -story, 83-unit, 61,736 square -foot senior living facility with one additional subterranean parking level. The approved use contains independent and assisted living units, as well as memory care services on a 1.1 - acre portion of a 3.99- acre site. PL2. The project shall be developed in conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans, elevations and all other plan sets on file with the Planning Division as a part of Master Case 18-235. Any change in the site plan, building elevations, landscaping, or walkways (color, material, architectural treatments) must be approved by the Planning Division prior to their installation. PL3. A total of 77 onsite parking spaces shall be provided throughout the project site. The 77 onsite parking spaces shall be allocated in the following manner: 12 Packet Pg. 65 9.b Parking Resident Guest Parking Employee Parking Unassigned Clean Total Level Parking Air/Vanpool/Electrical Vehicle Parking Basement 21* 11* 1* 33 Level Level 1 40** 40 Surface 4 4 Parking Tota 1 40 21 15 1 77 *Includes 1 Clean Air/Vanpool/Electric Vehicle Parking Space for a total of three on the basement level **Includes 5 Clean Air/Vanpool/Electric Vehicle Parking Spaces on Level 1 PL4. The applicant shall coordinate with the City of Santa Clarita Technology Services Division regarding installation of infrastructure for fiber optic cable services. The applicant can contact the Technology Services Manager at (661) 286-4086 regarding the City's fiber optic initiative. PL5. All ground -mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened completely from surrounding properties by landscaping or other approved material. PL6. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened from public view to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. PL7. The trash enclosures and any other accessory structures shall include architectural styling and features consistent with the proposed building and the City of Santa Clarita Community Character and Design Guidelines. PL8. The employee break areas shall be designed and installed to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development prior to occupancy. PL9. All parking lot and site landscaping, including tree wells, shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development prior to occupancy. All headlight hedges shall provide proper screening, measure 36 inches in height, and be touching leaf - to -leaf at the time of installation. PL10. All parking stalls shall be a minimum of 9 feet in width by 18 feet in length. PL11. Lighting shall complement the architectural style and be designed with "full cut-off' luminaires to focus light downward and to prevent glare and spillover onto adjacent properties. Light standards shall not obstruct the 9-foot by 18-foot parking spaces. PL12. Construction shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, unless traffic volumes or public safety issues warrant otherwise (as determined by City, County, or State officials). No construction on Sundays and holidays shall occur. 13 Packet Pg. 66 9.b PL13. The proposed project shall comply with all City codes, including but not limited to Municipal Code Section 11.44 Noise Limits, and the requirements of all City Divisions, including but not limited to the Building and Safety Division and Engineering Division. PL14. Approval for this use shall neither supersede nor supplant the required approval from other applicable City divisions or government agencies, and shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations, including but not limited to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). PL15. No signage is approved as part of this application. All proposed signage shall be reviewed under separate permit by the Planning Division and shall be in conformance with an approved sign program. PL16. Prior to building permit issuance, a final landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division as part of a complete application for a Landscape Plan Review (LPR) All fees applicable to a Landscape Plan Review at the time of submittal shall apply. Landscape LR1. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide final landscape, lighting and irrigation plans (Landscape Document Package) for Planning Division review and approval. The plan must be prepared by a California -registered landscape architect and shall be designed with the plant palette suitable for Santa Clarita (Sunset Western Garden Book Zone 18, minimum winter night temperatures typically 20' to 30' F; maximum summer high temperatures typically 105' F to 110' F). The landscape design plan shall meet the design criteria of the State Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance as well as all other current Municipal Code / Unified Development Code requirements. LR2. The applicant shall be aware that additional fees will be required to be paid by the applicant for the review of required landscape and irrigation plans by the City's landscape consultant based on an hourly rate. An invoice will be provided to the applicant at the completion of the review of the plans. The applicant will be required to pay all associated fees to the City of Santa Clarita prior to the release of the approved landscape and irrigation plans for the project. LR3. Applicants are encouraged to incorporate plant material that is complementary to the natural landscape and environmental conditions of the Santa Clarita Valley. Minimizing the use of common and over planted landscape plants such as Agapanthus spp., Rhaphiolepis spp., Photinia spp., Phormium tenax, and Dietes spp. will help promote a strong sense of place and identity for your project. LR4. Revise and resubmit the Landscape Documentation Package to address comments. Some comments are marked in red directly on the plans. Return marked landscape plan with any revisions. Resubmitted plans may generate further comments upon review. LR5. Required Landscape Plan Elements. Final landscape plans shall contain all elements as listed in the checklist for preliminary landscape plans, and shall conform to the following: 14 Packet Pg. 67 9.b (a) Standards for Multifamily Residential Development. In addition to the standards for single-family residential development, the following additional requirements apply to multifamily developments and shall be landscaped, irrigated, and maintained in compliance with the requirements of this section: a. For all new multifamily residential developments, a minimum of ten percent (10 percent) of the total site area is required to be landscaped. b. The total area of any project not devoted to lot coverage and paving shall be landscaped, irrigated, and maintained in compliance with the requirements of this code, unless modified by the approving authority. Preferred ground covers in the main landscape area and the front setback areas are ones that can be walked on and that utilize water -conserving plant materials. d. Turf shall be limited to a maximum of twenty percent (20 percent) of the total landscaped area. Low-water usage turf or warm season turf is recommended. Turf shall be excluded from areas difficult to irrigate (e.g., narrow pathways, parkways less than five (5) feet in width, sidewalk strips, slopes, etc.). f. The incorporation of fountains, pools, and other water elements within the project is encouraged as are other decorative elements (e.g., the and iron work). Water elements shall be designed to conserve water. g. Substantial trees (thirty-six (36) inch box and larger) are strongly encouraged in front and side yard setback areas, to the satisfaction of the Director. h. In cases where the front setback is located over fully subterranean parking, tree wells with an inside diameter of at least six (6) feet shall be provided. The minimum tree size at planting shall be twenty-four (24) inch box, unless otherwise approved by the Director. (b) All projects The plant palette shall not include any plants listed as invasive exotic pest plants by the California Invasive Plant Council (lists available at http://groups.ucanr.org/ceppc/), or other plants determined to be invasive by a competent botanist or biologist. ii. Trees visible from the property's public street frontage and/or in the property's street -facing common area for a residential project shall be a minimum 24" box size, and shall include a proportionate number of 36," 48," and 60" box -size specimens (Santa Clarita Community Character and Design Guidelines, adopted March 2009). 15 Packet Pg. 68 9.b iii. Landscape plans shall show plant material to screen at maturity all trash enclosures, transformer boxes, vault boxes, backflow devices, and other exterior mechanical equipment. Screening material may include trees, shrubs (15-gallon minimum size), clinging vines, etc. Masonry block (concrete masonry unit) trash enclosures shall be screened with both shrubs and clinging vines. iv. Landscape plans shall show all lighting fixtures, base dimensions, and typical finish elevations. v. The applicant shall apply jute netting to all graded slopes five feet (5') and higher in vertical elevation and elsewhere where needed for erosion control, and shall landscape graded slopes. vi. The faces of cut and fill slopes more than five feet in height shall be protected against damage by erosion by installing jute netting and planting with groundcover. In addition, slopes shall be planted with one (1) 24 inch - box tree per 150 square feet of slope area and one (1) 1-gallon sized shrub per 100 square feet of slope area. vii. The applicant shall design all irrigation systems for water conservation viii. The applicant shall place water -conserving mulching material on all exposed soil in planting areas not covered by turfgrass. Mulching material may include, and is not limited to, shredded bark, river rock, crushed rock, pea gravel, etc., and must be at least three (3) inches deep. ix. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall install all proposed irrigation and landscaping, including irrigation controllers, staking, mulching, etc., to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. The Director may impose inspection fees for more than one landscape installation inspection. x. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall submit to the Director of Community Development a letter from the project landscape architect certifying that all landscape materials and irrigation have been installed and function according to the approved landscape plans. ENGINEERING General Requirements ENl . At issuance of permits or other grants of approval, the applicant agrees to develop the property in accordance with City codes and other appropriate ordinances such as the Building Code, Plumbing Code, Grading Code, Highway Permit Ordinance, Mechanical Code, Unified Development Code, Undergrounding of Utilities Ordinance, Sanitary Sewer and Industrial Waste Ordinance, Electrical Code, and Fire Code. EN2. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall dedicate any necessary easements for public improvements. 16 Packet Pg. 69 9.b EN3. Prior to building final, all new and existing power lines and overhead cables less than 34 KV within or fronting the project site shall be installed underground. EN4. The Assessor's map shows a lot line bisecting the existing/proposed building. Prior to issuance of building permits, a Certificate of Compliance for Lot Line Adjustment prepared by or under the direction of a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor in the State of California to merge the parcels shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder. The City Engineer shall review and approve the Lot Line Adjustment prior to recordation. Grading, Drainage and Geology Requirements EN5. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall submit a grading plan consistent with the approved Plan, oak tree report, and conditions of approval. The grading plan shall be based on a detailed engineering geotechnical report specifically approved by the geologist and/or soils engineer that addresses all submitted recommendations including seismic hazards associated with liquefaction and landslide. EN6. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall construct all grading and drainage facilities within the project site, obtain rough grade certifications, and a compaction report approved by the City Engineer. EN7. Prior to grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a notarized Letter of Permission for grading over all easements. EN8. Prior to the issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall obtain approval and connection permit from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Land Development Division/Construction Division as appropriate to connect the on -site storm drain system to a public storm drain system. EN9. Specific drainage requirements for the site will be established at building permit application. Prior to Building Permit, the applicant shall submit a precise grading plan. Water Quality Requirements ENI O. This project will disturb one acre or more of land. Therefore, the applicant must obtain coverage under a statewide General Construction Activities Stormwater Permit (General Permit). In accordance with the General Permit, the applicant shall file with the State a Notice of Intent (NOI) for the proposed project. Prior to issuance of grading permit by the City, the applicant shall have approved by the City Engineer a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP shall include a copy of the NOI and shall reference the corresponding Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) number issued by the State upon receipt of the NOI. 17 Packet Pg. 70 9.b EN11. This project is a development planning priority project under the City's NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit as a development with equal to one acre or greater of disturbed area that adds more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall have approved by the City Engineer, an Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (USMP) that incorporates appropriate post construction Best Management Practices (BMPs), maximizes pervious surfaces, and includes infiltration into the design of the project. Refer to the Low Impact Development ordinance and the County of Los Angeles Low Impact Development manual for details. Street Light Requirements EN12. Prior to street plan approval, the applicant shall submit a Street Light Plan along the frontage of Sierra Highway to the Engineering Services Division for review and approval. Street -lighting systems shall be designed as City -owned and maintained on the LS-3 rate schedule, using LED fixtures approved by the City's Landscape Maintenance District Division. Street Improvement Requirements EN13. All street Improvements along Sierra Highway street right-of-way shall be designed in accordance with the City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code and street design criteria; construction shall be completed prior to building final. If the City Engineer determines that it is more beneficial for the City to construct the required improvements later, the applicant shall pay a cash in -lieu fee that is equivalent to the cost of the improvements. The in lieu fee shall be based on a cost estimate calculated by the applicant and approved by the City Engineer. EN14. Prior to any construction (including, but not limited to, drive approaches, sidewalks, sewer laterals, curb and gutter, etc.), trenching or grading within Sierra Highway street right-of-way, the applicant shall submit a street improvement plan consistent with the approved Plan, oak tree report, and conditions of approval; and obtain encroachment permits from the Engineering Services Division. EN15. Prior to street plan approval, the applicant shall submit a street tree location plan to the City's Urban Forestry Division for review and approval. The location of the street trees shall not conflict with sewer or storm drain infrastructure. The plan shall include proposed sewer lateral locations and storm drain infrastructure for reference. EN16. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall dedicate (if necessary) sidewalk easements sufficient to encompass ADA requirements for sidewalks installed with drive approaches per the current City standard APWA 110-2, Type C, or equivalent. EN17. Prior to building final, the applicant shall construct the following street improvements along the frontage of the project site, as directed by the City Engineer: Inverted Curb & Base & Street Street Sidewalk Landscaped Street Name Shoulder Gutter Paving Lights Trees (5'min) Median Sierra Highway X X X X X X 18 Packet Pg. 71 9.b EN18. Prior to building final, the applicant shall repair any broken or damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk, and refurbish the half section of pavement on streets within or abutting the project, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Sewer Improvement Requirements EN19. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall annex the property into the County Sanitation District. The applicant shall provide the City's Building & Safety Division with written confirmation from the Sanitation District that the property has been annexed. EN20. The on -site sewer shall be a privately maintained system. All on -site sewer lines shall have a minimum slope per California Plumbing Code and pipe inverts shall be 6 feet below the curb grade. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall verify that all sewer pipes meet these requirements with the proposed building pad elevations. Private on -site sewers are reviewed and approved by the City's Building & Safety Division. EN21. Prior to issuance of building permits, the proposed building shall be connected to the existing public sewer main in (Sierra Highway). EN22. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay fair share cost for needed upgrades of downstream sewer lines as determined by the City Engineer. Bonds, Fees and Miscellaneous Requirements EN23. Prior to issuance of encroachment permits for public improvements (Street, Sanitary Sewer, Storm Drain, & Street Lights), the applicant, by agreement with the City Engineer, shall guarantee installation of the improvements through faithful performance bonds, letters of credit or any other acceptable means. Building final shall be withheld if the improvements are not completed. TRAFFIC TEl . Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall dedicate additional street right- of-way for a total of 58 feet from centerline on Sierra Highway fronting the project site, as directed by the City Engineer. TE2. Prior to street plan approval, the applicant shall show on the street plan drive approaches using a modified commercial driveway design (APWA 110-2, Type C or equivalent) that will provide a street/drive approach transition with a maximum algebraic grade difference of 10 percent. Construction details shall be shown on the street plan providing a transition no greater than this maximum. TE3. All drive aisles and driveways shall be fully dimensioned. Minimum width of all interior drive aisles shall be 26 feet and shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of 19 Packet Pg. 72 9.b first building permit. Minimum widths of driveways along Sierra Highway shall be 30 feet. TE4. Per the City's UDC (Section 17.53.020), all driveways shall have a minimum stacking distance of 40 feet from the face of curb. This is to be measured from the final curb line (flow line) to the first parking stall or drive aisle. TE5. Project access along Sierra Highway shall be right-in/right-out only. TE6. Prior to parcel map approval, the applicant shall pay the applicable Bridge and Thoroughfare (B&T) District Fee to implement the Circulation Element of the General Plan as a means of mitigating the traffic impact of this project. This project is located in the Via Princessa B&T District. The current rate for this District is $21,260. The B&T rate is subject to change and is based on the rate at the time of payment. Standard B&T Fee Calculation: Retirement Community = the number of units (83) x the district rate ($21,260) x 0.4 = $705,832 BUILDING AND SAFETY Plans and Permits BSI. Construction drawings shall be prepared and submitted to the Building and Safety Division for plan review and building permit issuance. Supporting documents; such as structural and energy calculations, and geotechnical reports shall be included with the plan submittal. BS2. Construction drawings submitted for plan review shall show full compliance with all applicable local, county, state and federal requirements and codes. The project shall comply with the building codes in effect at time of building permit application. The current state building codes are: the 2019 California Building (CBC), Mechanical (CMC), Plumbing (CPC), and Electrical (CEC) Codes, the 2020 County of Los Angeles Fire Code, 2019 California Energy Code, and the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code. BS3. Construction drawings submitted for plan review shall be complete. Submitted plans shall show all architectural work (including accessibility requirements), structural, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical work that will be part of this project. Civil, landscape, interior design and other plans not related to the building code are not reviewed by the Building and Safety Division. Civil plans may be part of the submittal package however will only be used for reference. BS4. Construction drawings shall be prepared by qualified licensed design professionals (California licensed architects and engineers). Incomplete plans or plans prepared by unqualified individuals will delay the plan review and permit process. 20 Packet Pg. 73 9.b BS5. The City of Santa Clarita has amended some portions of the California Building Codes. A copy of these amendments is available at the Building and Safety public counter and on our website at: httD://www.santa-clarita.com/Home/ShowDocument?id=13248 BS6. Construction drawings may be submitted electronically or by submitting paper plans. In either case an "eService Account" must be created to access our permitting system. Please log on to: www.santa-clarita.com/eservice and create an account by clicking "register for an Account." BS7. Construction drawings submitted to building and safety shall include a complete building code analysis and floor area justification for the proposed building per chapter 5 and 6 of the California Building Code. The code analysis and justification shall contain the following minimum information: types of construction, occupancy groups, occupant loads, required fire sprinklers, height of building, number of stories, summary of all fire rated walls, occupancy separations, podium design, smoke compartments, and all other related data. BS8. The submitted site plan shall show all parcel/lot lines, easements, fire separation distances, restricted use areas, etc. Any construction proposed in an easement shall obtain the easement holder's written permission or the easement shall be removed. Parcel lines that overlap any proposed buildings shall be removed (lot line adjustment) prior to building permit issuance. BS9. For an estimate of the building permit fees and the estimated time for plan review, please contact the Building and Safety Division directly at 661-255-4935. BS10. Prior to submitting plans to Building and Safety, please contact a Permit Specialist at (661) 255-4935, for project addressing. Clean Air, Electric Vehicle and Bicycle Parking BS11. Electric Vehicle Charging Spaces (future EV Charging Stations) shall be provided for new buildings with residential occupancies. These parking spaces shall be equipped with the necessary infrastructure for the future installation of EV charging equipment. The number of EV Charging Spaces shall be a minimum of 10 percent of the total number of parking spaces provided for the residential occupancy. (CalGreen 4.106.4.2) BS12. Any parking spaces provided for non-residential uses in the building that serve the public, shall provide EV parking spaces, Clean Air Vehicle parking spaces, and bicycle parking spaces per CalGreen chapter 5. Clearances BS13. Prior to issuance of building permits, clearances from the following agencies will be required: • Santa Clarita Planning Division, • Santa Clarita Engineering Services (soil report review and grading), • Santa Clarita Environmental Services (Construction & Demolition Plan deposit), 21 Packet Pg. 74 9.b • Los Angeles County Fire Prevention Bureau, • Los Angeles County Environmental Services (Health Dept. for food service & sales), • Los Angeles County Environmental Programs (Industrial Waste), • Los Angeles County Sanitation District, • Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency, • William S. Hart School District and appropriate elementary school district, • Santa Clarita Urban Forestry Division (for construction near Oak Trees) An agency referral list with contact information is available at the Building and Safety public counter. Please contact the agencies above to determine if there are any plan review requirements and/or fees to be paid. Clearances from additional agencies may be required and will be determined during the plan review process. Accessibility BS14. All applicable disabled access requirements of Chapter 11B of the California Building Code, including site accessibility details and information, shall be shown on the architectural plans versus any civil plans. BS15. An accessible route between all accessible building entrances, ground floor exits, outdoor usable areas, the accessible parking spaces, and the public sidewalk shall be provided and shown on the plans. Accessible means of egress shall be provided. Where more than one site route is provided, all routes shall be accessible. BS16. Long-term care facilities shall provide a covered, accessible passenger drop-off and loading zone adjacent to an accessible entrance. The access aisle for the drop-off loading zone shall not be located in a traffic aisle. (CBC 11B-206.4.10 and 1113-503) BS17. At least one of the future EV Charging Spaces shall be sized to be van accessible and located on an accessible route to the building entrance(s). The side aisles for the accessible EV spaces shall not share the side aisles required for the regular accessible parking spaces. (CBC sections 11B-228.3 and 11B-812) Soil Reports and Grading BS18. A complete soils and geology investigation report will be required. The report shall be formally submitted to the Engineering Division for review and approval. The recommendations of the report shall be followed and incorporated into the construction drawings. A copy of the report shall be submitted to Building & Safety at time of plan submittal. BS19. When the soils/geology report recommends grading and/or recompaction, the following shall be completed prior to issuance of building permits: A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Division and all rough grading and/or re -compaction shall be completed. A final compaction report and a Pad Certification shall be submitted to and approved by the Engineering Services Division. 22 Packet Pg. 75 9.b BS20. All new buildings, additions and other structures, including retaining walls and fences, shall be setback from any adjacent ascending or descending slopes. See section 1808.7 CBC and/or the Slope Setback handout. Hazard Zones BS21. This project is located within the City's Fire Hazard Zone. New buildings shall comply with the California Building Code Chapter 7A: MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION METHODS FOR EXTERIOR WILDFIRE EXPOSURE. A summary of these requirements are available at the Building and Safety's public counter or visit: ham://www.santa-clarita.com/home/showdocument?id=10685. The submitted plans to Building & Safety shall show all Fire Zone requirements. BS22. The applicant shall indicate in the project data of the plans that this project IS LOCATED in a Fire Hazard Zone, and IS NOT LOCATED in a Flood Hazard Zone. Assisted Living Facilities BS23. Residential assisted living facilities with personal care services, shall comply with all requirements for a Group R-2.1 Occupancy, including the additional detailed requirements of CBC Sections 420. Licensed 24-Hour Care Facilities in a Group R-2.1 Occupancy shall comply with the Special Provisions of CBC Section 435. BS24. Every story used by persons receiving care, treatment or sleeping in a Group R-2.1 Occupancy, shall be divided into a minimum of two smoke compartments separated by smoke -barrier walls. Adjacent floors will not be able to be open to each other such as the two-story lobby. (CBC 420.6 and 712.1.942) BS25. The proposed five -story building with a Group R-2.1 Occupancy shall have a fire sprinkler system complying with NFPA13. NFPAI3R is limited to four -stories or less (CBC Table 504.4, and 903.3.1.2) BS26. Corridors shall lead directly to an exit and shall not be open to the dining areas. BS27. All elevators shall have elevator lobbies or contain additional doors to comply with CBC sections 713 and 3006 to protect the elevator hoistway openings. Additional Info BS28. Each separate detached building or structure, such as trash enclosures, fences, retaining walls, shade structures, will require separate applications and building permits. These other structures need not be on separate plans, but may be part of the same plans of the main project. BS29. The applicant shall meet with Building and Safety prior to plan submittal to review the project for general building code compliance. 23 Packet Pg. 76 9.b BS30. These general conditions are based on a review of conceptual plans submitted by the applicant. Additional comments and more detailed building code requirements will be listed during the plan review process when a building permit application and plans are submitted to Building and Safety. LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT FD1. All on -site Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall be labeled as "Private Driveway and Fire Lane" on the site plan along with the widths clearly depicted on the plan. Labeling is necessary to assure the access availability for Fire Department use. The designation allows for appropriate signage prohibiting parking. FD2. Fire Apparatus Access Roads must be installed and maintained in a serviceable manner prior to and during the time of construction in accordance to Fire Code Section 501.4 FD3. All fire lanes shall be clear of all encroachments, and shall be maintained in accordance with the Title 32, County of Los Angeles Fire Code. FD4. The Fire Apparatus Access Roads and designated fire lanes shall be measured from flow line to flow line. FD5. For buildings where the vertical distance between the access roadway and the highest roof surface exceeds 30 feet from the lowest level of the Fire Apparatus Access Road, provide a minimum unobstructed width of 28 feet, exclusive of shoulders and an unobstructed vertical clearance "clear to sky" Fire Apparatus Access Roads to within 15C feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. At least one required access route meeting this condition shall be located such that the edge of the Fire Apparatus Access Roadway, not including shoulders, that is closest to the building being served, is between 10 feet and 30 feet from the building, as determined by the fire code official, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. The side of the building on which the Fire Apparatus Access Road is positioned shall be approved by the fire code official. Fire Code 503.1.1; 503.2.1.2; 503.2.1.2.2 & 503.2.1.2.2.1 FD6. Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing 75,000 pounds, and shall be surfaced so as to provide all- weather driving capabilities. Fire Code 503.2.3 FD7. The Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall be provided with a minimum of a 32-foot centerline turning radius. Fire Code 503.2.4 FD8. Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall not exceed 15 percent in grade. Exception: For a Fire Apparatus Access Road serving no more than two single-family dwellings, grades shall not exceed 20 percent when approved by the fire code official. Grades between 15.1 percent and 20 percent shall not exceed a maximum cumulative total of 500 as measured over the entire length of the access roadway. Fire Code 503.2.7 24 Packet Pg. 77 9.b FD9. The angles of approach and departure for Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall be within the limits established by the fire code official based on the Fire Department's apparatus. Fire Code 503.2.8 FD10. Provide approved signs or other approved notices or markings that include the words "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE" shall be provided for Fire Apparatus Access Roads. Signs shall have a minimum dimension of 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and have red letters on a white reflective background. Signs shall be provided for fire apparatus access roads, to clearly indicate the entrance to such road, or prohibit the obstruction thereof and at intervals, as required by the Fire Inspector. A no -parking designation shall meet the requirements of California Vehicle Code Section 22500.1 and be approved by the fire code official. Fire Code 503.3 FD11. Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall not be obstructed in any manner, including by the parking of vehicles, or the use of traffic calming devices, including but not limited to, speed bumps or speed humps. The minimum widths and clearances established in Section 503.2.1 and Section 503.2.2 shall be maintained at all times. Fire Code 503.4 FD12. A minimum 5-foot wide approved firefighter access walkway leading from the Fire Department Access Road to all required openings in the building's exterior walls shall be provided for firefighting and rescue purposes. Fire Code 504.1 FD13. Security barriers, visual screen barriers or other obstructions shall not be installed on the roof of any building in such a manner as to obstruct firefighter access or egress in the event of fire or other emergency. Parapets shall not exceed 36 inches from the top of the parapet to the roof surface on more than two sides. These sides should face an access roadway or yard sufficient to accommodate ladder operations. Fire Code 504.5 FD 14. Approved building address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification shall be provided and maintained so as to be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. The numbers shall contrast with their background, be Arabic numerals or alphabet letters, and be a minimum of 4 inches high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch. Fire Code 505.1 Water System Requirements FD15. All fire hydrants shall measure 6"x 4"x 2-1/2" brass or bronze, conforming to current AWWA standard C503 or approved equal, and shall be installed in accordance with the County of Los Angeles Fire Code. FD16. Install two (2) public fire hydrants as noted on the site plan by the Fire Department. All required public fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to beginning of construction. Fire Code 501.4 FD17. The required fire flow for the public fire hydrants for this project is 1500 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure for 2 hours. Two (2) public fire hydrants flowing simultaneously may 25 Packet Pg. 78 9.b be used to achieve the required fire flow. Fire Code 507.3 & Appendix B105.1 Type I-B construction is required. FD 18. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system is required for the proposed buildings within this development. Submit design plans to the Fire Department Sprinkler Plan Check Unit for review and approval prior to installation. Fuel Modification FD19. This property is located within the area described by the Fire Department as a Fire Hazard Severity Zone. A "Fuel Modification Plan" shall be submitted to the Fuel Modification for review by the Fuel Modification Unit prior to the issuance of the building permit. Please contact the Department's Fuel Modification Unit for details. The Fuel Modification Plan Review Unit is located at 605 North Angeleno Avenue in the City of Azusa CA 91702-2904. They may be reached at (626) 969-5205 or visit https://www.fire.Iacounty.,zov/forestry-division/forestry-fuel-modification/ ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ES1. The site shall provide sufficient trash enclosures to house at least ten 3-yard bins. Five of the bins should be reserved for recyclable materials only. In addition, space should be added for an organics/food waste/green waste recycling bin per AB1826. The enclosure(s) shall be located to provide convenient pedestrian and collection vehicle access. ES2. All demolition projects regardless of valuation, all commercial construction projects valuated greater than $200,000 or over 1,000 square feet for new construction, all new residential construction projects, and all residential additions and improvements that increase building area, volume, or size must comply with the City's Construction and Demolition Materials (C&D) Recycling Ordinance. C&D Materials Recycling Ordinance: A Construction and Demolition Materials Management Plan (C&DMMP) must be prepared and approved by the Environmental Services Division prior to obtaining any grading or building permits. A minimum of 65 percent of the entire project's inert (dirt, rock, bricks, etc.) waste and 65 percent of the remaining C&D waste must be recycled or reused rather than disposing in a landfill. For renovation or tenant improvement projects and new construction projects, a deposit of 2 percent of the estimated total project cost or $15,000, whichever is less, is required. For demolition projects, a deposit of 10 percent of the estimated total project cost or $15,000, whichever is less, is required. The full deposit will be returned to the applicant upon proving that 65 percent of the inert and remaining C&D waste was recycled or reused. ES3. Per the California Green Building Standards Code, 100 percent of trees, stumps, rocks and associated vegetation and soils resulting primarily from land clearing shall be reused 26 Packet Pg. 79 9.b or recycled. For a phased project, such material may be stockpiled on site until the storage site is developed. ES4. All projects within the City not self -hauling their waste materials must use one of the City's franchised haulers for temporary and roll -off bin collection services. Please visit GreenSantaClarita.com for a list of approved haulers. SPECIAL DISTRICTS Landscape Maintenance District SD1. This parcel is located within Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) Areawide Zone, which was established to fund the construction and maintenance of landscaped medians on major thoroughfares throughout the City of Santa Clarita. Applicant is required to financially contribute to Areawide Zone in a manner reflective of this LMD zone's assessment methodology. SD2. This parcel is located within Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) Zone 28, which was established to fund the construction and maintenance of landscape in the Newhall area. Applicant is required to financially contribute to Zone 28 in a manner reflective of this LMD zone's assessment methodology. SD3. Prior to building permit submittal, the applicant will meet with Special Districts to discuss beautification of the streetscape and medians along Sierra Highway. Staff will direct the applicant/developer to incorporate frontage landscape and hardscape or a monetary in -lieu contribution. Streetlight Maintenance District SD4. This parcel was originally annexed by County of Los Angeles into a Lighting District with a maximum assessment of $12.38 per EBU (Equivalent Benefit Unit) without a cost of living index/escalator. The applicant will be required to annex the parcel into the Santa Clarita Landscaping and Lighting District (SCLLD), Streetlighting Zone B. The District funds the operation and maintenance of various landscaping and lighting improvements throughout the City that provide special benefits to properties within the District. The annexation will bring the EBU rate current (FY 19/20 $81.71), and add the cost of living escalator (CPI). There is a one-time annexation fee (currently under revision) to be calculated by the City's Assessment Engineer. Additional information may be required from the applicant to calculate the fee. Following the completed annexation there will be an annual assessment included on the property tax bill. The assessments are based on land use, see attached EBU rate sheet. The proposed assessment for FY 19/20 is $245.13 (Group D, three EBU). Undeveloped parcels are not assessed. 27 Packet Pg. 80 9.b 2. A minimum of 120 days is required to process the annexation, which must be completed prior to final map approval, grading or building permit issuance, whichever occurs first. 3. Developer will work with Special Districts and obtain approval on the LED light fixtures, if any, to be installed on public streets. 4. Ownership of all new streetlights installed on public streets will be transferred to City of Santa Clarita. 5. Developer will work with Special Districts to determine if the streetlights will be metered or unmetered. Urban Forestry SD3. Applicant shall be required to install additional trees within the public right-of-way where tree vacancies exist. Parkway trees shall be approved by the City of Santa Clarita Urban Forestry Division and must meet/exceed the minimum requirements of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protections "Guideline Specifications Selecting, Planting, and Early Care of Young Trees." SD4. Applicant shall be required to install and maintain irrigation to all trees planted within the public right of way. Irrigation to trees shall be bubbler type irrigation only and shall be installed as per City detail sheet. SD5. All trees shall be planted according to the City of Santa Clarita tree planting and staking detail sheet and/or the American Public Works Association (APWA) standard plans for Public Works construction (Section 5,520-3). SD6. Parkway trees shall be a minimum 24-inch box. SD7. All trees shall be placed a minimum of 5 feet from any underground utilities and walkways, 10 feet from hydrants and driveways, 20 feet from utility poles (including but not limited to light poles, telephone poles, and traffic signals). Spacing of parkway trees shall be compliant with the latest edition of the APWA (American Public Works Association) Standard Plans for Public Works Construction. SD8. All tree species are to be determined by Urban Forestry staff. SD9. All tree plantings shall require a pre -site and nursery stock inspection, and a post completion inspection. Trees selected for the public right-of-way shall not have been topped or headed from the nursery. Trees that are diseased, infested, or have girdled root systems will not be accepted and shall be returned to the nursery at no cost to the City of Santa Clarita. All trees planted within the public right-of-way shall be inspected and approved by a member of the Urban Forestry Division prior to planting. SDI 0. All trees planted within a landscaped parkway that consist of lawn shall have a minimum 36-inch round tree well installed at the base of each tree with 3-inches of natural bark or 28 Packet Pg. 81 9.b woodchips. Lineal root barriers shall be installed along the edge of both sidewalk and curb at a minimum distance of 10 lineal feet. Root barriers shall be a minimum height of 18-inches. Each tree planted shall have an 8-9-inch arbor guard placed at the base of each tree. SDI 1. All trees planted within a concrete type tree well shall have root barriers installed at the edge of the concrete to eliminate the possibility of "girdling" the roots of the tree. Each root barrier in this installation shall be 24 inches in height and installed level with the top of the tree's root ball. All concrete tree wells shall be a minimum of 3 feet deep by 4 feet wide. Larger tree wells shall be installed where public right-of-ways allow without compromising ADA accessibility. Such tree wells shall be 4 feet deep by 5 feet wide. SD12. Prior to issuance of grading permits the applicant shall have submitted a final landscape plan which identifies shall include a detailed planting legend identifying all proposed street trees, size, species and number of trees being planted. Oak Trees Oak Inventory and Proposed Impacts SD13. The project site has a total of 54 protected oaks on site, of which 42 are Coast Live Oaks (Quercus agrifolia) and 12 are Scrub Oaks (Quercus berberidifolia). a) The project is proposing the removal of 5 protected oaks, of which 4 are Coast Live Oaks and 1 is a Scrub Oak. b) Of the proposed oak tree removals, 1 is a Coast Live Oak of heritage size, and 1 other Coast Live Oak is close to heritage size. SD14. The location of the protected oaks in the center of the property restrict the practical development of the site. Requests to revise the site plan to preserve selected oaks, like the one heritage tree, have been unsuccessful with the applicant, as it reduces the buildable area for the project. SD15. The Oak Tree Report was updated on January 4, 2021, to reflect some possible oak tree encroachments for trees along Sierra Highway for the future right-of-way retaining wall Additionally, there was a need to clarify other possible heritage oaks on and off site. Oak Tree Removals SDI 6. The applicant is approved to remove 5 protected oak trees, of which 1 is heritage size, and perform encroachments into the protected zone of an additional 9 oaks for the development of a senior assisted living facility. SD17. The applicant is required to obtain an Oak Tree Permit for the proposed oak tree removals and encroachments. SDI 8. The applicant is required to comply with all of the Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Measures as provided in the submitted Oak Tree Report completed by Consulting 29 Packet Pg. 82 9.b Arborist Jan Scow, dated March 15, 2019, and the updated revision dated January 4, 2021. SD19. The applicant and their contractors shall comply with all the Preservation and Protection Measures in the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Ordinance and the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines. Oak Tree Mitigation _ SD20. The applicant shall mitigate for the oak tree removals based on the current International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) tree value which has been calculated to be $268,500. a. The Oak Tree Report completed by Consulting Arborist Jan Scow, dated March 15, 2019, provides the current ISA tree appraisals that reflect the Oak tree values. b. The total ISA tree value for the 5 proposed oak tree removals is $268,500. i. Oak Tree No. 1 is a heritage size Q. agrifolia 44 inches in diameter at 1.5 feet, which equals 138 inches in circumference. ISA Value = $134,100 ii. Oak Tree No. 2 is a Q. agrifolia 33 inches in diameter at 4 feet, which equals 104 inches in circumference. ISA Value = $51,900 iii. Oak Tree No. 3 is a Q. agrifolia 27 inches in diameter at 4.5 feet, which equals 84 inches in circumference. ISA Value = $56,600 iv. Oak Tree No. 31 is a Q. agrifolia with two trunks 8 inches and 10 inches in diameter at 1 foot, which equals 25 inches and 31 inches in circumference, respectively. ISA Value = $10,800 v. Oak Tree No. 32 is a Q. berberidifolia with three trunks 5 inches, 5 inches and 8 inches in diameter at 4.5 feet, which equals 16 inches, 16 inches and 25 inches in circumference, respectively. ISA Value = $15,100 Oak Tree Encroachments SD21. The applicant will not be required to provide any monetary compensation or mitigate for the proposed oak tree encroachments unless additional oak trees die from encroachments If the proposed oak tree encroachments lead to the decline or death of a protected oak tree, then the applicant will be responsible for the ISA tree value of that tree and additional oak tree mitigation shall be required, equal to the tree value. Oak Tree Bonding SD22. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant is required to bond for the ISA tree value of $268,500 for all proposed oak tree removals. SD23. The oak tree bond shall be obtained and remain in good standing until the mitigation has been completed. The bond shall be for the proposed duration of the project construction and renewed annually if the project timeline is extended. If the project construction is delayed after the tree removals, then the applicant is required to maintain the bond until the project construction is completed. If the project is abandoned after the trees have been 30 Packet Pg. 83 9.b removed, then the applicant will forfeit the bond value to the City for the value of the removed oak trees. Oak Tree Mitigation SD24. The applicant shall mitigate for the ISA tree value of $268,500. Mitigation shall be determined by the City and can be an acceptable combination of replacement oaks planted on the site and the balance of the replacement value paid into the City Oak Tree Fund. Additional acceptable oak tree mitigation may be donation of land, if accepted by City. SD25. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall provide an Oak Tree Mitigation Plan to be approved by the City. SD26. The applicant shall provide an Oak Tree Mitigation Plan that shows the installed cost, the box size of replacement oaks, species, and location of trees on project site. The Oak Tree Mitigation Plan shall provide a detailed list of each replacement oak as to the quantity and cost of replacement trees. SD27. The applicant is required to care and maintain the health of all proposed oak tree replacements for a total of three years after project completion. All oak tree replacements shall be monitored by project arborist at 90-day intervals to ensure survivability of installed oaks. Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Measures SD28. The applicant shall protect and preserve all oaks that are not proposed for removal. This includes all oaks to be encroached upon for the development of the project. SD29. Protection and preservation measures shall include standard temporary chain link protective fencing and ongoing monitoring of construction activities within and near the oak tree protected zone. SD30. Oak tree monitoring shall include monitoring by the project arborist during encroachment activities and at 60-day intervals throughout the project construction. SD31. Monitoring reports shall be provided to the City giving a narrative description of oak tree status and construction activities near protected oaks. Additionally, pictures of the affected oaks shall be included in monitoring reports. SD32. Additional protection and preservation measures may be required to any oak that shows signs of stress from encroachment. Additional protection and preservation measures can include, but are not limited to, pruning, additional supplemental irrigation, and treatments for pests and nutritional support. SD33. The applicant is required to provide a landscape plan that shows the location of all protected oaks within the development envelope. All impacted oaks that were encroached upon shall have protection and preservation measures to support the survivability of encroached trees. These measures shall include proper grading within protected zone, mulching, and possible permanent irrigation to compensate for lost roots. 31 Packet Pg. 84 9.b SD34. Prior to final grading plan approval, the applicant shall provide to the City details and cross sections for all proposed oak tree encroachments to determine level of impact to the oak trees. SD35. All work within the protected zone of any protected oak shall be done by hand unless otherwise approved by the City Oak Tree Specialist. SD36. The applicant and all their contractors shall comply with the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Ordinance and the City Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines at all times throughout the project. If violations of the Oak Tree Ordinance or Preservation and Protection Guidelines occur during construction then a STOP WORK order shall be enforced until corrections have been made. SD37. The applicant shall contact the City Oak Tree Specialist, Robert Sartain at rsartain(&- Santa-clarita.com or call 661-294-2556 with any questions regarding the oak tree conditions. PLANNING COMMISSION PC1. The required Landscape Plan Review submittal shall include enhanced landscaping consisting of mature -sized trees at the front of the property providing a visual buffer between the building, pedestrians and vehicles traveling on Sierra Highway. Proposed landscaping shall include a planting palette that includes flowering varieties to break up the color palette of the proposed building. All landscaping shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. PC2. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy (C of O), the applicant shall provide eight (8) fully operational Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations. All eight (8) EV stations shall be fully operational prior to issuance of C of O. PC3. Prior to issuance of C of O, the applicant shall provide revised floor plans for the Basement Level and Level One that indicates the provision of ten (10) accessible (ADA) spaces. Those ten (10) spaces shall be distributed in the following manner: a. Resident Spaces- 6 Spaces b. Guest Spaces- 3 Spaces C. Employee Spaces- 1 Space The ADA spaces shall be designed in accordance with the regulations and provisions of the Building and Safety Division. All spaces shall be fully striped and functional prior to issuance of C of O. PC4. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide an Oak Tree Mitigation Plan to be approved by the City. The mitigation plan shall include the planting of the greatest amount of mitigation oak trees that can feasibly be maintained in a healthy and thriving manner. 32 Packet Pg. 85 9.b PC5. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide revised architectural elevations and renderings that enhance the visual character of the buildings by providing awnings, shutters, or similar at select window locations to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. PC6. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall work with the Traffic Engineering Division to provide appropriate signage on northbound Sierra Highway approaching the intersection with Eternal Valley that warns drivers of vehicles making the U-turn movement traveling southbound Sierra Highway to northbound Sierra Highway towards Newhall Avenue. Any and all signage shall be installed prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer. 33 Packet Pg. 86 98f6 tlJ 'VION31YM1 YJ 'y118tllJVYLNYS�'AylAH91N y8835 �f^ "�•'° Oe199 %oe Od .11INnwwoo 3bV0 Ab OW3W YO1"`° 38ow-LIHRI SI?1?JON 4NV VNIAll ❑31SISSV 1S3m VNJ ial% ...,,.�'nwx� �•m a� .�. NMO'Z5 N3N i 9 11 g ri1!I I If 51111 � ggg 8 € a y I SB£Ib fVJ VXIOOd EEO/C10-5003-LaC6VC eU„e.t550N1 VO VIINYM ViNVS AVMH9H V8b3I5 r NAdVa � 3NOWIIHM SINN 73 AlINfWWOO Ou3u ENV °.)KlAIl S 3 u 4. m eHEl 0 LLJm a $a O 0 a o , Y 0 O B�yyJ b yp uo 0 sa h P � DN3& _ Ndy \ \ 7]1� / 3 � & § : d « -- tu 11 F] 11 §/ El F] \ t— 13' B E ` { \ � \\ 2` & ° a 11 El §( | \ r j � N Yb t' %;1;,, •�'%, t���\S:i••��'��;r.;-"s t1I,�J11fl i$ lili�li�ri � 6 II'� I � / �� � �� _ „ fy�sz i�'� t,� J� ,1 ` ,I,, I, li �� • g E 9 t� I b ..! I ", IRS Y `3—Z p99iy. � gqq �•�.``S p awl c{ ]ppyNj .pay INQ C Bpy� �' � If i k S ...=............. ei2l d p34C a i • P. 'dik AStlatIthF .1% Fi ik�.3 H I 9j EiI 3ElG MW03NJ- YIRNTJ V1lN$ 3NlYI JIHYd3rA1fJ ZZBR bvs»J wns Smmsm baS3:G NOIJH.J[� � Y • 'JNINNVld 3L8 '3kNll:}311FY1k1V 3dV:FLINVi �r.� �rr��s. BOi' m� �- sans ✓�M+9%�9'Ss+��- SCOPE Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment TO PROMOTE, PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE ENVIRONMENT, ECOLOGY AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE SANTA CLARITA VALLEY POST OFFICE BOX 1182, SANTA CLARITA, CA 91386 www.scope.org 2-16-21 Planning Commissioners Mike Marshall, Planner James Chow, Senior Planner Tom Cole, Director City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Re: Sierra Nursing Home Facility, Agenda Item 1 MASTER CASE 18-235 and all associated Permits, including the MND which is not available, but according to staff is comprised of the Initial Study and Appendices, the Ridgeline Alteration permit and Oak tree Removal Permit, Final EIR and CEQA Findings Sent via email to: MMarshall@santa-clarita.com, jchow@santo-clarito.com,tcole santa- clarita. com Please copy to all Commissioners and enter this letter into the administrative record. Honorable Commissioners and Planning staff: This comment letter is timely filed within the identified comment period for this project. Improper/Inadequate Public Notification We object to the inadequate process of notification for this project and request that notification be re -issued with accurate information. The notice (attached) states that comments are requested for a Mitigated Negative Declaration. But in fact, there is no Mitigated Negative Declaration on line at the City website or in the Agenda Packet for this evening. The notice makes it seem as though this document is only available at the Planning Department when in fact there is no document. After contacting the planning department about this, I was informed the MND consists of the Initial Study and appendices and that the public is supposed to comment on the initial study. How in the world is anyone supposed to know that? It is improper to circulate a notice for a document that doesn't exist and is not available. The notice also fails to provide an email address where comments can be sent. Instead, the notice seems to indicate that comments can only be received by "delivery" to the Department. These vagaries make it difficult for the public to provide input as is required by CEQA. We note that the agenda packet confirms this difficulty with the fact that no comment letters were received. SCOPE Comments on the Bouquet Canyon Project 2 We further note that the comment period ends on the day of the hearing. If the Department is really seeking public input and adequate time to respond to public comment, it would seem logical to have the hearing within the comment period, and hold a second hearing after it is concluded to allow time for responses to be made. Wild Fire Severity Zone This facility is proposed to house a large number disabled individuals with memory problems. According to the initial study, it is located in a high fire hazard severity zone. Such individuals might not be capable of evacuating on their own and most probably would need assistance. The information provided in the initial study and appendices, which supposedly comprises the MND for this project, states that an evacuation plan will be required at some time in the future, but it is not available for review now in the documents provided. We urge the Commissioners not to approve this project without reviewing the evacuation plan and ensuring that it allows adequate time to evacuate mentally disabled residents. We are especially concerned about this issue because it appears that there will be only one exit road, with the second exit road used only for deliveries. It may not be possible to evacuate disabled individuals from a loading dock. Allowing this project to proceed with only one viable exit permits a scenario where residents could become trapped in the case of a wild fire. Ridgeline Alteration Permit The documents state that no reduction in the ridgeline will occur because the project is merely cutting into the lower part of the ridge, and that is why a permit is required. Thus there is no impact to the aesthetic value of the ridgeline. However, the ridgeline ordinance wasn't just about aesthetics. It was also meant to reduce the potential of mudslides and other hazards from earth movement by reducing the amount of building on hillsides. The documents state that the property is a 24% grade for hillside management purposes. The Commission will be permitting the removal of the "toe" of this grade. Will this lead to land movement as it has in other areas? As stated above, this proposed facility is located in a wildfire severity zone, with a steep hillside behind it. How will rain water be managed after a wildfire? Will removal of the toe of this hillside cause rain soaked soil to slide? Did engineering review investigate this potential? Oak Removals The project proposes to remove 5 oaks including one heritage oak. The oak permit does not require replacement of all the oaks but instead will allow a fee payment for their removal. We are particularly concerned about the removal of the heritage oak. We note that Section IV of the Santa Clarita City Oak Tree Ordinance states: part D. "...Applicant SHALL be responsible for submitting adequate information to demonstrate that reasonable conformity use can not be made of the subject property without removal(s) or encroachment (s) in the protected zone of an oak tree." We do not see this required analysis in the documents that will comprise the MND. We suggest that the proposed building could be shifted to accommodate the Heritage Oak Tree creating a SCOPE Comments on the Bouquet Canyon Project 3 centerpiece for the building. Heritage Oak Trees have special Community interest as they are exceptional aesthetic, environmental, and historical value. (Please see "Bringing Reciprocity to Newhall's Public Landscape. Adrian Tenney, January 26, 2021" ) Our community has voiced over and over its desire to protect our few remaining oak trees. (For example, the Old Glory Heritage Tree Sit where thousands of people opposed the removal of the Old Glory Oak) The development just south of this property has removed and killed over 700 Native California Oak Trees and is permitted to remove 700 additional trees. This continued onslaught on our oak trees and oak woodlands is unacceptable. As previously stated, this property is located within the area described by the Fire Department as a Fire Hazard Severity Zone. A "Fuel Modification Plan" must be submitted for review by the Fuel Modification Unit prior to the issuance of the building permit. Will this fuel modification Plan require the removal of additional oaks? The plan should be available for review in this document. GHG Climate Change Analysis The GHG does not include the loss of oaks and vegetation in the calculation for how much additional green house gases will be generated by this project. Please review the following report by Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D. , Updated November 19, 2019: "You've probably heard that trees produce oxygen, but have you ever wondered just how much oxygen one tree makes? The amount of oxygen produced by a tree depends on several factors, including its species, age, health, and surroundings. A tree produces a different amount of oxygen in summer compared to winter. It also sequesters carbon through this process. Here are some typical calculations: "A mature leafy tree produces as much oxygen in a season as 10 people inhale in a year. A single mature tree can absorb carbon dioxide at a rate of 48 pounds per year and release enough oxygen back into the atmosphere to support two human beings." "One acre of trees annually consumes the amount of carbon dioxide equivalent to that produced by driving an average car for 26,000 miles. That same acre of trees also produces enough oxygen for 18 people to breathe for a year." "A 100-foot tree, 18 inches diameter at its base, produces 6,000 pounds of oxygen." "On average, one tree produces nearly 260 pounds of oxygen each year. Two mature trees can provide enough oxygen for a family of four." "Mean net annual oxygen production (after accounting for decomposition) per hectare of trees (100% tree canopy) offsets oxygen consumption of 19 people per year (8 people per acre of tree cover), but ranges from nine people per hectare of canopy cover (4 people/ac cover) in Minneapolis, Minnesota, to 28 people/ha cover (12 people/ac cover) in Calgary, Alberta."' Sources: McAliney, Mike. Arguments for Land Conservation: Documentation and Information Sources for Land Resources Protection, Trust for Public Land, Sacramento, CA, December 1993. Nowak, David J.; Hoehn, Robert; Crane, Daniel E. Oxygen Production by Urban Trees in the United States. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 2007. 33(3):2205€"226. Stancil, Joanna Mounce. The Power of One Tree - The Very Air We Breathe. U.S. Department of Agriculture. March 17, 2015. Villazon, Luis. How many trees does it take to produce oxygen for one person? BBC Science Focus Magazine. SCOPE Comments on the Bouquet Canyon Project 4 We cannot continue to allow destruction of our oaks without a least analyzing and replacing their carbon sequestration properties. You can find more information on this subject at the US Forest Service's Climate Change Resource Center where a carbon estimation tool can be downloaded (https://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/tool/cufr-tree-carbon-calculator-ctcc) The landscape plan indentified in the agenda packet depicts landscape trees as pines. Why are oaks not incorporated into the landscape plan? It should be noted that pines are not a good choice for fire hazard zones since they are highly flammable. Conclusion In closing we note that according to the OPR CEQA Guidelines: The Lead Agency must consider the comments it receives during the review period prior to adopting a MND. If these comments include substantial evidence that a potential environmental effect may occur despite the project revisions or mitigation measures included in the MND, the Lead Agency must either require further revisions to the project which would effectively avoid or mitigate that effect, or if that is not possible, prepare an EIR. Although not explicitly required by CEQA, OPR recommends that under the first circumstance the Lead Agency re -circulate the revised MND for review prior to acting on the project and adopting the MIND. This ensures that the public will have been afforded the chance to review the new mitigation measures as well as the revised project (Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337 and Perley v. County of Calaveras (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 424). As before, the proponent must have agreed to or made the additional project changes before the MND is re -circulated. (OPR CEQA Handbook Pagel) We urge you not to support the staff recommendation without responding to our concerns. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, President Attachment: Copy of the Public Notice that was circulated for this project. (handwriting not on original document) SCOPE Comments on the Bouquet Canyon Project 5 ,fil Nor, NOTICE OF INTENT to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita Departimat W'-Cornvntiq,�y Dey9lopipent 23926 �aielncia 136rflevard, Suite , 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 (661) 255-4330 To: Interested Agencies, Organizations and Individuals Subject: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration Pursuant to Section 15072 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City of Santa Clarita (Lead Agency) is providing notice that it intends to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project identified below: Project Title: Sierra West Assisted Living Facility Application: Master Case Number 18-235 Ridgeline Alteration Permit 18-002; Conditional Use Permit 18-011; Hillside Development Review 19-001; Oak Tree Permit 18-013; Minor Use Permit 18-021; Development Review 18-024; Architectural Design Review 20-022; Initial Study 19-003 Project Location: Located along the west side of Sierra Highway, approximately 600 feet south of Newhall Avenue, immediately north of Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary (APN: 2827-005-048). Project Description: The applicant is requesting the approval of a Ridgeline Alteration Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Hillside Development Review, Oak Tree Pennit, Minor Use Perinii, Development Review and an Architectural Design Review for the construction of' a five -story, 8' )_ unit Residential Health Care Facility consisting of independent living, assisted living and memory care units with ancillary services provided on site. The subject property is in the Mixed Use Corridor (MX-C) zone and within the Planned Development (PD) overlay zone. Review Period: January 26, 2021 to February 16, 2021 Notice of Public Hearing: This item will be heard at a regular public hearing before the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission at, or after, 6:00 PM on February 16, 2021. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers, First Floor, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Availability of Documents: During the public review period, a copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all supporting documents are available for review by appointment at the City Clerk's Office located in the City Hall Building at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 120, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. To make an appointment, please call (661) 259-CITY. If you wish to receive an electronic copy of the document, please contact Mike Marshall, Associate Planner at (661) 255- 43 3 0. VkK kq k&q�o 5 aY4 t - f For additional information on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration or on the projects requested discretionary entitlements, please contact Mike Marshall, Associate Planner at (661) 255- 4330. It is requested that any written comments on the proposed project be submitted to the Department of Community Development prior to the hearing date. If you challenge the action taken on this proposal in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else has raised at the Public Hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the Department of Community Development. Signature: Sr �� CAS1� Mike Marshall Title: Associate Planner Date: January 26, 2021 LOS ANGELES COUNTY Robert Ferrante Chief Engineer and General Manager SANITATION DISTRICTS 1955 Workman Mill Road, Whittier, CA 90601-1400 Converting Waste Into Resources Mailing Address: P.O. Box 4998, Whittier, CA 90607-4998 (562) 699-7411 • www.lacsd.org Mr. Mike Marshall, Associate Planner Community Development Department City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mr. Marshall: February 16, 2021 Ref. DOC 6046887 NOI Response for Sierra West Assisted Living Facility The Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District (District) received a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (NOI) for the subject project on January 27, 2021. We offer the following comments regarding sewerage service: 1. The project area is outside the jurisdictional boundaries of the District and will require annexation into District before sewerage service can be provided to the proposed development. For a copy of the District's Annexation Information and Processing Fee sheets, go to vy,ww.lacsd.orL,, Wastewater & Sewer Systems, and click on Annexation Program. For more specific information regarding the annexation procedure and fees, please contact Ms. Donna Curry at (562) 908-4288, extension 2708. The proposed project may require a District's permit for Industrial Wastewater Discharge. Project developers should contact the District's Industrial Waste Section at (562) 908-4288, extension 2900, in order to reach a determination on this matter. If this permit is necessary, project developers will be required to forward copies of final plans and supporting information for the proposed project to the District for review and approval before beginning project construction. For additional Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit information, go to httl�.//��������.lacsd.or</���astcw<�fcr/industral-�a:�[c/I�crinit.�rsp. The wastewater flow originating from the proposed project will discharge to a local sewer line, which is not maintained by the District, for conveyance to the District's Newhall Trunk Sewer, located in Walnut Street at 16" Street. The District's 21—inch diameter trunk sewer has a capacity of 4.3 million gallons per day (mgd) and conveyed a peak flow of 1.5 mgd when last measured in 2018. 4. The District operates two water reclamation plants (WRPs), the Saugus WRP and the Valencia WRP, which provide wastewater treatment in the Santa Clarita Valley. These facilities are interconnected to form a regional treatment system known as the Santa Clarita Valley Joint Sewerage System (SCVJSS). The SCVJSS has a capacity of 28.1 mgd and currently processes an average flow of 19.6 mgd. The expected average wastewater flow from the project, described in the notice as an 83-unit residential healthcare facility, is 10,375 gallons per day. For a copy of the District's average wastewater generation factors, go to v-v�vw.Licsd.or<u, under Services, then Wastewater Programs and Permits, select Will Serve Program, and scroll down to click on the fable 1. L.oadinus fOr I Licli Clan of Land (.Ne link. DOC 6067500.SCVD99 Mr. Mike Marshall February 16, 2021 The District is empowered by the California Health and Safety Code to charge a fee to connect facilities (directly or indirectly) to the District's Sewerage System or to increase the strength or quantity of wastewater discharged from connected facilities. This connection fee is a capital facilities fee that is used by the District to upgrade or expand the Sewerage System. Payment of a connection fee may be required before this project is permitted to discharge to the District's Sewerage System. For more information and a copy of the Connection Fee Information Sheet, go to ww\v.lacs(WrL, under Services, then Wastewater (Sewage) and select Rates & Fees. In determining the impact to the Sewerage System and applicable connection fees, the District will determine the user category (e.g. Condominium, Single Family home, etc.) that best represents the actual or anticipated use of the parcel(s) or facilities on the parcel(s) in the development. For more specific information regarding the connection fee application procedure and fees, the developer should contact the District's Wastewater Fee Public Counter at (562) 908-4288, extension 2727 In order for the District to conform to the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the capacities of the District's wastewater treatment facilities are based on the regional growth forecast adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Specific policies included in the development of the SCAG regional growth forecast are incorporated into clean air plans, which are prepared by the South Coast and Antelope Valley Air Quality Management Districts in order to improve air quality in the South Coast and Mojave Desert Air Basins as mandated by the CCA. All expansions of District's facilities must be sized and service phased in a manner that will be consistent with the SCAG regional growth forecast for the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial. The available capacity of the District's treatment facilities will, therefore, be limited to levels associated with the approved growth identified by SCAG. As such, this letter does not constitute a guarantee of wastewater service, but is to advise the developer that the District intends to provide this service up to the levels that are legally permitted and to inform the developer of the currently existing capacity and any proposed expansion of District's facilities. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (562) 908-4288, extension 2717 or at araza@lacsd.org. Very truly yours, eu. A5r, Adriana Raza Customer Service Specialist Facilities Planning Department AR:ar cc: D. Curry L. Smith A. Schmidt A. Howard DOC 6067500.SCVD99 From: Cynthia Harris <moongoddessgreek@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 20214:16 PM To: Mike Marshall; James Chow; Tom Cole Subject: Project 18-235 CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Hello Mike Marshall, Please give copies to all the commissioners, Thank you. There is a need in our community for a place where senior clients can be safe in their remaining years, however this may not be that location. In the IV Section of the Santa Clarita City Oak Tree Ordinance it states: part D. "...Applicant SHALL be responsible for submitting adequate information to demonstrate that reasonable conformity use can not be made of the subject property without removal(s) or encroachment (s) in the protected zone of an oak tree." I fail to see that in any of the documents ? The proposed building could be shifted to accommodate the Heritage Oak Tree creating a centerpiece for the building. Heritage Oak Trees have special Community interest as they have exceptional aesthetic, environmental, and historical value. Our community has voiced over and over the desire to protect our few remaining oak trees. { Old Glory Heritage Oak Tree Set} The property just west of this project has removed and killed over 1400 Native California Oak Trees. The commutative effect of additional removals MUST be considered!. Please review the following report by Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D. Updated November 19, 2019 "You've probably heard that trees produce oxygen, but have you ever wondered just how much oxygen one tree makes? The amount of oxygen produced by a tree depends on several factors, including its species, age, health, and surroundings. A tree produces a different amount of oxygen in summer compared to winter. So, there is no definitive value. Here are some typical calculations: "A mature leafy tree produces as much oxygen in a season as 10 people inhale in a year." "A single mature tree can absorb carbon dioxide at a rate of 48 pounds per year and release enough oxygen back into the atmosphere to support two human beings." "One acre of trees annually consumes the amount of carbon dioxide equivalent to that produced by driving an average car for 26,000 miles. That same acre of trees also produces enough oxygen for 18 people to breathe for a year." "A 100-foot tree, 18 inches diameter at its base, produces 6,000 pounds of oxygen." "On average, one tree produces nearly 260 pounds of oxygen each year. Two mature trees can provide enough oxygen for a family of four." "Mean net annual oxygen production (after accounting for decomposition) per hectare of trees (100% tree canopy) offsets oxygen consumption of 19 people per year (8 people per acre of tree cover), but ranges from nine people per hectare of canopy cover (4 people/ac cover) in Minneapolis, Minnesota, to 28 people/ha cover (12 people/ac cover) in Calgary, Alberta." Notes About Numbers Note there are three ways to look at the amount of oxygen produced: • One type of calculation simply looks at the average amount of oxygen produced via photosynthesis. • A second calculation looks at net oxygen production, which is the amount made during photosynthesis minus the amount the tree uses. • A third calculation compares the net oxygen production in terms of gas available for humans to breathe. It's also important to remember that trees not only release oxygen but also consume carbon dioxide. However, trees perform photosynthesis during daylight hours. At night, they use oxygen and release carbon dioxide. Sources • McAliney, Mike. Arguments for Land Conservation: Documentation and Information Sources for Land Resources Protection, Trust for Public Land, Sacramento, CA, December 1993. • Nowak, David J.; Hoehn, Robert; Crane, Daniel E. Oxygen Production by Urban Trees in the United States. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 2007. 33(3):220-226. • Stancil, Joanna Mounce. The Power of One Tree - The Very Air We Breathe. U.S. Department of Agriculture. March 17, 2015. • Villazon, Luis. How many trees does it take to produce oxygen for one person? BBC Science Focus Magazine. I respectfully request a denial of this project unless the Heritage Oak Tree can be saved. Very truly yours, Cynthia Harris CITY OF SANTA CLARITA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION [X] Proposed [ ] Final MASTER CASE NO: Master Case No. 18-235 PERMIT/PROJECT Sierra West Assisted Living Project Ridgeline Alteration Permit 18-002, Conditional Use Permit 18-011, Hillside Development Review 19-001, Oak Tree Permit 18-013, Minor Use Permit 18- 021, Development Review 18-024, Architectural Design Review 20-022, and Initial Study 19-003 APPLICANT: Norris Whitmore P.O. Box 55786 Valencia, CA 91385 LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: The Proposed Project Site is a vacant 3.99-acre lot located along the west side of Sierra Highway, approximately 600 feet south of Newhall Avenue, in the community of Newhall within the City of Santa Clarita. The Project Site is immediately north of the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary, south of Redline Gauge Works, and southeast of the Faith Community Church, (Assessor's Parcel Number 2827-005-048). DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: This initial study was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a Ridgeline Alteration Permit (RAP), Conditional Use Permit (CUP), Hillside Development Review (HDR), Minor Use Permit (MUP), Development Review Permit (DR), and Architectural Design Review Permit (ADR). The proposed Sierra West Assisted Living Project (project) would consist of the construction of an 83-unit Residential Health Care Facility consisting of 51 assisted and independent living units and 29 memory care units within a proposed 5-story building with one additional subterranean level. Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this project, and pursuant to the requirements of Section 15070 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Santa Clarita [X] City Council [ ] Planning Commission [ ] Director of Community Development finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect upon the environment, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be adopted pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA. Mitigation measures for this project [ ] Are Not Required [X] Are Attached [ ] Are Not Attached Jason Crawford PLANNING MANAGER Prepared by: t „� (Signatu% Approved by: Mike Marshall, Associate Planner (Name/Title) James Chow, Senior Planner Public Review Period From January 26, 2021 To February 16, 2021 Public Notice Given On January 26, 2021 [X] Legal Advertisement [X] Posting of Properties [X] Written Notice CERTIFICATION DATE: March 23, 2021 Initia 1 Study Page 1of116 Project title/master case number: Lead agency name and address: Contact person and phone number INITIAL STUDY CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Sierra West Assisted Living and Memory Care Proj ect City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department 23 920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Mike Marshall Associate Planner (661)286-4045 Project location: The Proposed Project Site is a vacant 3.99-acre lot located along the west side of Sierra Highway, approximately 600 feet south of NewhallAvenue, in the Newhall neighborhood of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California. The Project Site is immediately north of the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary, south of Redfne Gauge Works, and southeast of the Faith Community Church. The Project Site (Assessor's Parcel Number 2827-005-048 is located in the Oat Mountain topographic quadrangle (Township 3N, Range 16W, S12). See Figure 1, Regional Location Map and Figure 2, Project Location Map. Applicant's name and address: Norris Construction Co. Attn: Norris Whitmore PO Box 55786 Valencia, CA 91385 General Plan designation: Mixed Use Corridor (MX-C) Zoning: Mixed Use Corridor (MX-C). The Project Site is also included wider Ridgeline Preservation and Planned Development overlay zones. Initia 1 Study Description of project and setting: Existing Conditions The Project Site consists of 3.99 acres of undeveloped land in the southeastern portion of the City of Santa Clarita and is bound by Sierra Highway to the east, a mortuary and memorial park to the south, an auto tuning workshop to the north, and undeveloped hills to the west. Northwest of the Project Site are two large single-family residential properties. North of the auto -tuning shop, along Sierra Highway, is a City -maintained Park and Ride parking lot and a gasoline station, located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Sierra Highway and Newhall Avenue. Along the Project Site frontage, Sierra Highway is improved with curb and gutter and has electrical utility poles on the east side of the road. These overhead electrical utility lines cross Sierra Highway in front of the Project Site, connecting to an existing overheadutility pole, with streetlights locatednorthof the Project Site on the west side of Sierra Highway. There are two existing utility poles on the eastern Project Site boundary. One utility pole is freestanding andthe other is connected by wire to a utility pole across Sierra Highway and has a guy -wire extending into the ground on the Project Site. Across Sierra Highway from the Project Site is a vacant lot, which is graded, covered with gravel, and currently used for staging/storing construction materials and equipment See Figure 3 forviews of Sierra Highway north and south of the Proj ect Site. Along the Project Site frontage, approximately 800 feet south of NewhallAvenue, there is a curb cut for a driveway that has a chain - link fence and padlocked gate; however, the driveway stops at the gate and does not extend into theProj ect Site. The Project Site can be accessed by a driveway that begins at Newhall Avenue and terminates a t th e northern Project Site boundary. The Project Site is characterized by a relatively flat, predominantly grass -covered area next to Sierra Highway, surrounded by steep topography covered with grasses, shrubs, and trees varying in size, species, and health. The Project Site includes 54 protected oak trees, the majority o f which are located on th e steep slop e on the south side of the Project Site. The Project Site is framedby two ridgelines. The first is on the southern portion of the Project Site and trends east — west, with two forked nodes at the eastern terminus of the ridgeline. These two nodes surround the relatively level portion of the Project Site, where the Proposed Project would be located. The second ridgeline is located off -site to the northwest, trends northeast southwest, and has been designated by the Santa Clarita General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element as having additional development protections. Photos of the Project Site's existing conditions are displayed in Figure 4 and Figure 5. Proposed Project The Proposed Project would include an 83-unit, 61,736-square-foot senior living facility, which would contain independent and assisted living units, as well as m emory care services, as shown in Figure 6, Proposed Site Plan. While the Project Site is a total area of 399 acres, the proposed development area would be concentrated on an approximately 1.1-acre, flat portion of the Project Site adjacent to 2 Initia 1 Study Sierra Highway. In total, the building footprint and hardscape area would encompass approximately 18 percent of the total Project Site, with the remaining land consisting of new landscaping and undeveloped naturally vegetated land. The Proposed Project would include five aboveground levels plus one subterranean level for a totalof six levels. However,because the Project would be constructed on a site with undulating terrain, five levels would be visible aboveground on the eastern Project elevation (the front elevation) and four levels wouldbe visible aboveground on the western Proj ect elevation (the rear elevation). The Project would include multiple interior common areas and activity roomslocatedon floors one through five. It would also include outdoor spaces including a secured outdoor area on the second floor for exclusive use by residents of the memory care facility, a roof deckon the fifth floor, and an outdoorpatio. The proposed structure would be set back 52 feet from Sierra Highway, and23, 76, and 179 feetfrom the north, west, and south property boundaries, respectively. The subterranean, basement level would contain 21 guest parking stalls, 3 clean air/vanpool/electrical vehicle reserved parking stalls, and 11 employee parking stalls, along with laundry, storage, equipment rooms, and separate sets of elevators for the independent/assisted living and memory care portions of the building. Of the three clean air stalls, one is includedas one of the 21 guest parking stalls, one is included as oneof the 11 employee stalls, and the third is unreserved. Guests and employees would enter and exit the basement level through a gated entrance at the northeast corner of the building. On the north side of the Project Site, outside of the garage, would be an additional four uncovered employee parking stalls. Level one would contain 40 resident parking stalls, three of which would be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In total, the Project would provide 73 covered parking spaces, as well as four outdoor, uncovered employee parking spaces on the north side of the Project Site. Of the 77 total parking stalls, eight spaces would be reserved for clean air/vanpool/electrical vehicle users and three stalls would be ADA- compliant. Proj ect Site -wide, 2 1 stalls would be reserved for guests, 41 would be reserved for residents, and 15 would be reserved for employees. Residents would enter and exit on the first-levelpark>ng area through a gated entrance on the southeast corner of the building. Level one would include 17 spacesof bike storage in the parking area, as well as a front entrance lobby, a covered front porch, an electrical equipment room, the mailroom, office space, and multiple amenities, such as a salon and gymnasium. The second level would contain 29 memory care units, resident dining facilities, the kitchen, common areas, and an enc losed co urtyard for the exclusive use of the memory care units. The third and fourth levels would each contain 19 independent/assisted livingunits anda commonarea. The fifth level would contain 16 independent/assisted living units, a common area, and a rooftop deck on the east side of thebuilding. The interior of the building would separate the independent/assisted living andmemory care uses. Allm emory care units would be located on the second floor of the proposed structure. This floor would have its own secure outdoor area for memory care residents, along with separate dining 3 Initia 1 Study facilities and a designated elevator. In total, the Proposed Project would include 29 studio (325-square-foot) memory care units, 51 one -bedroom (650-square-foot) independent/assisted living units, and 3 two -bedroom (845 square -foot) independent/assisted living units, fora totalof 83 units. To accommodate the Proposed Project, a portion of the Project Site would be graded, which would involve removal of the vegetation within the proposed footprint of the facility and associated driveways, paths of travel, outdoor gathering spaces, and proposed landscaping This would include the removal of five protected oak trees (one heritage and four non -heritage oaks). The balance of the oak trees on or overhanging the Project Site (49 oaks) would be retained and incorporated into the ProposedProject's landscaping plan. Of the 54 total oak trees located on or overhanging the Project Site, four are considered heritage oak trees per the City's oak tree preservation ordinance. One of the five oak trees that would be removed by the Project is considered a heritage oak. Project construction may encroach upo n nin e additional o ak trees, two o f wh ich are considered heritage oaks. Additional oak trees may be encroached upon and/or pruned as a result of required, annual fuel modification activities to reduce on -site wildfire risks. Such impacts are described further in Section IV, Biological Resources, of this Initial Study. Grading o fthe development area in preparation o f Project construction would result in approximately 10,000 cubic yards of cut and 400 cubic yards of fill, resulting in 9,600 cubic yards of soilto be exportedfrom the site. Vehicular traffic would access the Project Site through two driveways: an existing driveway located on Sierra Highway, which would be improved to 30 feet in width, and a new driveway located approximately 180 feet north of the existing driveway that would also be 30 feet in width. A truck loading space and fire turn -around access would be located on the south side of the building. An underground water filtration system and associated storage tanks would be located in the northeast corner of the Project Site, underneath the four uncovered employee parking stalls. Additionally, a concrete masonry unit enclosure with metalgates, a trellis, and fire sprinklers would be located on the south side of the development area and would beused to contain bins for trash and recycling. As displayed in Figure 7 through Figure 9, the proposed structure would feature a traditional -style design with a limestone veneer on the exposed portions of the first floor and vertically alternating brick veneers, horizontal cementboard siding, and plaster veneers on the top four floors. Windows would allbe metal -clad woodwith those on the top floor also having a metal awning. The rooftop deck would incorporate wood fascia and corbels. The roof would have screens surrounding the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units to shield them from view. Each building elevation would be articulated, with the front (eastern) elevation adorned with decorative metal railings, a covered front entryway, and building -mounted accent lights. Due to the existing slope on the Project Site, the proposed structure would have a height ranging from 41 feet above ground level on the western elevation to 56 feet, 3 inches above ground levelon the eastern elevation. El Initia 1 Study A retaining wall is proposed to extend along the western and southern boundaries of the developed area. This retaining wall would range in height from 1 foot at the northwest corner of the proposed structure to as high as 23 feet near the southwest corner of the structure. The portions of the retaining wall visible to motorists traveling south on Sierra Highway would range from 6 feet high near the southeast corner of the development area to 23 feet high near the southwest corner of the building. The proposed structure would be surrounded by landscaping including a mix of shrubs and trees along the eastern frontage to Sierra Highway, shrubs along the eastern side of the proposed structure, shrubs and trees along the northern and southern sides of the proposed structure, and shrubs, trees, and a water feature along the western side of theproposed structure. Approximately 81 percent of the Project Site consists o f natural open space and maintained new landscaping. Construction of the Project is anticipated to take 24 months, with completion/operation o f the Project occurring in Nov ember 2022. Required Approvals This IS/MNDis intended to address all governmental approvals that are needed to construct and operate the Proposed Project. The discretionary approvals necessary for the Project include the following approvals by the City of Santa Clarita: • Architectural Design Review • Development Review • Oak Tree Permit • Ridgeline Alteration Permit • MinorUse Permit to deviate from the minimum residential density required in an MX-C zone. • Conditional Use Permit to allow for a residential health care facility in a Mixed -Use Corridor zone and to allow for a building height of 56 feet,3 inches. • Conditional Use Permit to allow development within the City's Planned Development overlay zone. • Condition of approval requiring the Project applicant to landscape the median within Sierra Highway along the Project Site's frontage. 5 Initia 1 Study Surrounding land uses: The Project Site is located in a suburban part of the City of Santa Clarita, where the built environment consists of large lot single- family residential (zoned UR3) to the northwest, open space (zoned OS) to the south, commercialuses (zonedMX-C) to the north, and a vacant lot (zoned CR) to the east across Sierra Highway. Figure 10 provides a view of the local land use pattern in the vicinity of the Project Site. Sierra Highway, which forms the eastern Project Site boundary, is a six -lane road with a center median that is classified as a Major Arterial Highway in the City of Santa Clarita's General Plan Circulation Element. A ridgeline, which trends northeast southwest, is located off -site to the northwest and has been designated by the Santa Clarita General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element as having additional development protections. Other public agencies whose Project Site annexation into the Los Angeles County Sanitation approval is required: Districts' jurisdictional boundary (requiring approval from the City and the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts). 6 Initial Study A. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checkedbelow 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 followingpages. [ ] Aesthetics [ ] Agriculture and Forestry [ ] Air Quality Resources [x] Biologica I Resources [x] Cultural Resources [] Energy Geology/Soils [ ] Geology and Soils [ ] Greenhouse Gas Emissions [ ] Hazards and Hazardous Materials [ ] Hydrology and Water Quality [ ] Land Use and Planning [ ] Mineral Resources [ ] Noise [ ] Population and Housing [ ] Public Services [] Recreation [] Transportation/Tiaffic [x] Tribal Cultural Resources [ ] Utilities and Service Systems [x] Mandatory Findings of Significance B. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: Checkone [ ] I find that the Proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [X] I find that althoughthe Proposed Projectcould havea sign if ic ant effect ontheenvironment, there willnot be a significant effect in this casebecause revisions in theproject havebeen made by oragreedto bytheproject proponent. A MITIGATEDNEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL I PACT REPORT is required. [ ] I find that the Proposed Project MAY havea "potentially significant impact" or"potentially sign ificantunless mitigated" impact onthe environment, but at least oneeffect (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 m ust analyze only the effects that remain to be a ddressed. [ J I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided ormitigated pursuantto that earlier EIR or NEGATI VE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the Proposed Project, nothing further is required. Signature Name, Title robe Date Signature Name,Ti ry r ` f�� Date1 7 g,6 IIII y.S�lFfl� III AV ill m r-A f J �-UUI I LY ..4 iv UIH L k AM 'IV 00 , —:,, v Omw �i s, E V R ,, (I " V, San 'fa Clar s#a any gar � ��a Project Site 19— "A"! I ,,, I d 11 r7 Legend Project Site City of Santa Clarita 00, .11 MILES cane era , ad , V, Country 4'% dl� *4 4@ of., 0 vo &,trl u,t r4 ,,, hP. "41 SYMIar qw I .fit. ma do 101 ON` hv M, Grano a HiNs, Re" "k, FIGURE 1 Regional Location Map I IN T E IR IN A T 110 H A IL Legend Project Site City of Santa Clarita U Source: Esn World Street Basernap, Los Angeles County O 0 0.25 0.5 MILES �x IC4", 6, S, FIGURE 2 Project Location Map 11 N T E I N A T 11 0 N A I View of Sierra Highway from the Project Site (looking south) View of Sierra Highway from the Project Site (looking north) Note: Photos taken December 2019 FIGURE 3 Existing Conditions Along Sierra Highway I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L View of the northeast corner of the Project Site (looking west) View of the northeast corner of the Project Site and commercial building to the north (looking north) Note: Photos taken December 2019 FIGURE 4 Existing Conditions of the Northern Portion of the Project Site I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L View of the southern portion of Project Site (looking south) View of the Project Site interior (looking west) Note: Photos taken December 2019 FIGURE 5 Existing Conditions of the Central and Southern Portions of Project Site I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L W W a CD a) LL (n O VJ W W.0 = 4— CD > LL _N W V a) 0 0- 4— CO co W cra Y 0 U) itMINNIIIIIII I/ I %/0// �''p-------------- -; �u�ou I�u�uu�ulHER / l Ell uum ulmuulli jiRmill ui io O Ell h >m EN f 7j MEMO NAM /! �j� <ud<'• _..__ IIIIII%I/IIII�IIII IIm� W WjIjU/u994�llll.. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII %//�'' r l/�� .. m (1 /I j 151 4 rrLu ILJU ,I% ME E �n MIN m III "MR, ��UQQQ�Q�uQ------------ rr � O N W _I W (Q c� > LL N W V N O 0- a) - a) 0 ca 0 z m View simulation of the Proposed Project looking southwest View simulation of the Proposed Project, looking northwest Source: Ken Stockton, Architect, February 2020 FIGURE 9 View Simulations of the Proposed Project I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L O U) J 0)I z Iuj . So li -0 CD z�0 yI z co - co 0 V ) V 0 0 L n 0 0 \0 �L 0 I � � J W z C a i z U- �— w w Qi Z V O L n s mm_ , If 3n R 3 AV -- _ _;�s m swavu :er /',Imaa v3evd se load tl !! 31 S V 77 J 1 �'" ✓ . Pvw { I I I �t I � i I r I A / I ll� I � r � M W � is j� t f v w ck ac�000000o wG�� W U a CO) c T- (6 W d O cu 4- 0 N LL cu U U) O 0 z J a z 0 a z w LU Initia 1 Study C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: L AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have substantial adverse effect ona scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, butnot limited to, primary/secondary ridgelines, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affectday ornighttimeviews in the area? Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Impact With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact I I 1Xl I I I 1Xl I I I 1Xl I I I 1Xl I IL AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES —In determ ining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1 997)prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optionalm odel to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies mayrefer to information compiled by the California Departmentof Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, includingthe Forestand 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 theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] 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 [ ] [ ] [] [x] Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)) timberland (as definedby Public Resources Code Section 4526) or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forestland to [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] non-forestuse? e) Involve other changes in the existing environmentwhich, due to [ ] [ ] [] [x] their location ornature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forestland to non -forest use? IH. AIR QUALITY— Where available, the significance criteria establishedby the applicable air quality management or airpollution controldistrict m ay be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: 21 Initia 1 Study a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute sub stantially to an existing orproj ected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria po llutant for which the proj ect region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, orby the California Departmentof Fish and Wildlife orUS Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Impact With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 11 11 1Xl 11 11 11 1Xl 11 11 11 1Xl 11 b) Havea substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other [] sensitive natural community identified in local orregionalplans, policies, regulations or by the California Departmento f Fish and Wildlife orUS Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have substantial adverse effecton federally protected wetlands [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] 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 m eans? d) Interfere substantially with the movementof any native resident [ ] [x] or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting [ ] [x] biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, including oak trees? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation [ ] [ ] [] [x] plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local,regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Wj Initia 1 Study Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Impact With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact g) Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or Significant Natural Area (SNA) as identified on the City of Santa Clarita [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] ESA Delineation Map? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a [ ] [x] historic a Ire source as defined in Section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an [ ] [x] archaeologicalresource pursuant to Section 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy orimpacta unique paleontological [] [x] resource or site orunique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of [ ] [ ] [x] form al cemeteries? VI. ENERGY— Would the project: a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to [ ] [ ] [x] wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable [ ] [ ] [x] energy or energy efficiency? VIL 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 [ ] [ ] [x] the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist forthe areaorbasedon other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines andGeology Special Publication42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? [ ] [ ] [x] iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? [] [] [x] 11 iv) Landslides? [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] b) Result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the loss of [ ] [ ] [x] topsoil, either on- or o ff-site? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would becomeunstable as a result oftheproject, andpotentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? 23 Initia 1 Study d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform Building Code(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? f) Result in a change in topography or ground surface relief features? g) Result in earth movement(cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more? h) Involve development and/or grading ona slope greater than 10% natural grade? i) Result in the destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS — Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Impact With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 11 11 11 1XI a) Generate greenhouse gas emission, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy orregulation adopted for the purpose of reducingthe emissions of greenhouse gases? IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would theproject: 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 explo Sion or the release of hazardous materials into the environment (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, fuels, orradiation)? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? I 1XI I 1XI Initia 1 Study 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 airportorpublic use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard forpeople residing or working in the project area? Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Impact With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 11 11 11 1Xl f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the [ ] [ ] [] [X] project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the proj ect area? g) Impair implementationoforphysically interferewith anadopted [ ] [ ] [X] emergency response plan or emergency evacuationplan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, [ ] [ ] [X] or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? i) Expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards [ ] [] [x] 11 (e.g., electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines)? X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY— Would the proj ect: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge [] [] [x] 11 requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere [] [] [x] 11 substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or [ ] [ ] [x] area, including through the alterationof the course of a streamor 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 [ ] [ ] [x] area, including through the alterationof the course of a streamor river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off - site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the [ ] [ ] [x] capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage sy stems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? [] [] [x] 11 25 Initia 1 Study g) Place housingwithin a 1 00-year floodhazard area as mappedon a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would im pede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundationby seiche, tsunami, ormudflow? 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, channelcreek, orriver? m) Impact stormwater management in any of the following ways: i) Potential impact of project construction and project post - construction activity on stormwater runof f? ii) Potential discharges from areas for materials storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoorwork areas? iii) Significant environmentally harmful increase in the flow velocity orvolume of stormwater runoff? iv) Significant and environmentally harmful increases in erosion of the Project Site or surrounding areas? v) Stormwater discharges that would significantly impair or contribute to the impairm ent of the beneficial uses o f receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefits (e.g., riparian corridors, wetlands, etc.)? vi) Cause harm to the biological integrity of drainage systems, watersheds, and/or water bodies? vii) Does the Proposed Project include provisions for the separation, recycling, and reuse of materials both during construction and after project occupancy? XL LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Impact With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 11 11 11 1Xl I I I 1Xl I I 1Xl I I I I 1Xl I I I I I 1Xl I I I I 1Xl I I I 1Xl I I I 1Xl I I I 1Xl I I I 1Xl I I I 1Xl I 26 Initia 1 Study Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Impact With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact a) Disrupt or physically divide an established community [ ] [ ] [] [x] (including a low-income or minority community)? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation [] [] [] [x] of an agency withjurisdiction over the project (including,butnot lim ited to the genera I plan, specific plan, local co astalprogram, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan, natural [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] community conservation plan, and/or policies by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? XIL MINERAL AND ENERGYRESOURCES — Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of aknown mineral resourcethat [] [] [] [x] would be of value to theregion and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral [] [] [] [x] resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? c) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient [] [] [x] 11 manner? XIIL NOISE —Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of [ ] [] [x] 11 standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome [ ] [ ] [x] vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the [ ] [ ] [x] project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise [ ] [ ] [x] levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] proj ect expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: 27 Initia 1 Study 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)? Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Impact With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 11 11 1Xl 11 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating [ ] [ ] [] [x] the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (especially affordable housing)? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XV. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in: a) Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to m aintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? [ ] [ ] [x] ii) Police protection? [ ] [ ] [x] iii) Schools? [] [] [] [x] iv) Parks? [] [] [x] 11 v) Otherpublic facilities? [ ] [ ] [x] XVI. RECREATION— Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deteriorationof the facility would occurorbe accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effecton the environment? XVIL TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy [ ] [ ] [x] establishing m easures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, inclu ding but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? 28 Initia 1 Study Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Impact With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, [ ] [ ] [x] including, but not limited to, levelof service standards and Navel 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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] 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 [ ] [ ] [] [x] curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [] [] [] [x] f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding [ ] [ ] [x] public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? XVIIL TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of atribal 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 CaliforniaNative American tribe, andthat is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of [ ] [x] Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.l(k), or ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its [ ] [x] discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS —Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable [ ] [ ] [x] Regional Water Quality ControlBoard? 29 Initia 1 Study b) Require or result in the construction of new water 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 eff ects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposalneeds? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XX. WILDFIRE — If locatedin ornear state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to,pol1utant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Impact With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 11 11 1Xl 11 c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated [] infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes? XXL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: 1XI I 1Xl I 1Xl 30 Initia 1 Study Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Impact With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact a) Does the project have the potentialto degrade the quality of the [ ] [x] environment, substantially reduce the habitatof a fish orwildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plantor animal, or eliminate important examples of the m ajorperiods of California history orprehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but [ ] [x] cumulatively considerable? (`Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connectionwith the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause [ ] [ ] [x] substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 31 Initia 1 Study D. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND/OR EARLIER ANALYSIS Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impacts L AESTHETICS a) Less Than Significant Impact: The City of Santa Clarita lies within Southem California's Santa Clarita Valley, which is bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains to the south and east, the Santa Susana 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, fore sted/vege tated land, and a variety of canyons and natural drainages located throughout the City . There is no widely accepted definition of a scenic vista; however, a scenic vista is often defined as a publicly accessible, prominent vantage point that provides expansive views of highly valued landscapes or promin ent visual elements. As stated in the General Plan, a scenic vista may include views of scenic resources such as mountains and canyons, woodlands, water bodies, and/or specific resources (e.g, Vasquez Rocks County Park). Further, the City's General Plan states that urban development can impact the quantity, quality, and variety of scenic vistas through light pollution, development on prominent ridge hn e s/hillside s, aesthetically deficient development, streetscape clutter, and obstruction of scenic views along various roadways' Light andglare impacts and impacts associatedwith streetscape clutter and aesthetically deficient development are discussed in responses to Threshold Questions Lc) and Ld), below. As discussed in the Pro j ect Description of this Initial Study, the Project Site consists of two undeveloped parcels located in the southern portion of the City. As shown in Figure 10, the Project Site is in a suburban area, surrounded by a mixture of urban land uses, such as commercial, transit, religious, and residential, as well as open space areas. Open space areas surroundingtheProjectSiteinclude the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary, located im mediately south o f the Project Site, and the Whitney Canyon and Elsmere Canyonopen space areas, locatednearthe intersection of Newhall Avenue and Sierra Highway, east of State Route (SR) 14. These open space areas are identifiedon Exhibit CO-7 of the City's General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element. The Project Site is boundedby two ridgelines. One ridgeline is located northwestand west of the Project Site and rises to a peak of approximately 1,560 feet above mean sea level (amsl). This ridgeline has been identified by the City as a "significant ridgeline" in the General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element.' The second ridgeline is located south of the Project Site; however, it is not ashigh as the ridgefne to the northwest (rising to approximately 1,470 feet asml) and has notbeen classified as a "significantridgeline." The Proposed Project would be constructed between these two ridgelines in a relatively level portion of the Project Site that lies lower than the ridgelines, at 1,400-1,430 feet amsl, as shown on Figure and Figure 5.' The proposed assisted living and memory care facility would be 56 feet, 3 inches in height, rising to approximately 1,456 feet amsl.s The Project would also include a ' City of Santa Clarita, General Plan, Conservation and Open Space Element, 2011. City of Santa Clarita, General Plan, Conservation and Open Space Element, 2011. 3 City of Santa Clarita, General Plan, Conservation and Open Space Element, Exhibit CO- I: Hillsides and Ridgelines, 2011. ° City of Santa Clarita, Mapping Your City, htti.//ais.santa-clarita.com/html5/MasterPIIB.html, accessed December 16, 2019. 5 Based on the Proposed Project's building height of 56 feet, 3 inches at the eastern portion of the structure, which would be built on an elevation of 1,400 feet amsl. 32 Initia 1 Study retaining wall along the southern and western portions o f the proposed structure and surrounding Proj ect Site improvements, such as driveways and outdoor patio space with landscaping. As stated in the Project Description of this Initial Study, the retaining wallwould vary in height, ranging from 1 foot high at the northwest comer of the proposed structure to 23 feet high near the southwest corner of the proposed structure. There are no officially designated public vantage points in the Proj ect vicinity that offer views of the ridgelines on and adjacent to the Project Site. Motorists and bicyclists traveling on Sierra Highway currently have partially obstructed views of the two ridgelines bounding the Project Site and theopen space areas east of SR 14. Views of these resources available to users of Sierra Highway are partially obstructed by existing developmentnorth of the Project Site, utility poles and commercial signs on either side of Sierra Highway, and existing mature trees on both sides of Sierra Highway. The hilly terrain located east of SR 14 is visible to motorists and bicyclists using Sierra Highway and would not be obstructed by development on the Project Site. Due to the existing ridgeline on the south side of the Project Site, views of the Eternal Valley MemorialPark and Mortuary are only available from Sierra Highway when the motorist or bicyclist is south of the Project Site. As such, the Proposed Pro j ect wou ld not obstruct existing views o f the Etem al Va lley Memorial Park and Mortuary from Sierra Highway. The Proposed Projectwould obstructviews of the ridgeline south of the Project Site and the significant ridgeline west of the Project Site to motorists andcyclists traveling south on Sierra Highway. However, as shown in Figure 9, a portion of the significant ridgeline west of the Project Site and the majority of the ridgeline on the south side of the Project Site would be visible from Sierra Highway. Specifically, the significant ridgeline would be approximately 110 feet higher than the maximum heightof the Proposed Project. While the Proposed Proj ect improvements would partially to fully obstruct views of existing ridgelines on and adjacent to the Project Site, proposed landscaping along the Proj ect Site's Sierra Highway frontage, a s well as landscaping north and south of the two proposed Project driveways, would softenthe mass and scale of the building Views of the retaining wall on the south andwest side of the development area, which would reach a maximum height of 23 feet in the southwestcorner of the development area, from Sierra Highway would be softened by proposed landscaping along the Project Site's Sierra Highway frontage, as well as by a proposed concrete masonry unit trash bin enclosure located at thebase o f the retaining wall, decorated with metal gates andtrellises. Such placement of this trash enclosure at the base of thisretainirig wall would breakup the appearance of a tall, flat, unarticulated wall on the south side of the development area. Finally, Sierra Highway is designed to accommodate fast-moving traffic and is not designated as a scenic viewing corridor. Because of the high speed of Sierra Highway, views of the ridgelines on and adjacent to the Project Site would be fleeting. In conclusion, because there are no designated scenic overlooks oriented to the ridgelines on and adj acentto theProj ect Site; because views of the Project Site from Sierra Highway would be fleeting; and because of proposed landscaping on the Project Site which would soften the proposed structure's mass and scale, the Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista and Project impacts would be less than significant. b) Less than Significant 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 33 Initia 1 Study Highway. This designated eligible segm ent of I-5 extends from the I-210 interchange to the SR 126/Newhall Ranch Road interchange. SR 126 from the City's boundary at I-5 west to SR 150 in Ventura County is also designated an Eligible State Scenic Highway.6 The Proposed Proj ect is not visible from either I-5 or SR 126 as it is located approximately 1.7 miles and 7.8 miles away from these eligible scenic highways, respectively. Given the distance between these eligible State Scenic Highways and the Project Site, as well as the undulating terrain, mature trees, and existing development, the Project Site would not be visible from an eligible State Scenic Highway. There are a number o f scenic resources on and adjacent to the Project Site, including a significant ridgeline designated in theCity's GeneralPlan andnumerous oaktrees, all ofwhich are protected by the City of Santa Clarita, as described in furtherdetail in Section IV, BiologicaIResources, of this Initial Study. The Project Site's mature oak trees are considered scenic resources because the Santa Clarita Municipal Code states that "indigenous oak trees are recognized for their significant historical, aesthetic, and environmental value" and oaktrees in Santa Clarita "enhancethevalue of property" and "preserve the character of the communities in which they exist."' As stated in the Project Description of this Initial Study, while five protected oak trees would be removed during construction of the Proposed Project, a majority of the protected trees would be preserved in place, thus maintaining the existing visual character of the steep terrain surrounding the proposed development area on the Project Site. Further, complying with the City's Oak Tree Preservation ordinance and obtaining the required oak tree removal/encroachment permit, as detailed in Section IV of this Initial Study, would ensure that impacts to these protected scenic resources would be less than significant. The ridgeline located west of the Project Site is identified in the City of Santa Clarita's General Plan as a significant ridge line and is therefore includedwithin the City's Ridgeline Preservation Overlay Zone. This overlay zone was established to protect the visual integrity of areas surrounding ridgelines by prohibiting development or land alteration within 100 feet vertical and 100 feet horizontal distance from the peak of the ridgeline. The Proposed Proj ect would encroach into this 100-foot horizontal ridgeline setback atthe northwest comer of the development area, as shown on Figure 6. The encroachment wouldbe minor, extending to a depth of 10 feet into theridgeline setback zone for a length of 90 feet (totaling 900 square feet of area). Regardless, the Project requires aridgeline alteration permit in order to encroach into this 100-foothorizontalridgeline setback. Finally, the Proj ect would not disrupt or obstruct views of any historic resources, as no currently visible historic resources exist on -site. See Section V, Cultural Resources, of this Initial Study for additional information. Therefore, because of the Project Site's distance from the nearest officially designated scenic highway, and because the impacts to scenic resources on the Project Site (i.e., oak trees and the significant ridgeline to the west) would be mitigated through the City's rid geline alteration permit approvalpro cess and through oak tree mitigation, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway. c) Less Than Significant Impact: The Project Site is located in a suburban area, with a variety of urban land uses such as gasoline stations, transit parking lots, California Streets and Highways Code, Article 2.5 State Scenic Highways, Sec. 263 et seq. City of SantaClarita, Municipal Code Section 17.51.040, OakTree Preservation. 34 Initia 1 Study commercial and residential land uses, and open space areas, as shown in Figure 10. As described in the Proj ect Description of this Initial Study, the Project Site includes a total area of 3.99 acres, with the proposed development area concentiated on an approximately 1.1-acre, flat portion of the Project Site adjacent to Sierra Highway. The remaining 2.89 acres would remain as undeveloped open space due to its steep terrain andproximity to a protected significant ridge line. The term s "visual character" and "visual quality" are notspecifically definedin the threshold language of Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. No applicable federal or state regulations pertain to aesthetic impact; however, for purposes of this analysis, the Proposed Project would need to comply with local regulations governing scenic quality, such as the Santa Clarita Community Character and Design Guidelines (CC&DG). These guidelines are intended to promote development that is compatible andconsistentwith the surrounding community and Santa Clarita as a whole by providing guidance for new development based on location and use. The Project Site is located in Santa Clarita's Newhall Community. Since the Project Site is zoned MX-C (mixed -use corridor), the Project should be evaluated for consistency with the CC&DG's guidance for mixed -use developments in the Newhall Community.' Western-themed architecture is promoted within the downtown core of Newhall ('Old Town Newhall"); however, since the Project Site is to c a ted o utside of Old Town Newhall, the CC&DG instead places greater emphasis on the use of quality materials and the design of the Project.9 Each elevation of the proposed structure consists of a mixture of materials andtextures toprovide visualinterest and break up the vertical plane of the building facades. These materials include limestone,plaster, and horizontal cementboard siding, and brick which are approved building materials for theNewhall Community,.10 Each elevation, including the rear (western) elevation, would be articulated to avoid tall, flat walls, andwould include design details such as wooden corbels and fascia, awnings, a defined front enhance landing, and vertical variations in fagade material and colors, all of which are consistentwith recommendations in the CC&DG." Outdoor storage areas are also located adjacent to the structure and would be decorated with metal gates and trellises. To be consistent with the CC&DG's recommendation to screen outdoor storage areas from public view, the storage areas would be obstructed from public view through their placement in the southwest corner of the development area and through landscaping planted along the Project Site's Sierra Highway frontaW.12 Consistency with the City's CC&DGfor the Newhall Community would ensure that the development would be constructed with high -quality materials and would be consistentwith the aesthetic character of the community. Additionally, the City of Santa Clarita Beautification Master Plan identifies Sierra Highway as a First Priority Primary Street in the Newhall Community.13 The Beautification MasterPlan encourages the development of landscaping along these primary streets. The portion of the Project that fronts Sierra Highway would incorporate landscaping that would include trees and shrubs, as shown in the view simulations in Figure 9. Further, the Projectwould be required to installa landscaped in edian on Sierra Highway, consistentwith the landscaping recommendations of the City's Beautification Plan. The Project's landscape plan and design elements are subject toreview and approvalthrough the City's Design Reviewprocess. 8 City of Santa Clarita, 2011 General Plan, Land Use Element, Exhibit L-1: Community and Specific Plan Locations, 2011. 9 City of Santa Clarita, Community Character and Design Guidelines, Community Character, 2009, p. 3-18 10 City of Santa Clarita, Community Character and Design Guidelines, Community Character, 2009, p. 3-20. 11 City of Santa Clarita, Community Character and Design Guidelines, Community Character, 2009, pp. 3-21 — 3-23. 12 City of Santa Clarita, Community Character and Design Guidelines, Mixed -Use Design Guidelines, 2009, p. 7-20. 13 City of SantaClarita, Beautification Master Plan, 2001, p. 1II-3. 35 Initia 1 Study While the Project would result in alterations of the natural landscape and existing open character of a portion of the Project Site, the proposed improvements would utilize materials and design elements that are consistent with the CC&DG for the Newhall Community.14 Further, the Project provides visual buffers to soften the extent of the Project through site design and landscaping. Therefore, the Project would not substantially degrade the visual character or quality of the site or surroundings and would not result in significant Pro j ect-related impacts. d) Less Than Significant Impact: While the Project Site is currently undeveloped, the area surrounding the Project Site is developed and therefore a variety of light sources currently exist in the vicinity. These existing light sources include overhead security lights in the Park and Ride parking lot and the gas stationnorth of the Project Site; traffic signals atthe intersection of Sierra Highway andNewhallAvenue; lights at surrounding land uses, including the auto -tuning shop and residences north and northwest of the Project Site; and scattered lights throughout the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary, including a lighted sign for the in emorialpark. The Project would contain multiple new sources of night light typical of a senlor living facility and would not include atypical sources of light for this use, such as lighting for nighttime events. The only outdoor lighting included as part of the Proposed Project would be landscaping lights, accent lights at building entrances, security lighting in driveways and at garage entrances for safe navigation, and lighting of outdoor gathering spaces andcourtyards. The Proposed Project would be required to demonstrate compliance with Title 17, Section 17.51.050 of the City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code as part of the City's design review process, which limits potentiallight andglare impactsby requiringthat lights be directed down and shielded to avoid light spillage onto adjacent properties. Additionally, the Proj ectwouldnotutilize glossy orreflective construction materials that would generate significant amounts of glare off -site. Therefore, the Project would not generate excessive light or glare, and by complying with lighting regulations in the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, would result in a less than significant impact on day ornighttime views in the Proj ectarea. IL AGRICULTURE AND a) No Impact: The Project Site is not within an area of Prime Farmland, Unique FORESTRY RESOURCES Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Farmland of Local Importance, or Farmland of Local Potential as identified by the California Department of Conservation's California Important Farmland Finder." The Site is classified as Grazing Land type, which is described by the Department of Conservation as land where the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. This designation as Grazing Land does not constitute Prim eFarmland, UniqueFamiland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.Further, no agriculturaluses or operations occur on -site or in the vicinity of the Project Site. Therefore, the Proposed Pro jectwouldnot convert Prime Farm land, Unique Farmland, orFarm land of Statewide Importance to a non- agriculturaluse and no impact would occur. b) No Impact: There are no agticulturalpreserve areas or William son Act contract lands locatedwithin the City of Santa Clarita. Therefore, theProposed Project would not conflict with zoning for agticulturaluse or William son Act contracts andwould have norelated impacts. 1° City of Santa Clarita, Community Character and Design Guidelines, Community Character, 2009. 15 California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder, hops://mans.conservation.ca. gov/I7LRP/CIF'F/, accessed December 31, 2019. 36 Initia 1 Study c) No Impact: In the City of Santa Clarita, forestland or timberland areas are zoned as Open Space -National Forest (OS-NF). The Proj ect Site is currently zoned MX-C and is not located within an area zoned as OS-NF. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Proj ect would not conflict with the existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned as Timberland Production and there would be no impact. d) No Impact: The Project Site is currently zoned MX-C and is not located within an area zoned as OS-NF. In addition, the Project Site doesnot 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 and there would be no impact e) No Impact: There are currently no agricultural operationsbeing conducted on the Project Site, and the site is not zoned for agricultural uses. In addition, there is no forestland located on the Project Site or in the vicinity of theProj ect Site, as the area is highly urbanized. No farmland or forestland would be converted to other uses under the Proposed Project, andno impactwould occur. 111. AIR (QUALITY The following analysis is based on information contained in the Air quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, Sierra West Assisted Living and Memory Care Project prepared by Envicom Corporation, dated February 11, 2019.16 This report, herein referred to as the AQ/GHG Report, is included as Appendix A of this Initial Study. a) Less Than Significant Impact: Santa Clarita is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is bounded by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east and by the Pacific Ocean to the south and west. The air quality in the SCAB is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). In general, the SCAB encompasses a metropolitan area with a high levelof human activity. The climate characteristics of the SCAB, such as lowtemperature inversions, lightwinds, shallow vertical mixing and extensive sunlight, in combination with topographical features like mountain ranges, inhibit the vertical and horizontal dispersion of air pollutants, which can result in degraded air quality within thebasin. The SCAB has a history of recorded air quality violations andis an areawhereboth state and federal ambient air quality standards are exceeded. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while areas that do not meet these standards are classified as nonattainment areas. The air quality in the Los Angeles County portion of the SCAB does not meet the ambient air quality standards for ozone (03), respirable particulate matter (PM io), fine particulate matter (PM2.$) and lead,' andis therefore classified as a nonattainment area for these pollutants.18 The SCAQMD is required to reduce emissions of airpollutants forwhich the SCAB is in federal and state nonattainment (i.e., 03, PM io, and PM2.5). In order to reduce emissions, the California Clean Air Act requires triennial preparation of an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The AQMP analyzes air quality on a regional level and identifiesregion-wideattenuation methods to achieve the air quality standards. These region -wide attenuation methods include regulations for stationa -sourcepolluters; facilitation of new transportation technologies, such `° This report was mistakenly dated February 11, 2019. The correct date is February 18, 2020. " The non -desert portion of Los Angeles County is designated a nonattainment basin for lead. However, with the conversion to unleaded gasoline, airborne lead is not generated by land development projects in measurable quantities and is therefore not evaluated herein. 1s South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan, March 2017. 37 Initia 1 Study as low -emission vehicles; and capital im provements, such as park and ride facilities and public transit improvements. The SCAQMD's 2016 AQMP contains a comprehensive list of pollution control strategies directed atreducing emissions and achieving ambient air quality standards. These strategies are developed, in part, based on regional population, housing and employment projections prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) in its 2016 2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS).19 The growth projections in the 2016 RTP/SCS are based on projections contained in the general plans of counties and cities under SCAG's jurisdiction (including Santa Clarita) and are utilized in the preparation of the air quality forecasts and consistency analysis included in the AQMP. As such, projects that are consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation and zoning of the Project Site are considered to be consistentwith the AQMP and would not interfere with attainment o f the air quality levels identified in the AQMP, even if they exceed the SCAQMD's recommended daily emissions thresholds. The Proposed Proj ectrequires ConditionalUse Permits to allow for an assisted living and memory care facility within a Mixed -Use Corridor zone and to allow for a building greater than 50 feet in height. Additionally, a Conditional Use Permit is required for all new development within the City's Planned Development overlay zone, which includes the Project Site. While the Project proposes to exceed the maximum allowable height and use restrictions for the Project Site, the Project would, overall, be consistentwith the underlying City zoning and GeneralPlan land use designations. Since the Proposed Project is consistent with the zoning and General Plan landuse designation for the Project Site, the Project is also consistent with the population growth expectations for the region included in the 2016 RTP/SCS and, thus, with the AQMP. Furthermore, Project -related employment growth would be within the 2016 RTP/SCS projections, which formed the basis of the 2016 AQMP growth projections. Additionally, the Project would be consistent with the population and employment growth projections in the updated, 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, which is further discussed in Section XIV, Population and Housing, of this Initial Study zo According to the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, a project is considered consistent with the AQMP if it is consistent with growth projections, as previously discussed, and if the Project's emissions are less than SCAQMD's regional, basin -wide thresholds (displayed in Table III-1, below). The Project's emissions are less than SCAQMD's regional significance thresholds, as discussed in response to Threshold Question IILb), below, and as displayed in Table III-2 and Table III-3 below. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP and impacts would be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact: As stated above, the Project Site is to ca ted in the SCAB, which is a designated as a nonattainment area for 03, PM io, and PM2.5. The Project would involve excavation, grading, and other construction activities, and would result in long-tenn operations at the Project Site; therefore, it would contribute to regional and localized pollutant emissions during Project construction (short-term) and Project occupancy (long-term). Construction- and operation -related Project emissions of criterial pollutants are considered significant if Project -related Note: While the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS was adopted by the SCAG regional council on September 3, 2020, the 2016 SCAQMD AQMP utilizes projections within the previous iteration of the SCAG RTP/SCS, which was adopted in 2016. Southern California Association of Governments, Connect SoCal, Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report, September 3, 2020. 38 Initia 1 Study emissions exceed emission thresholds established by the SCAQMD. These emission significance thresholds are detailed in Table III-1, below. Table III-1 SCAQMD CEQADaily Emissions Thresholds Pollutant Constructi©n Operation Construction The Proj ect involves construction activities associatedwith site preparation, grading paving, building construction, and architectural coating phases. It is anticipated that the Pro j ectwould be constructed over approximately 24 m onths �� Variables factored into estimating the total construction emissions include the level of activity, length of the construction period, number of pieces and types of equipment used, site characteristics, weather conditions, number of construction personnel, and the amount of materials to be transported on- or off -site. The analysis of daily construction emissions has been prepared utilizing the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2016.3.2.22 Refer to Appendix A, AQ/GHG Report, for the CalEEMod outputs and results. Table III-2, below, presents the anticipated maximum daily short-tenn construction emissions associated with the Pro j ect. Table III-2 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions Pollutant oundslday); R©C NOX' . CO Oz PMIo PMZ.s Maximum Daily 20.0 31.7 16.3 0.1 6.3 3.6 Construction Emissions SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 Significant Impact? No No No No No No Yes/No Source: Envicom, AQ/GHG Report, 2019 (see Appendix A for more detailed information). Notes: ROG=reactive organic gases; NOx =nitrogen oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; SOz= sulfur dioxide; PMio = coarse particulate matter; PMzs fin e ne particulate matter 1. Estimates based on application of water for dust suppression twice daily for compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust requirements. (pounds Paday) (pounds Perday) ROG 75 55 2' The AQ/GHG Report prepared for this Project analyzed Project -related emissions based on a 24 month construction schedule, ending with Project operation in September 2022. Project construction is anticipated to be delayed, thus delaying Project operation to late 2022. A delay in Project operation means that the analysis included in this section would represent an overestimate of emissions given that overall emissions from equipment and vehicles are falling over time due to factors such as increased vehicle and equipment efficiency and the use of alternative fuels. Further, older construction equipment will be phased out and replaced with new, more efficient equipment over time to comply with the USEPA's Tier 4 emissions standards. __ South Coast Air Quality Management District, California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2016.3.2. 39 Initia 1 Study Construction activities, such as land clearing and ground disturbance, are a source of fugitive dust emissions that may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. Fugitive dust emissions vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, specific operations, and weather conditions, and would be short term, ceasing upon Proj ect completion. SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust requires that excessive fugitive dust emissions be controlled by regular watering and other dust prevention measures. Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403 greatly reduces PMio and PM2.5 concentrations. As shown in Table III-2, totalPM to and PM2.5 emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds during construction. Other construction - related exhaust emission swould resultfrom the transportof machinery and supplies to and from the Project Site and emissions produced by equipment usedon -site. As presented in Table III-2, construction equipment and worker vehicle exhaust emissions (S02, CO, and NOx) would be below the established SCAQMD significance thresholds.23 In addition to gaseous and particulate emissions, the application of asphalt and surface coatings creates ROG emissions, which are ozone (03) precursors. To minimize the emissions of ROG, the Project is required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113, Architectural Coatings, which provides specifications on painting practices and regulates the ROG content of paint As shown in Table III-2, Project -related total daily construction emissions of particulate matter, equipment and vehicle exhaust, and ROG emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. As such, construction -related air quality impacts would be less than significant Operation During operations, the Proposed Project would result in emissions of criteria pollutants from area sources (e.g., consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment), energy sources (electricity and natural gas usage) and mobile sources (vehicle use). Potentialtypes of pollutants included in the modeling of area, energy, and mobile emissions sources include ROG, NO, CO, SOX, PM1g and PM2.5. The maximum daily emissions associated with Project operation are shown in Table III-3, below. Table III-3 Maximum Daily Operations Emissions Emissi ns ources Polllptan>ts(po ROG7 NO,, CO nds/day} SO,z PMio PA." Area 1.55 0.08 6.86 <0.01 0.04 0.04 Energy 0.03 0.28 0.12 <0.01 0.02 0.02 Mobile 0.36 1.96 4.69 0.02 1.58 0.43 Total 1.94 2.32 11.67 0.02 1.64 0.49 SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 Significant Imact?Y/N I No No No I No No No Source: Bnvicom, AG/GHG Report, 2019 (see Appendix A for more detailed information). As shown in Table III-3, the Project's total operational emissions would be below the SCAQMD significance thresholds established for Proj ect operation. Therefore, operation of the Proposed Project would not violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing orproj ected air quality violation. As such, air quality impacts of Project operationwould be less than significant. 23 South Coast Air Quality Management District, SCAQAM Air Quality Significance Thresholds; March 2015. Initia 1 Study c) Less Than Significant Impact: According to the SCAQMD, individual projects that exceed SCAQMD's significance thresholds for Proj ect-specific impacts would cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for the pollutants for which SCAB is in nonattainment. However, a sdiscussed in response to Threshold Question IILb), above, the Proposed Project would not exceed the regional thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for short-term (construction) and long- term (operation) emissions. The Projectwould also not exceed localized thresholds of significance, as discussed in response to Threshold Question IILd), below. As such, the Proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase o f any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainmentunder an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard and impacts would be less than significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact: The Project's air quality impacts are analyzed relative to those persons with the greatest sensitivity to airpollution exposure. Such persons are called "sensitive receptors." Sensitive receptors include the elderly, young children, the acutely and chronically ill (e.g., those with cardiorespiratory disease, including asthma), and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Adj acentand nearby landusesto theProj ect Site include a memorialpark (cemetery) to the south; a Park and Ride lot, a storage yard for trucks and equipment, and an auto -tuning commercial use to the north; one residence approximately 300 feet northwest of the Project Site; and undeveloped land beyond Sierra Highway to the east. The SR 14 freeway is approximately 800 feet east of the Project Site. The nearest existing structure to the Project Site is the auto -tuning commercial use, adjacent to the northern boundary of the Project Site property. The nearest sensitive receptor to the Project Site is the residential use to the northwest. However, the following analysis conservatively considers potential local emissions impacts based on the distance to the adjacentcommercial use structure. Localized Significance Thresholds Analysis The SCAQMDhas developed analysis parameters to evaluate changes in ambient air quality on a local level in addition to the regional emissions -based thresholds of significance discussed above. These analysis elements are called localized significance thresholds (LSTs). LSTs are only applicable to the following criteria pollutants: NOx, CO, PMio, andPM2.5. LSTsrepresent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or substantially contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards, and they are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area (SRA) and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. For this analysis, the appropriate SRA is the Santa Clarita Valley SRA. For the Proposed Project, the primary source of localized emissions would be construction activity, based on the maximum on -site daily emissions estimatedby CaIEEMod. The SCAQMD's LST screening tables are available for 25, 50,100, 200 and 500 meter source -receptor distances. The nearest sensitive receptor to the Project Site is a residentialuse, approximately 100 meters to the northwest. However, this evaluation conservatively considers potential local emissions impacts based on the most stringent LST screening table source -receptor distance of 25 meters so as to include the commercialuse north ofthe Projectsite.24 24 The closest receptor distance on the mass rate LST look -up tables is 25 meters. It is possible that a project may have receptors closer than 25 meters. Projects with boundaries located closer than 25 meters to the nearest receptor should use the LSTs for receptors located at 25 Mi Initia 1 Study As the Project's grading disturbance area would be confined to approximately 1.1 acres of the subj ectproperty, the most conservative 1-acre LST screening levels were used for this analysis. Table III-4 shows the relevant thresholds and the estimated peak daily on -site emissions during the construction phases that would generate the highest level of on -site emissions for each pollutant evaluated for LST impacts." Modeling assumptions include compliancewith SCAQMD Rule 403 whichrequites properly maintaining mobile and other construction equipment; replacing ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; watering exposed surfaces three times daily; covering stockpiles with tarps; watering all haul roads twice daily; and limiting speeds on unpaved roads to 15milesperhour. Table III-4 Local Significance Thresholds (LST) during Construction LST I.4 aere/25 meters Pvlintants o,,mtds,/da , Santa Clarita Valle £lg co I" 14, PMz.s LSTThreshold 114 590 4 3 Peak On -site DailyEmissions 22.8 11.4 3.4 2.2 Significant Imact?Yes/No No No No No Source: Lnvicom, AG/GHG Report, 2019 (see Appendix A for more detailed information). As shown in Table III-4, the peak on -site emissions during construction would not exceed the strictest SCAQMD LST thresholds for the Santa Clarita Valley, which are for 1-acre sites within 25 meters of a source receptor. As such, potential LST impacts wouldbe less than significant. In addition to the criteria pollutants evaluated above, exhaust particulates emitted from diesel -powered equipment contains carcinogenic compounds and, thus, diesel particulate matter (DPM) is classified as a toxic air contaminant (TAC). As senior/assistedlivinguses andresidential care facilities do notgenerate a substantial quantity of diesel truck trips during operations, any measurable diesel TAC emissions from the Project would occur for only a brief period during construction activities that would require on -site use of heavy-duty equipment. The SCAQMD does not generally require the analysis of construction -related diesel emissions relative to healthrisk due to the shortperiodforwhich themajorityof dieselexhaust would occur. Health risk analyses are typically assessed over a 9-, 30-, or 70-year time framera ther than a relatively brief construction period, due to th e lack o f health risk associated with such abrief exposure.As such, potential im pacts of the Project due to em issions o f TACs wouldb e less th an significant. Therefore, because the Proj ectwould notexceed LSTs establishedby the SCAQMD for construction activities, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and air quality impacts would be less than significant. e) Less Than Significant Impact: According to the SCAQMD, landuses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills dairies, and fiberglass molding.26 The Proposed Project does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors. meters. South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2008, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, http:/hv�anv.agmd. ov/does/default-source cega handbook/localized-significance-threshold s/final-1st-methodology-document.pdf?sfvrsn=2. 25 Off -site construction emissions, such as export hauling, are not considered in local significance evaluations. 26 South Coast Air Quality Management District, CLQA Air Quality Handbook, November 1993. WJ Initia 1 Study Construction -related activities associated with the Project may generate emissions and detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust and architecturalcoatings. However, construction -related emissions and odors would be short term in nature and would cease upon Project completion. In addition, the Pro j ect would be required to comply with the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2449(dx3) and 2485, which minimize the idling time of construction equipment either by shutting it off when not in use orby limiting idling tim e to no more than five minutes. This would furtherreduce the detectable odors from heavy -duty equipment exhaust. The Project would also be required to comply with the SCAQMD Rule 1113— Architectural Coatings, which would minimize odor impacts from ROG emissions during architectural coating. Any odor impacts to existing adjacent land uses would be short term andminimal. As such, the Project would notresult in other emissions (such as those leadingto odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people, and impacts would be less than significant. IV. BIOLOGICAL The analysis in this section is derived from theBiological Resources Assessment RESOURCES prepared by Envicom Corporation in February 2020, as well as the Tree Inventory and Protected Tree Report prepared by Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC in March 2019 (revisedin October 2020) `The Biological Resources Assessment is available as Appendix B of this Initial Study. The Tree Inventory andPro tected Tree Report is available as Appendix C of this Initial Study. a) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation: The Project Site is situated within a foothill area of Santa Clarita, between the Santa Susana Mountains andthe San Gabriel Mountains. As described in theProj ect Descriptionof this Initial Study, the Project Site consists of flat to gradual slopes near Sierra Highway, which transition abruptly to hillslopes and low ridgelines in the western portion of the Project Site, as shown in site photos in Figure 4 and Figure 5. As stated in the Biological Resources Assessment prepared for this Initial Study, the Project Site is not notably rocky andis characterizedby vegetation that is predominantly non-native grasses and forbs, chaparral, and oak woodland. The eastern portion of the Project Site where the proposed facility would be constructed is disturbed, while the vegetation in the westemportion of the ProjectSite is largely undisturbed. Biological Resources Survey and Project SiteHab itat Mapping The assessment of the Project Site included an on -site biological resources survey, conducted onNovember 7, 2019, along with natural community mapping using high - resolution aerial imagery. The survey determined that the Project Site isprimariy characterized by herbaceous, oak woodland, chaparral, and non-native ornamental habitat classes. A map of habitat classes on the Project Site, overlain with the Proposed Project's development boundary, is available asFigure 3 of the Biological ResourcesAssessment (Appendix B). Specifically, disturbed herbaceous h abitats are found on the eastern portion of the Project Site, which are dominated by annual grasses and forbs such as red brome, rip -gut brome, summer mustard, and red - stemmed filaree. This eastern portion of the Project Site is highly disturbed and contains very few native species. While some native herbs were found in this area, including telegraph weed, wire lettuce, and horseweed, their dispersed and highly disturbed condition led the assessment to classify this area of the Project Site as ruderal. 2' Lnvicom, Biological Resources Assessment: Sierra west Assisted Living and Memory Care Project, City of Santa Clarita, February 2020; Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, Protected Tree Report for Assisted Living Facility Sierra Highway, Santa Clarita, CA 91321, rev October 29, 2020. :X Initia 1 Study There are two coast live oak woodland habitat segments in the eastern portion of the Project Site; however, the understory of this habitat area is mostly ruderal. A this segment of oak woodland habitat is located on the southwest portion of the Project Site, outside of the proposed development area, and surrounded by mostly native habitat The majority of the Project Site (the western three-quarters of theproperty) consists of relatively open stands of chaparral dominated by chamise,which mostly contains black sage and California sagebrush. Othernative species occur in this area, such as chaparralyucca, deerweed, California buckwheat, and scrub oaks. A row of ornamentaltrees is located in the southwestern corner of the Project Site, alongthe property's southern boundary with the Eternal Valley MemorialPatk and Mortuary. These trees are outside of the Proposed Project's development area and fuel modification area. In short, a totalof 59 species of vascularplants were identified during the field survey conducted on the Project Site: 41 native species and 18 non-native/introduced species. A complete list of the vascular plant species foundduring the field survey is available in Appendix B. Sensitive, Rare, andSpecial-Status Species Natural communities of special concern are communities that are of limited distribution statewide or within a county or region and are often vulnerable to environmental effects of projects. They are also referred to asrare or sensitiveplant communities. The most current version of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's (CDFW) California Natural Communities List indicateswhich natural communities are considered to be natural communities of special concern. Natural communities are assigned a conservation status rank (also known as "rarity ranW'). Natural communities with global or state conservation status ranks of G1 through G3, or S1 through S3,respectively, are rare or sensitive. The acreage and conservation status rank of the natural communities found on the Project Site, as well as anticipated impacts from Project -related grading and fuel modification activities, are displayed in Table IV-1, below. Table IV-1: Impacts to Natural Communities Located on the Project Site Grading Fuel. Habitat Natural, Conservation Acreage (Survey Impacts Modification Class Coitimunityr' Status hank Area) nacres) Impacts acres Coast Live Oak Oak Woodland woodland G5S4 0.76 0.25 0.26 Alliance 71.060.00 Chamise: Black Sage, Chaparral California G4S4 2.37 0.09 0.50 Sagebrush 37.102.04 Herbaceous Ruderal Not Ranked 0.76 0.69 0.07 Individual CoastLive Not Ranked 0.02 0.00 0.00 Trees Oak G it Initia 1 Study Other Landcover Non-native Ornamental Trees Not Ranked 0.02 0.00 0.00 TotalAcrea e 3.93 1.03 0.83 Source: Lnvicom, Biological Resources Assessment: Sierra west Assisted Living and Memory Care Project, City of Santa Clarita, February 2020. 1. Numbers in brackets are unique codes for each plan community, as provided in the California Natural Communities List. As shown in Table IV-1,none of the communities found on the Project Site have a conservation status rank of G3 or lower or S3 or lower. Further, the majority of Project -related grading and fuel modification impacts wouldbe concentrated onthe portion of the Project Site characterized by non-native ruderal plant species. While the Project would result in permanent alterations of some natural communities located on the Project Site, these natural communities are not considered sensitive and would bepredominantly avoided, apartfrom limited encroachment o f chaparral habitat during necessary fuel modification activities (further discussed in Section XX, Wildfire, of this Initial Study) andrem oval of coast live oak, which is discussed further in response to Threshold Question IV.e), below. In addition to the field survey, the Biological Resources Assessment included a records search of state databases that host biological resource information, such as the Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS), the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), and the California Native Plant Society (CLAPS), in order to determine the potential for special -status species to occur in the Project Site. The results of this records search, and an evaluation of thepotential for special -status species to occur on the Project Site, are detailed in the following paragraphs. Special -Status Plant Species Special -status plant species either have unique biological significance, limited distribution, restricted habitat requirements, particular susceptibility to human disturbance, or a combination o f these factors. The Biological Resources Assessment considered special-statusplant species to be those plants that are listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under the Federal Endangered SpeciesAct (FESA), those listed or proposed for listing as rare, threatened, or endangered by the CDFW under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA); and plants on the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants with a California rareplantrank (CRPR) of 113, 213, and 3.28 Additional information about the status codes for special -status plants is available in Appendix B of this Initial Study. Based on the field survey and the literature search results, no special -status plant species considered to be rare, threatened, or endangered were found at the Project Site or are known to occur at the Project Site based on CNDDBrecords. However, a survey conducted in the springtime would be necessary to confirm the presence/absence of special -status plant species at the site; see Mitigation Measure BIO-1, below. One CRPR 4 species, California black walnut (Juglans californica) was found during the survey. However, this is not a rare species, it is found in low numbers atthe Project Site, andit is relatively secure in the region. 28 The California Native Plant Society's California Rare Plant Ranks: CRPR 113 are plants considered rare, threatened, or endangered species in California and elsewhere; CRPR 2B are plants considered rare, threatened, or endangered species in California, but more common elsewhere; and CRPR 3 are plants included on a review list for plants about which more information is needed. Plants with a CRPR of 4 are not rare, but are included on a watch list of species with limited distribution. M Initia 1 Study A search of the CNPS and CNDDB databases for the Oat Mountain quadrangle (wherein the Project Site is located) and the eight surrounding quadrangles show that 30 special -status plantspecies have been recorded in the greaterProj ectregion. Most of these species are precluded from occurring at the Project Site due to lack of suitable soils, or because the Project Site is outside of known species ranges. Only slender mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis) is considered potentially occurring atthe site, although its potential for occurrence is low given thatthe Project Site only provides marginally suitable habitat (see Appendix B for additional information). If present in grading or fuel modification zones, special -status plant species, including individual plants and seed banks, could be removed, damaged, or disturbed by the Project. Thus, the Projectwould incorporate Mitigation Measure BIO-1, which would require a pre -project botanical survey of the Project Site, conducted in the spring, to determine if any previously unknown special -status plant species occur on the Proj ect Site. Mitigation Measure 13I0-1 is detailedbelow. Based on the results of the field survey and database searches, and with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, Project -related impacts to special -status plant species would be less than significant. Special -Status Vegetation Communities The CNDDB documents 13 sensitive plant communities/habitats that have been reported in the Oat Mountain quadrangle and/or in one or more of the eight surrounding quadrangles (see Appendix B for the complete list); however, none of these plant communities or specialhabitats occur on the Project Site. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse impact on any special -status vegetation communities. Special -Status Wildlife Species The Biological Resources Assessment considered special -status wildlife species to be those species includedon the CDFW "Special Animals" list. This list includes all taxa the CNDDB is interested in tracking, regardless of any legal or protection status. The species on this list generally fallinto one or moreof the following categories: • Officially listed orproposed for listingunderthe CESA and/orFESA. • State or federal candidate forpossible listing. • Taxa which meet the criteria for listing, even if not currently included on any list, as described in Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines. • Taxa consideredby the CDFWto be a species of specialconcern. • Taxa that are biologically rare, very restricted in distribution, declining throughout theirrange, orhave a critical vulnerable stage in their life cycle that warrants monitoring. • Populations in California that may be on the periphery of a taxon's range, but are threatened with extirpation in California. The field survey conducted for the Proj ect Site on November 7, 2019, observed ten vertebrate wildlife species, including two reptiles (side -blotched lizard and westem fence lizard), five birds (Bewick's wren, bushtit, Nuttall's woodpecker, red-tailed hawk, andwhite -crowned sparrow), and three mammals (California ground squirrel, desert cottontail, and woodratspecies). These species represent only a fraction of the wildlife species that can be expected to utilize habitats at the Proj ect Site for cover, foraging, and reproduction. However, none of the species observed during this field survey are considered special -status wildlife species. Further, CNDDB records do not show any special -status wildlife species occurring at the Project Site. Additionally, the Project Site is not within USFWS-designated Critical Habitat for :2 Initia 1 Study species listed under the FESA. There is, however, Critical Habitat 0.16 miles west of the Site for the coastal California gnatcatcher; while the Site does not contain breedinghabitat forthis species, coastalCalifornia gnatcatchers could pass through the Site while foraging, if they are presentin the surrounding area. Although the CNDDB did not find records of special -status wildlife species occurring on the Project Site, there are 21 special -status animals that have the potential to occur at the Project Site given their presence within the greater Project region. The speculative probabilities that these species would occur on the Project Site range from high to very low:29 • Crotch's bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) • Western spadefoot(Speahammondii) • Californiaglossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis) • Coast horned lizard(Phrynosomablainvillii) • Coastpatch -nosed snake (Salvadorahexalepisvirgultea) • Co a st whip tail (Asp idoscelis tigrisstejnergeri) • Am ericanperegrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) (nesting) • Bank swallow (Riparia riparia) (nesting) • Black swift (Cypseloides niger) (nesting) • Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptilacalifornica californica) • Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) (nesting andwintering) • Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) (nesting) • Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni) (nesting) • Vaux's swift (Chaetura vauxi) (nesting) • White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) (nesting) • Big free -tailed bat (Nyctinomopsmacrotis) • Pallid bat(Antrozouspallidus) • San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida) • Townsend's big -eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) • Western m astiff bat (Eumopsperotis califomicus) • Western red bat (Lasiurusblossevillii) Most of the special -status wildlife species with potentialto occur at the Project Site would be capable of escaping harm during Project development, including grading and construction, or fuel modification. The special -status species that could be directly impacted include the following potentially occurring animals: Crotch's bumble bee, western spadefoot, California glossy snake, coast horned lizard, coast patch -nosed snake, coastal whiptail, San Diego desert woodrat,westem mastiff bat, and westernred bat. The three otherpotentially occurringbat species —the big free - tailed bat pallid bat and Townsend'sbig-earedbat wouldonly forage andwould notroost at the site and therefore would notbe potentially impactedby the Project Habitat loss associatedwith theProj ect is notexpected to impact apopulation of any of these potentially occurring special -status wild life species, given therelatively low acreage of habitat that would be affected and the amount of remaining suitable habitatin the surrounding area. Individuals of these species, however, couldbe killed or injured by project activities, if present at the Project Site. Therefore, two pre - Project surveys of the Site are required prior to Proj ect -related ground or vegetation disturbance, in order to determine if these special -status species are present on the Proj ect Site. The first survey shallbe conducted within 14days and the second survey shall be conducted within 3 days of commencement of ground or vegetation 29 The potential for occurrence was determined through research of the CNDDB using the Rarefind 5 application for special -status "elements" on the USGS 7.5' Oat Mountain quadrangle and eight adjacent quadrangles. This analysis provides a speculative assessment of the potential for the occurrence of special -status animals on the basis of their known distribution and habitat requirements. M Initia 1 Study disturbing activities. These pre -Project surveys are detailed in Mitigation Measure BIO-2, below. Therefore, with incorporation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2, impacts to special -status wild life specieswouldbe less than significant NestingBirds Ground- and vegetation -disturbing activities, if conducted during the nesting bpi season (February 1 to August 31), would have the potential to remove or disturb trees andshrubs containing active bird nests. In addition, these activities would affect herbaceous vegetation that could support and conceal ground -nesting species. Project activities that result in the loss of bird nests, eggs, and young would be in violation of one or more of California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 (anybil nest),3503.5 (birds ofprey), or3511 (Fully Protected birds). In addition, removal or destruction of one or more active nests of any other birds protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA), whether nest damage was due to vegetation removal or to other construction activities, would be considered a violationoftheMBTA and California Fish and Game Code Section3511. Therefore, a qua lifiedbiologist shallperform two field surveys prior to Pro j ect -related ground - or vegetation -disturbing activities to determine if active nests of any bird species protected by the MBTA or the California Fish and Game Code are present within 200 feet of areas of disturbance. This requirementis detailed in Mitigation Measure BI O-3, below. With incorporation o f this mitigation measure, Project -related impacts to nestingbirds would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure BIO-I: Pre -Project Botanical Survey. A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre -Project botanical survey within the Project limits and an adjacent buffer area for specia) status plant species. The survey shall be conducted in the spring and at the appropriate time to detect special -status plant species that may occur at the site. If special -status plants are not detected during the survey, no additional mitigation would be required and the results of the survey shallbe submitted to the City o f Santa Clarita Planning Division and CDFW (if applicable). If a special -status plant is present at or adjacentto the Project Site, the extent o f the population shall be mapped and the number of individual plants andthe acreage of occupied habitat that would be impacted by the Project shallbe determined. The City of Santa Clarita Planning Division shall be notified and consultation with CDFW and USFWS (if applicable) shall be conducted prior to initiation of ground- or vegetation -disturbing activities, and the following actions shallbe taken: Avoidance of the special -status plants shall occur where feasible. If avoidance is not feasible, the applicant shall offset the proposed loss of individual plants by on -site restoration (salvage andreplanting), or a ratioand method acceptable to the City of Santa Clarita Planning Division, CDFW, and USFWS (if applicable). At the discretion of the City of Santa Clarita Planning Division, CDFW, and USFWS (if applicable), compensation for impacts to the species may be accomplished by off -site restoration or preservation of populations (either on- or o ff-site) in the vicinity of the Site, if present. A Mitigation and Monitoring Plan that provides for the replacement of the species impactedby the Project shallbe developedby a qualified restoration specialist and approved by the City of Santa Clarita Planning Division, CDFW, and USFWS (if applicable). The plan shall specify the following: o A summary ofimpacts; M Initia 1 Study o The location o f the mitigation site; o Methods for harvesting seeds or salvaging and transplantation of individuals to be impacted; o Measures for propagating plants or transferring living plants from the salvage site to the mitigation site; o Site preparation procedures forthe mitigationsite; o A schedule and action plan to maintain and monitor the mitigation area; o Criteria andperformance standards by which to measure the success of the mitigation, including replacement of impacted plants; o Measures to exclude unauthorized entry into the mitigation areas, and o Contingency measures such as replanting or weeding in the event that mitigation efforts are not successful. The performance standards for the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shallbe, at a minimum, the following: o Within five years after introducing the plants to the mitigation site, the number o f established, reproductive plants shallbe no less than the number of those lost to project construction; o Non-native species in the treated area shallbe less than 15 percent cov er by the end o f the third year of treatment and less than 5 percent by the end of the fifth y ear of treatment; and o Restoration willbe considered successful after the success criteria have been met for a period of at least two years without any maintenance orremediation activities other than invasive species control. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall secure a bond for an amount equal to the cost of the restoration effort. The bond shallbe released by the Cityupon satisfactionof the approved performance criteria. The mitigation project shallbe initiated prior to development of the Project, and shall be implemented over a five-yearperiod or until performance standards are met, whichever period is longer. The mitigation project shall incorporate an iterative process of annualmonitoring and evaluation of progress, and allow for adjustments to the plan, as necessary, to achieve desired outcomes and meet performance standards. Annual reports discussing the implementation, monitoring and managementof the mitigationprojectshallbe submittedto the Cityof Santa Clarita Planning Division, CDFW, and USFWS (if applicable). Five years after the start of the mitigation project, a final report shallbe submitted to the City of Santa Clarita Planning Division, CDFW, and USFWS (if applicable), which shall at a minimum discuss the implementation, monitoring, and management of the mitigation project over the five-year period, and indicate whether the mitigation project has been successful based on established performance standards. The mitigationproject shall be extended if performance standards have not been met to the satisfaction of City of Santa Clarita Planning Division, CDFW, and USFWS (if applicable) atthe endof the five -year period. Mitigation Measure BI0-2: Pre-ProjectSurveys for Special -Status Wildlife Species. Prior to the commencement of ground- or vegetation -disturbing activities, including but not limited to grading and fuel modification, two pre -Project surveys for special -status wildlife species, including Crotch's bumble bee, western spadefoot(non-breeding), California glossy snake, coast homed lizard, coast patch -nosed snake, coastal whiptail, San Diego desert woodrat, western mastiff bat, and western red bat shall be conducted by M Initia 1 Study qualified biologist(s) to determine the presence/absence of these species at the Proj ect Site. The first survey shallbe conducted within 14 days and the second survey shall be conducted within 3 days of commencement of ground- or vegetation - disturbing activities. The pre -construction surveys shall incorporate appropriate methods and timing to detect these species, including individuals that could be concealedin burrows,beneath leaf litter, in trees, or in loose soil. If a special -status species is found, avoidance is the preferred mitigation option. If avoidance is not feasible, a relocation plan including, at a minimum, the timing and methods for capturing and releasing the animals shallbe prepared and submitted to the City of Santa Clarita Planning Division and CDFW for review and approval. The species shall then be captured and transferred to appropriate habitat and location where they would not be harmedby Project activities, preferably to open space habitats in the vicinity of the Project Site. If a federally listed species is found, the USFWS shall also be notified. A letter report summarizing the methods and results of the surveys and relocation efforts, if applicable, shallbe submitted to the City of Santa Clarita Planning Division and CDFW prior to commencement ofproject activities. Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Nesting Bird Surveys. No earlier than 14 days prior to ground- or vegetation - disturbing activities that would occur during the nesting/breeding season of native bird species potentially nesting on the site (typically February 1 through August 31) a qualified biologist shall perform two field surveys to determine if active nests of any bird species protectedby the state or federal Endangered Species Acts, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and/orthe California Fish andGame Code Sections 3503,3 5035, or 3511 are present in the disturbance zone, within 200 feet of the disturbance zone for songbirds, or within 500 feet o f the disturbance zone for raptors and special -status bird species. The second nesting bird survey shall be conducted within three days prior to the start of ground- or vegetation -disturbing activities. A letter report summarizing the m ethods and results of the surveys shallbe submitted to the City of Santa Clarita Planning Division and CDFW prior to commencement of Project activities. In the event that an active nest is found within the survey area, site preparation, construction, and fuel modification activities shall stop until consultation with the City of Santa Clarita Planning Division, and when applicable CDFW and USFWS, is conducted and an appropriate setback buffer can be established. The buffer shallbe demarcated and Project activities within the buffer shallbe postponed or halted, at the discretion of the biologist, until th e nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged, as determined by the biologist, and there is no evidence of a secondattempt at nesting. b) Less Than Significant Impact: The Project Site does not contain riparianhabitat or, as mentioned in response to Threshold Question IVa), other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS. Vegetation on -site consists primarily of chaparral as well as coast live oak woodland and herbaceous, ruderaly egetation . Therefore, the Pro j ectwould have a less than significant impact on sensitive natural communities. c) No Impact: The Proposed Project Site doesnot contain any federally protected wetlands asdefinedin Section404ofthe Clean Water Act (including, butnot limited to, marsh, vernal pool, riverine, etc.). However, the USFWS's National Wetlands Inventory identifies a riverine habitatfeature immediately west of theProj ect Site.30 This riverine habitat feature, located approximately 400 feet west of the Project's development area, is identified as only containing flowing or surface water during a opion of they ear. Additionally, a freshwater forested/shrub wetland feature is east 30 U.S. Fish and wildlife Service, National wetlands Inventory: Surface waters and wetlands, Map generated March 27, 2020. 50 Initia 1 Study of the Project Site, across Sierra Highway, located between a flat gravel lot and SR 14. Given the natural and man-made barriers between the Project's developmentarea and the riverine feature to the west (a ridgeline) and the wetland feature to the east (Sierra Highway), fuel modification, grading, and construction -related activities associated with the Project would not impact these wetland features. Therefore, the Proposed Projectwould not have adverse effects on protected wetlands. d) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation: Wildlife corridors are areas of open space of sufficient width to permit the movement of larger, mobile species to move from one major open space region to another. Regional habitat linkages are larger wildlife corridors orregions of connectivity that are important for movement of multiple species andmaintenance of ecological processes at a regionalscale. By comparison, wildlife crossings aregenerally small, narrow areas allowing wildlife to pass through an obstacle or barrier, such as a roadway to reach another patch of habitat. While the Project Site is currently undeveloped, it is surrounded by urban/suburban development, including commercial landu ses, residential land uses, developedopen space, and majorroadways. As such, the Proj ectSite is not part of a habitatlinkageorwildlife movement corridor. However, existing trees onthe Project Site may provide suitable roosting and nesting habitat for bird species. As stated above, migratory nongame native bird species are protected underthe federalMBTA (50 Code of Federal Regulations Section 10.13), and Sections 3503, 35035, and 3 513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit take of allbirds and their active nests including raptors and other migratory nongame birds. Mitigation Measure 13I0- 3, above, describes pre -Project surveys that will be conducted to mitigate the Proposed Project's potential impacts on migratory birds. Because there are no waters, streams, or nursery sites on the Project Site, the Project would not impactor interfere with movement of any native resident or migratory fish species. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on the movementof fish or wildlif e, wildlife corridors, or th e use o f wildlif e nursery sites with incorporationof Mitigation Measure BIO-3, as described above. e) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation: Per Section 17.51.040 (Oak Tree Preservation) of the Unified Development Code, it is the City's policy torequk the preservation of all healthy oak trees unless compelling reasons justify the removal of such trees. The Project would result in removal of five oak trees and encroachment into five additional oak trees. Additionally, the Project may encroach upon an additional four oak trees that are located along the southeastern Project Site boundary with Sierra Highway during Proj ectconstruction; however, these trees are not anticipated to be impacted. Impacts to these trees would depend on unknowns that cannot be determined until work begins, such as locations of the roots of each tree. Encroachment is defined as intrusion into the protected zone of an oak tree, which includes but is not limited to intrusion by trenching, paving, pruning, dumping and parking of commercial vehicles. The protected zone encompasses a circle with a radius equalto the greatest distance from the trunkto any overhanging foliage in the tree's canopy. Major encroachment is defined as an area between the outer edge of the trunk and 50 percent of the diameter of the protected zone, and minor encroachment is defined as an area between the outermost edge of the protected zone and 50 percent of the diameter of the protected zone. An oak tree permit must be obtained from the City before any oak tree is subject to major encroachment or is removed. Trees subject to thepermit include alloak trees in the genus Quercus that exceed 6 inches in circumference when measured at4.5 feet above the tree's natural grade. 51 Initia 1 Study Based on the Tree Inventory and Protected Tree Report conducted for this Project (available as Appendix C of this Initial Study), there are 54 qualifying oak trees protected by the City of Santa Clarita's Oak Tree Preservation ordinance on or overhanging the Project Site. One of these protected oak trees is dead, three are located off -site but overhang the Project Site, and one is located on the southern property line. The remaining 49 oak trees are scattered throughout the Project Site. As stated above, five of these protected oak trees would be removed (four live oak and one scrub oak) and another five would be encroached upon (four live oak and one scrub oak) as a result of Project grading and/or construction activities. Four additional trees located along the southeast Project Site boundary with Sierra Highway maybe encroached upon as a result o f Project construction; however, these trees are unlikely to be impacted, as discussed below. The remaining oaks (40 oak trees) would be located uphill from Project -related construction activities andwould be located behind protective fencing during construction (see discussion of mitigation measure BIO-4, below). Additional oak trees may be encroached upon during the construction process through required fuel modification activities. These impacts are discussed below. One of the five oak trees proposed forremoval andtwo of the nine total trees that may be encroached upon are considered "heritage" oak trees, which are defined in Section 17.51.040 of the Unified Development Code as oak trees measuring 108 inches or grea ter in circumference for single trunk trees or 72 inches or greater in circumference for trees with multiple trunks. Tree number 1, is located within the proposed building footprint, in the northern portion of the Project Site, and would be removed as part of Project construction. Tree number 27 is located on the eastern face of the ridgeline located on the south side of theProject Site and would be encroached upon by the proposed construction o f a wall along the Project Site's southeastern boundary with Sierra Highway 31 Tree number 19 is also located on the eastern face of the ridgeline located on the south side of the Project Site; however, this heritage tree is not anticipatedto beimpactedby the Project The four non -heritage oaks proposed for removal are located within the proposed building's footprint (tree numbers 2 and 3), within the proposed outdoor garden/hardscaped area on the west side of theproposed structure (tree number 32) and near the proposed wall along the Project Site's boundary with Sierra Highway in the southeast corner of the Project Site (tree number 31). The four non -heritage oaks that would be encroached upon by Project -related construction activities are located near the proposed wall along the Project Site's southeast boundary with Sierra Highway (tree numbers 46, and 47) and near the proposed outdoor garden/hardscaped area on the west side of the proposed structure (tree numbers 4 and 3 3). Excavation activities are anticipated result in moderate to major impacts on tree numbers 4 and 33 and minor impacts on trees 27 (heritage), 46, and 47.32 As stated above, four additional oak trees located along the southeastern Project Site boundary may be encroached upon during Project construction; however, construction activities are not anticipated to impact these trees given their distance from construction of the wall along Project Site's Sierra Highway boundary andthe protective measures outlined in mitigation measureBIO-4. The extent of Project impacts to these trees, which include tree numbers 19 (heritage), 23, 50, and 51, dependon unknowns that cannotbe fully determin ed until construction begins, such as the locations of theirroot sy stems. As a result, these trees have beenincludedin the Protected Tree report's table of oak trees that may be impacted, available as Appendix C, even though impacts to these fouroaktrees are not anticipated. All of 31 These heritage oak trees are referred to as tree numbers 1, 19, and 27 on the Protected Tree Plan and IT 1, 1119, and H27 in the Protected Tree Report, prepared by Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, October 2020. 32 As stated in the Protected Tree Report prepared for this Project, minor, moderate, and major impacts to trees as aresult of encroachment are defined as follows: minor —possible effect on health of the tree and no effect on stability ofthe tree; moderate —probable effect on health of the tree and possible effect on stability of the tree; major —detrimental effect on health of the tree and probable effect on stability of the tree. Impact ratings are dependent upon species, size, and age of a given tree. These impact ratings are anticipated consequences, and may prove inaccurate depending upon unknowns that cannot be determined until work begins, such as location of roots of each tree. 52 Initia 1 Study these oak trees are considered in good condition." The locationsof allprotected oak trees on or overhanging the Proj ect Site are displayed in Figure 11. Consistent with City Municipal Code Section 17.23.170, prior to construction, the Project applicant is required to prepare and submit an application for an oak tree permit. In order to receive an oak tree permit for the removal or in ajor encroachment of protected oak trees, the City would require replacement oak trees to be planted in the landscaped areas of the Project Site. If planting on -site is not possible, the applicant may donate the replacement oak trees to the City or provide th e equivalent monetary value o f the replacement trees to the City. The appraised value of the Oak trees removed and encroached upon is included in the Protected Tree Report (Appendix C); however, the manner in which the protected oaks impacted by the Project are replaced would be determined by the City and the applicant, in consultation with the City's arborist, to the satisfaction of the City. In addition to compliance with the City's Oak Tree Preservation ordinance, the applicant shall implement tree protection measures detailed in Mitigation Measure BIO-4, below. Specifically, Mitigation Measure BIO-4 includes required on -site monitoring of ground-disturbing/construction activities by an arborist, protective fencing surrounding oak trees nearest Proj ect construction activities, specific practices when encountering oak tree roots, and long-term monitoring to ensure that oak trees encroached upon by Project -related construction activities survive. As stated in Mitigation Measure BIO-4, if oak treesthatwould experience minor, moderate, or major impacts do not survive, the loss shallbe mitigated to the satisfaction of the City. Fuel modification activities may require additional annual pruning and/or encroachment into the protected zone of oak trees located within the fuel modification areas described in Section XX, Wildfire, of this Initial Study and displayed in Figure 13. The Project applicant is required to submit a final fuel modification plan, which would be reviewedby the City prior to planning approval and the issuance of building permits. Upon City review of the Project's fuel m odificationplan, if the Proj ectwould require pruning or encroachment of oak trees other than those identified above, then such activities would also be required to comply with the City's Oak Tree Preservation ordinance on an annual basis. With mandatory compliance with the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance, and with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-4, Project fuel modification activities would not result in a significant impact to protectedoak trees. In short, compliance with the requirements of the City's Oak Tree Preservation ordinance, as well as implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-4, Project -related impacts to protected oaks would be reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure BI0-4: Tree Protection Measures during Site Preparation and Project Construction: The Project applicant shall ensure that all contractors haveread and are familiar with the requirements specified in the Protected Tree Report, and the Protected Tree Plan shall be kept on -site at all times. It is the contractors' responsibility to become familiar with all tree protection in easures described in the Protected Tree Report and to adhere to them asthey apply. Further, there are certain situations where the Project arborist is required to be on -site. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Project arborist when those milestones requiring arborist presence are reached. Specifically, the Proj ect arborist shallbe notified at least 96 hours before grading or clearing activities; digging, excavating, trenching, or building within the canopy 33 Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, Field Inventory Data, July 2018. 53 Initia 1 Study dripline of protected tre es; pruning of protected tree canopies or roots; or any other activity within the canopy dripline of a protectedtree. Protective Fencing: Protective fencing shallbe installed, as shown on Figure 11, above. The Project arborist shall inspect all protective fencing prior to any work commencing on the Site. Further, protective fencing shallbe installed prior to any excavation or construction activities. Fencing will be chain -link, at least 5 feethigh, and held in place by steel stakes driven directly into the ground. There shall be no gate or easy access into the protection zone and all protective fencing shallremain intact until construction is completed. No workers shall enter the fenced protection zone. No storage, waste disposal, equipment clean -out, outhouse, orvehicle parking will be allowed within the fenced area. Excavation: If oak roots measuring less than 2-inches in diameter are encountered during excavation for the Project or right-of-way crib walls, cuts shall be made cleanly with a sharp saw or pruning tool, far enoughbehind the damage that allsplit and cracked rootportions are removed. The cut shallbe made at right angles to the root so thatthewoundis no larger than necessary. When practical, roots shallbe cut back to a branching lateral root. The applicant willnot apply any pruning wound treatment to cuts. If roots larger than 2-inches in diameter are encountered, the Project arborist shallbe consulted. Monitoringafter construction: The Project arborist shallvisit the property one or two times per year for three years after completion of construction to inspect the impacted oak trees and to monitor the establishmentof any mitigation oak trees. Any problems with the oak trees' continued survival, or with the survival of mitigation trees, shallbe reported to the City. Any oak trees that die shallbe mitigated for in accordancewith the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. General Tree Protection Measures The following additional measures shallbe applied where they arerelevant.If there is a conflict between the specific mitigation measures for this Project described above andany of these general measures, the specific measures supersede. 1. All work conducted in the ground within the root protection zone of any protected tree shall be accomplished with hand tools only. The root protection zone is defined as the area within a circle with a radius equal to the greatest distance from the trunk to any overhanging foliage in the canopy. 2. Where structural footings are required and majorroots will be impacted, the footing depth shall be reduced to 12 inches. This may require additional "rebar" for added strength. An alternative would involve bridging footings over roots and covering eachrootwith plastic cloth and 2-4 inches of Styrofoam matting before pouring concrete. 3. Any required trenching which has multiple trench path options shall be routed in such a manner to minimize root damage. Radial trenching is less harm ful than tangential trenching because it runs parallel to tree roots rather than diagonal or perpendicular to them. Whenever possible, trenching shall work around roots rather than cutting them. Pipes and cables shallbe placed belowuncut roots, andthe same trench shallbe used for as many utilities a s po ssible. 4. "Natural" or preconstruction grade shallbe maintained for as great a distance from the trunk of each tree as construction permits. At no time during or after construction shall soil be in contact with the trunk of the tree above natural grade. 54 Initia 1 Study 5. In areas where grade would be lowered, or where footings will be dug som e root cutting in ay be unavoidable. Cuts shallbe in ade cleanly with a sharp saw or pruning tool, far enough behind the damage that all split and cra cked root portions are removed. The cut shallbe made atright angles to the root so thatthe wound is no larger than necessary. When practical, roots shallbe cut back to a branching lateralroot. The applicant shallnot apply any pruning wound treatment to cuts. 6. When removing pavement, as little disruption of soil as necessary shallbe attempted. 7. Pruning of oaks shall be limited to the removal of dead wood and the correction ofpotentially hazardous conditions, as evaluatedby a qualified arborist. Pruning oaks excessively is harmful to them. Removal or reduction of major structural limbs shall be done only as required for actual building clearance or safety. If limbs must be removed, cuts shall be made perpendicular to the branch to limit the size of the cut face. The branchbarkcollar shallbe preserved (i.e., no "flush cuts"), andcuts shall be made in such a way as to prevent the tearing of bark from the tree. All pruning shallbe done in accordance with ANSI A300 pruning standards. No pruningwound treatment (e.g. "Tree Seal,) shallbe applied. S. To minimize soil compaction, keep allactivity and traffic to a minimum within the root protection zone. 9. It is important that the root protection zone not be subjected to flooding incidental to the construction work, or to disposal of construction debris such as paints, plasters, or chemical solutions. No equipment fueling or chemicalmixing shallbe done within the root protection zone. 10. In general, it isbest to minimize the amount of environmental change that trees would be subjected to. This includes drastic changes in watering practicesfrom historical conditions, such as drastic increases or decreases in the amount or frequency of water applied. 11. Care shallbe exercised not to allow equipment to physically damage the tree's trunk, root crown, or lower scaffold branches during construction. This includes but is not lim ited to impact damage by scrapers, buckets, or hoes, or damage by tires, wheels, or tracks from operating in close proximity to trees. f) No Impact: The Project Site is not within a habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the Pro jectwould not conflict with any adoptedhabitat conservation plans, and the Project would have no related impacts. g) No Impact: The Project Site is notwithin a Significant Ecological Area identified on Exhibit CO-5 (Significant Ecological Areas) of the City's General Plan Conservation and Open Space 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 SignificantNa tural Area. V. CULTURAL The analysis in this section isbased on the Cultural Resources PhaselAssessment RESOURCES forSierra West Assisted Living and Memory Care Project prepared by Envicom in January 2020; peer review analysis of this report provided by MichaelBaker International in January 2020; and amended m itigation m easures provided by Envicom in April 2020.34 These resources are available as Appendix D of this 34 Envicom Corporation, Cultural Resources Phase IAssessment for Sierra west Assisted Living and Memory Care Project (Envicom Project #19-105-101), January 15, 2020; Michael Baker Intemational, Peer Review of Cultural Resources Phase I Assessment for Sierra west Assisted Living and Memory Care Project, January 30, 2020; Envicom and Michael Baker International, Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures, April 6, 2020. 55 Initia 1 Study Initial Study. The analy sis and peer review summarized the methods and results of a South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) records search, Native Am erican Heritage commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File search, literature review, and historical in ap review to detennine whether the Projectwould result in significant impacts to cultural resources, including historical and archaeological resources a,b) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation: The SCCIC records search conducted for the Proposed Project identified no previously recorded cultural resources within the Project Site or quarter -mile searchradius. Twoprevious cultural resources studies were identified within a portion of the Project Site; however, neither study identified resource concerns within the Project Site. The NAHC Sacred Lands File searchprovided negative results, meaning that no sacred lands are known to be within the Project Site boundaries or in the vicinity. The Cultural Resources Analysis prepared by Envicom reviewed historical maps dating between 1903 and 1973 and identified the Project Site as having been previously developed with various residential buildings from between circa 1920 to circa 1980. The Eternal Valley MemorialPark and Mortuary, located immediately south of the Project Site and foundedin 1958, iswithin a historical ranch property whichdatesback to 1888. The cemetery includes a pioneer cemetery with graves dating to as early as 1888. A field survey conductedby Envicom in November 2019 did not identify any early historic orprehistoric artifacts or featureson the Project Site. The survey determined that theportion of theProj ect Site near Sierra Highway showed evidence of modem grading and berm creation; however, there was no visible evidence of the older historic structures that are shown on the Project Site in US Geological Survey maps between 1920 and 1980. As discussed in the peer review analysis prepared by Michael Baker International, a review of historical maps predating 1903 suggests that the Project Site may be the historical location of Lyon's Station, a stagecoach stop along the Los Angeles and Fort Tejon Road in the 1850s. In 1868, it was noted as including a large frame building which housed a store,post office, telegraphic office, tavern, and stagedepot. Behind thedepotwas the family cottage and board -and -batten residences forLyon's 20 employees and their families. A cem etery had alsobeen establishedby thatpoint. By 1876, the station included the California Star Oil Company oilrefinery. The stage depot is depicted on an 1876 plat map and, interestingly, is noted to have gone out of business the same year after the newly constructed Southern Pacific Raihnad bypassed the station in lieu of a different station location. After it went out of business, the oil refinery structures were relocated to another area station serviced by the railroad; the fate of the additional on -site buildings is unclear. Lyon's Station is m em oria lined as California Historical Landmark No. 688, which is mounted at the Eternal Valley MemorialPark andMortuary, andthe stagecoach stopis noted in the City's Historic Preservation Survey & Planning Analysis as having potential historical significance andrequiring additional survey and evaluation efforts 3s While there are no built environment resources associatedwith Lyon's Station, any archaeological deposits associated with Lyon's Station would be considered historical resources as defined by CEQA Section 15064.5(a) because they are associated with a California Historical Landmark No. 688. As such, ground disturbance at the Project Site associated with Project construction has the potential to impact a historic resource, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. 35 Historic Resources Group, Historic Preservation Survey & Planning Analysis, 2009, https ://s cvhi story. com/scvhi story/citypreservationsurvey2009.pdf. 56 Initia 1 Study Further, the historical map and literature review did not identify historic -period Native American habitation within the Project Site; however, the Project Site is underlain with alluvial soils, which have sensitivity for prehistoric archaeological resources. Furthermore, Newhall Creek, a natural water course, is within close proximity to the Project Site. While Envicom'sfield survey did notidentify surface archaeological deposits, there is moderate sensitivity for buried prehistoric - archaeological resources due to proximity to a water source and Project Site soil conditions. In order to reduce impacts to historic and prehistoric archaeological resources, the Project shall incorporate Mitigation Measure CUL-1, which requires implementation of an archaeological monitoring plan, as described below. This plan, which would require monitoring during ground -disturbing activities, would reduce Project impacts on historic and prehistoric archaeological resources to less than significant levels. As such, the Project would have a less than significant impact on historical and archaeological resourceswith mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measure CUL-l: Archaeological Monitoring Plan. There are no built environment resources associated with Lyon's Station (California Historical LandmarkNo. 688); however, any archaeological deposits associated with Lyon's Station would be considered historica I resources asdefinedby CEQA Section 15064.5(a)because they would be associated with a California Historical Landmark. Furthermore, the project site is known to have alluvial soils and is within close proximity to Newhall Creek, a natural watercourse; therefore, the site has moderate sensitivity for buried prehistoric archaeological resources. To lessen impacts to historical and/or archaeological resources, the applicant shall retain a senior qualified archaeologist (M.A. level or higher) to develop an Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the Project Site. The monitoring plan shall include the archaeological context, rationale for monitoring monitoring procedures, and what to do with resource/remains discoveries. The monitoring program shall require the senior qualified archaeologist to hold a preconstruction meeting with the grading contractor. The senior qualified archaeologist shall also provide technical and compliance oversight of allwork as it relates to archaeological resources, including an assessment of any monitoring discovery situations. The program willalso require that a Secretary of the Interior Professionally Qualified and/or Register of Professional Archaeologists listed archaeological monitor be present during ground -disturbing activities within surface or alluvial soils or until the Saugus formation is identified (0-29 feetbelow surface). The archaeological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt or redirect grading and other ground - disturbing activities in the eventthat cultural resources are encountered. Ifpotentially significant cultural material is encountered, the archaeologist shall make recommendations regarding the treatment of the discovery. Impacts to significant archaeological deposits shall be avoided if feasible, but if such impacts cannot be avoided, the deposits shallbe evaluated for eligibility to the California Register of Historical Resources. If the deposit is not California Register eligible, no further protection of the find is necessary. If the deposits are California Register eligible, impacts shall be mitigated. Acceptable mitigation may consist of but is not necessarily limited to systematic recovery and analysis of archaeological deposits recording the resource, preparation of a report of findings, and accessioning recovered archaeological materials at an appropriate curation facility. The senior qualified archaeologist shall prepare a final monitoring and mitigation report for 57 Initia 1 Study submittal to the City that documents the results of the monitoring effort and any discoveries. c) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation: Paleontological resources, as definedby the Bureau of LandManagement,U.S. DepartmentoftheInterior, are the phy sicalrem ains or other phy sical evidence o f plants and animals preserved in soils and sedimentary rock formations. No known paleontological resources are located within the project site; however, there is paleontological sensitivity within the Saugus Formation known to underlie the project site at various depths between 16 inches and 35 feet. The Saugus Formation becomes more prominent along the hillside where it is located at depths of 16 inches. Non -sensitive alluvium occurs within the crescent -shaped area of the proj ect site atdepths between 2 and 29 feet it is underlain by the Saugus Formation in this area at depthsbetween 12 and 35 feet Some project -related excavation may occurwithin the Saugus Formation. To avoid the potential destruction of undiscovered paleontological resources, Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would be imposed to ensure proper identification and treatment of paleontological resources that may be discovered during grading. Therefore, with mitigation incorporated, potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Paleontological Monitoring Plan. The applicant shall retain a senior qualified paleontologist (M.A. levelorhigher) meeting the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Standards to develop a Paleontological Monitoring Plan for the project site in areas where the Saugus Formation is exposed or likely to be exposed during project construction. The senior qualified paleontologist shall conduct construction worker Paleontologicalresources sensitivity training atthe Project kickoff in eeting, prior to ground -disturbing activities. The senior qualified paleontologist shall also provide technical and compliance oversight of all work as it relates to paleontological resources, including an assessmentof any monitoring discovery situations. When excavation takes place within the Saugus Formation, a qualified paleontological monitor will also be present. Aqua lified paleontological monitor will have at least a paleontological field degree, and shallhave a bachelor's degree in either paleontology, geology, or a related field with demonstrable direct paleontological experience suitable to being a paleontological monitor. The paleontological monitor shall be authorized to stop work where potential paleontological resources are discovered, to provide the opportunity to examine, recover, and characterize such materials. Any significant paleontological resources collected during project -related excavations shall be curated into an accredited repository. The senior qualified paleontologist shall prepare a finalmonitorlog and mitigation report for submittal to the City that documents the results of the monitoring effort and any discoveries. d) Less Than Significant Impact: The historical location of the pioneer cemetery associated with Lyon's Station appears to be located within the Eternal Valby Memorial Park and Mortuary, approximately 5 00 feet southwe st of the Project Site's southern boundary. This distance between the ProposedProject's development area and this historic cemetery is sufficient such that historic -period burials entombed outside of the cemetery boundaries andwithin the Project Site are nota concern. While there are no known human remains on the Project Site, there is the potential to discover buried human remains during Project -related earth -moving activities. According to the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, if human remains are identified during earth -moving activities, excavation ordistu�banceofa 58 Initia 1 Study site or any nearby area must stop until the Los Angeles County coroner has determ ined the manner and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the petson responsible for the excavation or to his or h er authorized representative. I fthe human remains are ofNative Americanorigin, the coronermust notify theNAHC within24 hours of this identification. TheNAHCwillimmediately identify a Native American most likely descendant to inspect the site and provide recommendations within 48 hours for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. Implementing California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 wouldresult in less than significant impact to human remains. VL ENERGY The following analysis is based m part on the information contamedm Nierra West Assisted Living and Memory Care Project Energy Use Impacts Memorandum prepared by Envicom Corporation dated January 29, 2020. This memorandum, herein referred to as the Energy Study, is included as Appendix E of this Initial Study. a) Less Than Significant Impact: The addition of 83 units of assisted living and memory care would result in an increase in energy use duringboth construction and operation. Project Construction During construction, the Proposed Project would involve on -site energy demand and consumption related to the use of oil in the form of gasoline and diesel fuel. These would be used forvehicle trips by construction workers, truck trips for hauling and delivering materials, and the operation of off -road construction equipment Construction equipment used on -site are anticipated to include excavators, graders, tractors/loaders/backhoes, dozers, air compressors, cranes, forklifts, generators, welders, rollers, and pavers. The majority of this equipmentwould be diesel -fueled; however, small equipment, such as welders and compressors, may be electric-, gasoline-, or natural gas -fueled. Construction methods used to build the Proposed Project would be typical o f current construction practices and are not anticipated to require use of more energy -intensive machinery or higher than normal volumes of trucks and passenger vehicle trips. For the energy analysis performed for this Project, construction activities were anticipated to occur over a total of 22 months, although larger, earth -moving equipment usedfor site preparation and grading activities would likely beon-site for approximately two months. California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 2485, Airborne Toxic ControlMeasure to Limit Diesel -Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling, requires that drivers of diesel -fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings greater than 10,000 pounds not idle the vehicle's primary diesel engine for longer than five minutes at any location. As a result of this regulation, off -road diesel -fueled vehicles associated with construction of the Proposed Project would avoid unnecessary consumption of energy in the form of diesel fuel. Additionally, the Pro j ect has been designed to minimize off -site hauling o f soils by developing the relatively flat portions of the property to reduce the amount of cut grading required, which would reduce the Project's overall energy use during construction. Based on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions factors for transportation fuels published by the U.S. Energy Information Administration,36 the amount of diesel and 36 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Environment Carbon Dioxide Emissions Coefficients, 2016. 59 Initia 1 Study petroleum -based fuels consumed by Project -related construction activities can be estim ated ba sed on CO2 emissions. Burning one gallon of diesel fuel gen erates approximately 22.4 pounds of CO2, and burning one gallon of petroleum based gasoline produces approximately 19.6 pounds of CO2. As discussed in the Energy Study prepared for this Initial Study, the Project's construction activities would consume a total of approximately 52,045 gallons of diesel fuel and approximately 16,186 gallons of gasoline. By comparison, California consumed a totalof 348,830 th ou sandb arrels of gasoline for transportation in 2016, which is e quiv alent to a total annual consumption of 14.7 billion gallons. California consumed a total of 80,218 thousand barrels of diesel fuel for transportation in 2016, which is equivalent to a total annual consumption of 3.4 billion gallons. Therefore, temporary energy use during construction of the Proposed Project would not result in excessive or substantial fuel consumption, requiring additional capacity from local or regional energy supplies. Further, compliance with anti -idling and emissions regulations would ensure thatProj ect construction would not result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumptionof energy resources. Project Operation Energy usage associated with Project operation would be typical of assisted living facilities and would result from building energy demand (electricity and naturalgas) and from transportation fuels (e.g., diesel and gasoline) usedby vehicles traveling to and from the Project Site. The Projectwouldnotinclude any unusual Project design characteristicsor require special equipmentthatwouldbe more energy intensive than typical assisted living facilities. As discussed in the Energy Study prepared for this Initia 1 Study, Project operation would result in consumption o f approximately 34,700 gallons of gasoline annually, which would represent approximately 0.0002 percent of annual statewide consumption of gasoline 37 While the Proposed Project would not have control over fuel consumption factors such as vehicle type(s), engine efficiency, vehicle miles traveled, etc., the California Air Resources Board's increasing vehicle efficiency standards would lead a steady decline in long-term transportation fuelconsumption overtime and ensure that vehicle fuelconsumption is not wasteful or inefficient. Further, to reduce the need for individual vehicle use by residents, the Project would provide a shuttle bus and in-house amenities (e.g., a gym and hair salon). Upon completionof the ProposedProj ect, Southern California Edison (SCE) would provide electricity and Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas) would provide natural ga s to the Project Site. SCE provides electricity service to more than 15 million people throughout central, coastal, and Southern California. In 2015, SCE delivered 87 billion kWh (kilowatthours) of electricity to 180 incorporated cities and 15 counties. The Energy Study completed for the Proposed Project estimates that Project -related electricity demand would be approximately 507,670 kWh/year, which would be less than 0.0007percent of the total electricity supplied by SCE in 2015. SoCalGas provides natural gas service to 21.8 million people and in 2016, SoCalGas's natural gas sales totaled approximately 300 billion kBTU (thousand British thermal units). The Project's annual natural gas demand would be approximately 1,111,880 kBTU, which is less than 0.0004 percent of the total gas demand for SoCalGas in 2016. Considering that the Project would generate such a small electricity andnatural demand in relation to the total service capacity of SCE and SoCal Gas, the Project would not substantially alter current demands for electricity and natural gas supplies provided by these energy suppliers. Moreover, the Proposed Projectwould be required to comply with CCR Title 24, the California Building Standards Code, which includes the California Building Energy 37 Envicom, Sierra west Assisted Living and Memory Care Project Energy Use Impacts, November 2019. 60 Initia 1 Study Efficiency Standards and the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). Title 24, Part 6, the California Energy Code, also known as the California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, was created to reduce California's energy consumption. It addresses issues concerning design, construction, alteration, installation, or repair of building envelopes, space -conditioning systems, water -heating systems, indoor lighting systems of buildings, outdoor lighting and signage, and certain equipment designed to enhance building efficiency. The Proposed Proj ectwould be required to adhereto the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which went into effect on January 1, 2020." Title 24, Part 11, also known asthe CALGreen Code, was created to improvepublic health, safety, and general welfare. The provisions of the code apply to the planning design, operation, construction, use, and occupancy of every newly constricted building or structure throughout California. Requirements of the CALGreen Code are intended to address a variety of aspects of sustainable building practices involving water and energy conservation, solid waste reduction, pollution reduction, etc. For example, provisions pertaining to energy conservation include compliance with relevant regulations related to installation of electric vehicle charging infrastructure in residential and nonresidential structures. The Proposed Project would provide eight electric vehicle/vanpoolreserved parking spaces to reduce the need for consumption of gasoline supplies for transportation. Therefore, because the Proposed Project would be subject to allrelev ant provisions of the most recent update of Title 24, Parts 6 and 11, as well as state and federal regulations regarding energy and fuel efficiency, the Proposed Project would not result in a wasteful, inefficient, orunnecessary consumption of energy resources and Project impacts in thisregard would be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact: Asnotedin the preceding response, theProposed Project would be designed to comply with all applicable state and local plans and codes. This would include CCR Title 24, which mandates a variety of energy conservation and efficiency standards to be implemented through building design and construction. The City of Santa Clarita enforces these standards through its local building code, plan check, and permitting procedures. In addition, electricity supplied to the Project by SCE would comply with the state's Renewables Portfolio Standard, which requires investor -owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total procurement by 2020 and to 60percent by 2030.39 The City currently does not have a plan specifically pertaining to renewable energy or energy efficiency. However, the Project would be in compliance with 2019 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and 2019 CALGreen building codes (as discussed in thepreceding response). Complia ncewith these standards would ensure that the Project incorporates energy -efficient design features, such as energy - efficient windows and insulation, efficient lighting technology, energy -efficient HVAC equipment, Energy Star -rated products and appliances, and weather -based irrigation systems, as well as water -efficient fixtures and electric vehicle charging infrastructure. In addition, the Proposed Projectwouldbe consistentwith the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction policies in SCAG's 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, as discussed in Section VIII, Greenhouse Gas, of this Initial Study, below. Furthermore, sa California Energy Commission, 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards FAQ, March 2018. 39 California Public Utilities Commission, RenewablesPortfolio Standard Program, hops:/Aywly.CpUC.ca.goy/ms/, accessed December 10, 2019 61 Initia 1 Study vehicles traveling to and from the Project Site during Project construction and operation would comply with federal and state fuel economy standards. Therefore, the Proj ectwould notconflict or obstruct of a state or localplan forrenewable energy or energy efficiency. Impacts in this regard are less than significant VIL GEOLOGY AND The analysis of impacts related to geology and soils is based, in part, on the Geologic SOILS and Soils Engineering Feasibility Report (Geotechnical Report), prepared by Southwest Geotechnical, Inc., datedApril2019, which is available asAppendix F of this Initial Study.40 The site exploration conducted for this Geotechnical Report included drilling, logging, and sampling five borings on the project site; literature and aerial photography review; and laboratory testing of soil samples collected on the site. This analysis is also inform edby the peerreviewof the Geologic and Sol Engineering Report, conducted by R.T. Frankian and Associates and dated March 10, 2020, 41 as well as the updated Grading Plan, preparedby CRC Enterprises dated May 1, 2020.4z a)i. Less Than Significant Impact: The Project Site is not located in an Alquist- Priolo Earth quake Fault Zone or within any other known f ault zones, as identified on Exhibit S-1 of the City's General Plan Safety Element, or by the California Department of Conservation.43 Regardless, the Proposed Project is required to comply with aspectsof the California Building Standards Codepertaining to seismic safety (Title 24), which is adopted by reference in Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 18.01.010. Because the Project Site not located within a Alquist-Priob Earthquake Fault and Hazard Management Zone and because the Project is required to adhere to building regulations dictating seismic safety, the Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault. Therefore, potential impacts related to rupture of aknown earthquake fault would be less than significant a)ii. Less Than Significant Impact: Santa Clarita is within a seismically active region of Southern California. Consequently, the Proposed Project would likely be subject to strong seismic ground shaking. However, the type and magnitude of seismic hazards that may affect the Project Site are dependent on both the distance to causative faults and the intensity and duration of the seismic event Although the probability of primary surface rupture is considered very low, ground -shaking hazards posedby earthquakes occurring along regional active faults do exist and would be considered in the design and construction of the proposed structures within the Project Site. The Project would not exacerbate potential ground shaking. The origin of potential seismic ground shakingwouldbe miles off -site at one of several regional faults. Additionally, the Project Site alterations and development would have no effect onregional faults or the intensity of seismic ground shaking thatcould occur during the lifetime of the project As the nearest major fault, the San Gabriel Fault, is located approximately 2 miles northeast of the Project Site, it would be considered the causative fault and wouldbe expected to generate them ost significant ground motions at the Project Site. A portion of this fault is inactive; however, the active portion of this fault represents the closest known active fault to the Project Site. The Proposed Projectwould be required to adhere to the 2019 California Building Standards Code, which provides procedures for earthquake -resistant structural design that include considerations for on -site soil conditions, occupancy, and the 40 Southwest Geotechnical, Inc. Geologic and Soils Engineering Feasibility Report, April 2019. 41 R.T. Frankian and Associates, Review of Southwest Geotechnical, Inc. Geologic and Soils Engineering Report, March 10, 2020. 42 CRC Enterprises, Preliminary Grading Plan, May 1, 2020. 43 City of SantaClarita General Plan, Safety Element, Exhibit S-1, 2011; California Department of Conservation, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, map generated May 14, 2020. 62 Initia 1 Study configuration of the structure including the structural system and height. Design standards specific to the Proposed Project (including grading amounts, foundation bearing materials, building pad design, footing design, structure fillco mpaction, and depth and makeup o f fill materials), are provided in the Geotechnical Report prepared for this Initial Study, available as AppendixF. The Proj ect's GradingPlan, available as Figure 12, is consistentwith the recommendations provided in the Geotechnical Report, which would be verified by the City in its plan check and grading permit process. Further, the Project would be subject to building inspection by the City during and after construction to ensure compliance with 2019 California Building Standards. Compliance with these required standards ensures that the Proposed Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or de a th, rela ted to strong seismic ground shaking. a)iii. Less Than Significant Impact: Liquefaction occurs when saturated soils lose their strength andbehave like a liquid as a result of strong ground shaking. The three geologic conditions that must be present in order for liquefaction to occur are: 1) strong ground shaking; 2) shallow groundwater, generally less than 50 feet in depth; and 3) the presence of unconsolidated sandy alluvium, typically Holocene in age. The eastern portion of the Project Site is located within a liquefaction hazard area, as shown on Exhibit S-3 of the City's General Plan Safety Element.` In addition, according to the Geotechnical Report prepared for this Project, a historic high groundwater level of 5 feetbelow the existing surface level was mapped just north of the Project Site and a historic high groundwater level of 20 feet was mapped just south of the Project Site. This places the historic high groundwater levels at the Project Site at 12 feet below the existing surface level." Samples taken in the proposed development area of the Project Site found groundwater on the Project Site at depths of 18 feet and 21 feet. Additionally, soil borings taken at the Project Site during the Geotechnical Report detenninedthat the alluvium underlying the Project Site is subj ectto excessive settlementdue to liquefaction, especially because the soils are primarily composed of sand." Liquefiable soils extend to depths ranging from 28 feet to 32 feet in the proposed development area.47 Therefore, given the shallow depth to groundwater and the presence of soils subject to liquefaction based settlement within the proposed development area, the Project is subject to liquefaction. While the Project Site is subject to liquefaction, the Proposed Project itself would not exacerbate the risk of liquefaction occurring on the Proj ect Site. Further, the Geotechnical Reportprepared for this Project includes several strategies that can be implemented, thus reducing potential detrimental effects of liquefaction. These strategies include grading/earthwork that removes and recompacts potentially liquefiable soils, deepening building foundations into bedrock, thus bypassing liquefiable soils; in situ ground densification methods that reduce liquefaction potential such as compaction piles, chemical grouting, and vibrocompaction; compaction grouting, using a process of injecting slurry under high pressure into loose soil to densify the soils; or a mixture of these strategies. The Geotechnical Report recommends compaction grouting as the most appropriate solution addressing liquefaction hazards on the Project Site given the Site's sandy soils, depth to bedrock, and the relatively limited area of the Project Site that would require 44 City of Santa ClaritaGeneral Plan, Safety Element, Exhibit S-3, 2011. 45 Southwest Geotechnical, Inc., Geologic and Soils Engineering Feasibility Report, Proposed Assisted L iving and Memoty Care Facility, Sierra Highway, APN2827-005-042 & -043, City of SantaClarita, California, 2019. 46 Southwest Geotechnical, Inc., Geologic and Soils Engineering Feasibility Report, Proposed Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility, Sierra Highway, APN2827-005-042 & -043, City of SantaClarita, California, 2019. 47 Southwest Geotechnical, Inc., Geologic and Soils Engineering Feasibility Report, Proposed Assisted Living and Memoly CareFacility, Sierra Highway, APN 282 7-005-042 & -043, City of SantaClarita, California, 2019, p. 117. 63 Initia 1 Study mitigation. Further, the City's Building Code requires mitigation of liquefaction hazards in new developmentprojects, pursuant to findings andrecommendations of site -specific geotechnical reports. Incorporationof the appropriate design techniques would be confirmed during the City's plan check process and the proper design techniques would be included in construction specifications prior to issuance of gra ding p ermits. This standard regulatory compliance process would reduc epotential impacts associatedwith liquefiable soils to a less than significant level. a)iv. No Impact: The Project Site is not within a landslide hazard zoneidentified on Exhibit S-3 of the City's General Plan Safety Element or by the California Department of Conservation's Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation map.48 Furthermore, there are no unstable slopes on the Project Site.49 Therefore, the Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to potential adverse effects from landslides and would have no associated impacts. b) Less Than Significant Impact: The Project Site is currently undeveloped but predominantly covered with vegetation, which reduces the potential for topsoil to be subj ectto erosion duringhigh winds orrain. There are some areasof bare soilwithin the proposed development area, on the eastern side of the Project Site. During construction of the Project, earthwork would remove the on -site vegetation, exposing topsoil to the effects of wind and water erosion. Additionally, excavation would expose subsurface soils to the effects of wind and wa ter erosion. Erosion leads to soil particles being carried off -site where they can affect water quality, cause sedim entation (the buildup of soil in waterways) andreduce the soil stab ility on -site. To reduce wind and water erosion during earth -moving activities, the Project is required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 regarding fugitive dust, which, as described in Section III, Air Quality, of this Initial Study, would reduce the potential for wind -driven erosion/loss of topsoil. Similarly, water erosion during construction would be substantially reduced through required permits from the Los Angeles County Regional Water Quality Control Board, such as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System's (NPDES) Construction General Permit. The Construction General Permit, mandatory for construction sites that disturb more than 1 acre of land, requires construction sites to implement stormwater controls and develop a stormwater pollution prevention plan, which controls the amount of sedim ent and other pollutants discharged from the construction site. The details of the Construction General Permit are discussed in further detail in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Initial Study. Thus, the potential to increase erosion during any construction activity would be substantially reduced through required compliance with existing regulations. The Proposed Proj ectwould include impervious surfaces from theproposed assisted living and memory care building, driveways, and other paved surfaces, such as the outdoor living areas. These impervious surfaces would stabilize underlying soils, providing protection from rain- or wind -driven loss of topsoil. Additionally, pervious surfaces on the Project Site, including planting areas and the natural open space maintained on the westernside of the Project Site, would reduce the amount ofbare soil and thus would anchor the topsoil. Operation of the proposed facility would not cause wind or wa ter erosion or the loss of topsoil. Therefore, because the developed Project Site would reduce erosion potential compared to existing conditions and would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 and NPDES requirements, the Project would not result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Impacts in thisregard wouldbe less than significant. 41 City of Santa Clarita General Plan, Safety Element, Exhibit S-3, 2011. 49 Southwest Geotechnical, Inc., Geologic and Soils Engineering Feasibility Report, Proposed Assisted L iving and Memoly CareFacility, Sierra Highway, APN2827-005-042 & -043, City of SantaClarita, California, 2019. 64 Initia 1 Study c) Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed in response to Threshold Question VII-a)iii, above, the Pro j ect Site is located on land with a geologic unit or soil that is unstable and could potentially result in on -site liquefaction. These potentialimpacts would be reduced to less than significant levels through regulatory compliance and incorporating recommended design featuresin the Geo technical Report prepared for the Project. These recommendations include but are not limited to removal and recompactionof soils betweenbedrock and grading level to reduce susceptibility of the soils to liquefaction; removing all existing artificial fill, residual soil, or any loose/disturbed materials in their entirety prior to placing new engineered fill for foundation and slab support; and underlying the building's pad with a uniform thickness of compacted fill (minimum of 8 feet). Such methods would reduce unstable soil conditionsresulting from liquefaction or settlement hazards to less than significant levels. The Geotechnical Report prepared for this Project also states that slopes on the Project Site (specifically the ridgelines on the south side and west side) are grossly stable and would not be subject to large scale landsliding due to the coarse -grained bedrock and favorable beddingplant orientations. However, the natural drainage area to the west of the proposed structure would likely collect eroded materials/debris from the slopes westo f the proposed building during high -intensity rain events. As a result, debris could accumulate behind the perimeter retaining walls to the north, west, and southof the proposed structure. To alleviate this risk of overland erosion, the Geotechnical Report states that the perimeter walls should be provided a minimum of3 feet of freeboard to collect potential debris from the slopes abovethe development area. After construction, theProj ect would not create site conditions that could exacerbate liquefaction or settlement hazards on the Project Site. Additionally, theProjectwould include a comprehensive storm drainage system throughout the developed areas, capturing and treating runoff with a series of catch basins and infiltrationbasins, as discussed further in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Initial Study. Therefore, runoff would not result in accumulation orponding andwould notaffect orunderminethe stability of soils supporting the structure or ancillary improvements. There would be no long-tenn impacts that could exacerbate unstable ground areas and impacts would be less than significant. d) No Impact: The Project Site is underlain by large -grained sand and gravel, which have low expansion potential. The Geotechnical Report recommends furthertesting to evaluate the expansion potentialof soils duringrough grading, or at a future tine when the finished -grade soil can be determined. The report also suggests, as described above, a number of strategies for addressing unstable soils on the Project Site, such as soil compaction and moisture reduction methods. These recommendations are incorporated into the Project design and would be verified through the City's plan check and grading permit process. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in impacts related to expansive soils. e) No Impact: The wastewater generated by the Proposed Project would be discharged into a subsurface sanitary sewer network, which would be conveyed to existing sewer lines located within Sierra Highway. Wastewater would then be conveyedto the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County's wastewater collection and treatmentnetwork. As such, the Proj ectwouldnotrequire the use of septic tanks for wastewater disposal. 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. 65 Initia 1 Study f) Less Than Significant Impact: The Project Site is characterized by undulating terrain, a ridgeline on the southemportion of the Project Site, and a ridgeline thatis immediately west of the western Project Site boundary. The proposed development area is locatedalong Sierra Highway, on the easternportion of the Project Site, in a crescent -shaped, relatively flat portion of the Project Site. As stated in the Project Description of this Initial Study, the proposed developmentarea has been previously disturbed by past development as evidencedby modern trash and man-made berms located in this area of the Site. While the Proposed Pro j ectwould transform the Site as compared with existing conditions through grading and development of the proposed assisted living and memory care facility, the Project would not alter the site's topography in a manner that would cause substantial aesthetic, stability, erosion, or drainage impacts (as discussed in response to Threshold Questions I(c) VII(a), X(c), andX(d)). The Project would require a ridgeline alteration permit, as identified in the Project Description of this Initial Study; however, this is due to the proposed development area's encroachment into the 100-foot setback from the significant ridgeline to the west. As shown on the Grading Plan, Figure 12, encroachment into this area ism inimal and would occur on the northwest side of the proposed structure. Further, the southern and western portions of the Project Site, which are characterized by steep topography/ridgelines, would not experience substantial grading or alteration as a result of Project -construction and Site preparation. Therefore, the Proj ectwould not result in a significant impact related to a change in topography or ground surface relief features. g) Less Than Significant Impact: The Project would require grading/site preparation in order to comply with the recommendations provided in the Geotechnical Report, such asremoval of unstable soils and p lacement/compaction of engineered fillm aterials. As displayed on the Proj ect's Grading Plan, Project -related site preparation would result in 10,000 cubic yards of cut and 400 cubic yards of fill. As such, Project grading and Site preparation would result in 9,600 cubic yards of soil export. While the Project does involve more than 10,000 cubic yards of earthwork, there would be no substantial landform changes as aresult of the Proposed Project, as discussed in response to Threshold Question VILf), above. Therefore, the Proposed Proj ectwould notresult in any significant environmental im pacts as aresult of earth movement of more than 10,000 cubic yards. h) No Impact: As discussed, the proposed development area is relatively flat and there are no natural slopes greater than 10 percent grade within this area. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not cause any impacts from development or grading slopes greater than 10 percent natural grade and a hillside development permit is not necessary. i) Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed, the Project Site is characterizedby a combination of steep slopes, gentle slopes, and effectively flat areas. The proposed structure would be located on the eastern portion of the Project Site, which is characterized as predominantly flat with some gentle slopes. The Site does not contain any ridgelines or other regionally notable topographic features that would be graded or affected by the Proposed Project. Therefore, while the Proposed Project would partially obscure the views ofthe Project Site's physical/geologic features, the Project would not result in the destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical feature. As such, Project impacts wouldbe less than significant. VIII. GRLLNH(IUSL GAS The tollowmg analysis is based, in part, on mtormation contamed in the Air quality EMISSIONS and Greenhouse Gas lmpactAnalysis, Sierra WestAssistedLiving andMemoryCare Project prepared by Envicom Corporation, dated February 11, 2019.50 This report, so This report is mistakenly dated as February 11, 2019. The correct date of the report is February 11, 2020. 66 Initia 1 Study herein referred to as the AQ/GHG Report, is included as Appendix A of this Initial Study. a,b) Less Than Significant Impact: California is a substantial contributor of greenhouse gases (GHGs), emitting over 440 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year." Methane (CH4) is also an important GHG that potentially contributes to globalclimate change. GHGs are globalin their effect which is to increase Earth's ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere. As primary GHGs have a long lifetime in the atmosphere, accumulate over time, and are generally well -mixed, their impacton the atmosphere is mostly independent of the point of emission. The majority of individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to create significant project -specific environment effects. However, a project's GHG emissions can contribute incrementally to cumulative environmental effects thatare significant, contributing to climate change, even if an individual project's environmental effects are limited. The issue of aproject's environmental effects and contribution toward climate change typically involves an analysis of whether ornot a project's contribution toward climate change is cumulatively considerable. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 recommends that lead agencies quantify GHG emissions of projects and consider several other factors that may be used in the determinationof significanceof GHG emissions from a project, including the extent to which a project may increase or reduce GHG emissions; whether a project exceeds an applicable significance threshold; andthe extentto whicha projectcomplieswith regulations or requirements adopted to implement a plan for the reduction or mitigationof GHG emissions. The CEQA Guidelines donot establish a threshold of significance. Rather, lead agencies, such as the City of Santa Clarita, have the discretion to establish significance thresholds for their respective jurisdictions. In establishing those thresholds, the lead agency may appropriately look to thresholds developed by other public agencies, or suggested by other experts, as long as any threshold chosen is supported by substantial evidence (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7[c]). A project's incremental contribution to a cumulative impact can be found not cumulatively considerable if the project would comply with an approved plan or mitigation program that provides specific requirements that would avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem in the geographic area of the project.12 To qualify, such plans or programs mustbe specified in law or adoptedby the public agency with j urisdiction over the affected re sources through a public review process to implement, interpret or make specific the law enforced or administered by the public agency. Examples of such programs include a water quality controlplan, air quality attainment or maintenance plan, integrated waste management plan, habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plans, and plans or regulations for the reduction of GHG emissions. Therefore, a lead agency can make a finding of less than significant for GHG emissions if a project complies with adopted programs, plans, policies and/or other regulatory strategies to reduce GHG emissions. A project would be considered consistentwith applicable plans, policies, andregulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions if a qualitative analysis demonstrates thattheproject meets " California Energy Commission, California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2017, https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2016/ghg_inventory trends_00-16.pdf, accessed December 27, 2019. 52 CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3), 67 Initia 1 Study the general intent in reducing GHG emissions in order to facilitate the achievement of local- and State -adopted goals and does not impede attainment of those goals. The City of Santa Clarita has not adopted a numerical significance threshold for assessing impacts related to GHG emissions. Similarly, the SCAQMD, California Air Resources Board, and all state and regional agencies have not yet adopted numerical significance thresholds for assessing GHG emissions that are applicable to the Project Notwithstanding, for informational purposes, the following analysis calculates the amount of GHG emissions that would be attributable to the Project using the recommended air quality model, CalEEMod. Further, in absence of any adopted numerical threshold, the significance of Project -related GHG emissions is evaluated by considering whether the Project is consistent with applicable plans, policies, and regulations that have been established to reduce or mitigate GHG emissions. For the Proposed Project, the relevant adopted regulatory plans include the CARB 2017 ScopingPlan, the2020-2045 RTP/SCS, andthe City's General Plan. Additionally, the City has adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP); however, it expired in 2020. Regardless, the following analysis evaluates the Project for consistency with the City's CAP for informational purposes. Project -related GHG Emissions The Project would generate an incremental contribution to, and cumulative increase in, the following sources of GHGs: • Construction emissions associated with site preparation, grading, and construction -related equipment andvehicular activity. • Area source — emissions associated with outdoor areas, architectural coatings, and landscape equipment. • Energy source (building operations) emissions associated with space heating andcooling, waterheating, energy consumption, and lighting. • Mobile source emissions associated with vehicles accessing the Project Site. • Solid waste — emissions associated with the decomposition ofwaste, which generates methane based on the total amount o f degradable organic carbon. • Water/wastewater emissions associated with energy used to pump, convey, deliver, and treat water. Construction During construction of the Project, the AQ/GHG Report (available as Appendix A of this Initial Study) estimates that the construction activities would generate a total of 374 metric tons of COz equivalent (MTCOze). In accordance with SCAQMD guidance, projected GHGs from construction have been quantified and amortized over 30 years (representing the life of the Project), which are added to the annual average operation emissions. This amortization results in annual emissions from constructionof approximately 12.5MTCOze,asshown inTable VIII-I,below. Operation The AQ/GHG Report (available as Appendix A of this Initial Study) estimates that the Project's annual operational GHG emissions, from a combination of area sources, energy use, mobile, water use, and waste disposal, would be 612.4 MTCOze, as shown in Table VIII-1, below. No building energy efficiency orrenewable energy features were assumed in the model. Therefore, the estimated emissions conservatively reflect standard default rates. With the addition of the amortized 68 Initia 1 Study construction GHG emissions, discussed above, the emissions model calculates that the Project would result in annual emissions of approximately 624.9 MTCO2e. Table VIII-1 Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Generat ion S6uree T le/ ear Construction Emissions Total Construction Emissions 12.5 amortized over 30 ears O eratonal Emssions Area Sources 1.4 Energy Utilization 222.0 Mobile Source 308.9 Solid Waste Generation 38.1 Water Consumption 42.0 Total Project Opera tionaIEmissions 612.4 Total Pro jest E missions Total Project Emissions 624.9 (Construction +Operational) Source: Bnvicom, AG/GHG Report, 2019 (see Appendix A for more detailed information). The City of Santa Clarita's Climate Action Plan (CAP) identifies the amount of GHGs emittedwithin Santa Clarita and establishes a set of strategies that reduces the amount of GHGs produced in the City to a level thatis consistent with the reduction goals identified in the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill [AB] AB 32). When completed in 2005, the City's CAP projected that 2020 CO2e emissions, which were calculated by estimating 2020 business -as -usual emissions levels and subtracting anticipated reductions associated with energy efficiency and climate change control measures, generated by municipal and community sources would be 1,838,210 MTCO2e. By comparison, the Project would generate a projected 624.9 MTCO2e, which is approximately 0.03 percent of total emissions within the Santa Clarita community. As stated above, while the City's CAP expired in 2020, the Project's proportion of municipal and community sources of GHG emissions is provided for contextual purposes to show the relatively minimal amount of anticipated GHG emissions produced through construction and operation of the Project Plan Consistency Several plans have been adopted to reduce GHG emissions in California generally and in Santa Clarita and the Los Angeles County region specifically. The Project's consistency with Title 24building efficiency standards, the City of Santa Clarita CAP and General Plan, the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, and the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan is discussed below, Title 24 BuildingMciena Standards The Proposed Proj ectwould berequired to be designed in accordance with applicable requirements of the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards(CCR Title 24, Part 6), as well as the applicable mandatory requirements of the CALGreen Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11). Energy efficiency requirements reduce energy use, and therefore reduce a proj ect's potential energy source GHG emissions. Project features that would exceed Title 24 requirements to improve energy efficiency include: • Coolroof system 69 Initia 1 Study • Dua I gla ze gla ss and windows • R38 insula tion in roof attic • R19 insulationin all exterior walls The CALGreen Code provides mandatory measures that require incorporation of efficiency features in residential and nonresidential developments that reduce GHG em issions. Further, the Proj ect would be required to comply with the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which apply to all new residential and nonresidential buildings permitted on or after January 1, 2020. The 2019 update to the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards included efficiency improvements to the residential standards, such as requiring photovoltaic panels in low-rise residential construction, as well as improvements for attics, walls, waterheating, and lighting As such, the Project would include rooftop solar power panels, which would offset approximately 20 percent of the Project's total electricity demand, further reducing potential energy source GHG emissions. The Project would also reserve eight clean air vehicle priority parking spaces for electric vehicle or vanpool use, including future electric vehicle charging stations, 90 percent ofwhich would be for employee use, and 10 percent of which would be for visitor use, as well as bicycle parking racks for employees or visitors, to encourage use of alternatives to fossil -fueled vehicles and/or vanpooling, which would reduce potential mobile source (vehicle) GHG emissions. Additionally, the Project would provide a shuttle bus/van and car service for use by residents, and would provide on -site services that include an in- house nurse, office available for doctor visits, gym, hair salon, and other amenities that would reduce the need for travel from the site. City ofSanta Clarita CAPand GeneralPlan While the City's CAP was only qualified under CEQA until August 2020, and has therefore expired, it states that projects which are consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning ordinance will, by association, be consistent with the CAP.53 The proposed assisted living and memory care facility would be consistent with the underlying General Plan and zoning designation forthe Project Site with approvalof the Conditional Use Permits described in the Project Description. Table VIII-2, below, summarizes how the Project would be consistent with the General Plan objectives and policies associated with GHG emissions reductions from private development projects. Table VIII-2 General Plan Consistency General Plan Goals and PoH6 Project Consistent Objective CO 8.3: Encourage the following green building and sustainable developmentpractices onprivatedevelopmentprojects, to the extent reasonable and easible Policy CO 8.3.4: Encourage new residential development to include on- site solar photovoltaic systems, or prewiring, in at least 5 0 /o of the residentialunits, in concert with other The Project would install rooftop solar panels to supplement electricity supplies form utilities. significant energy conservation efforts. Policy CO 8.3.6: Require new As shown on the site plan, the Project development to usepassive solar would use light-colored finishing for heating andcooling techniques in surfaces. In addition, theunderground building design and construction, locationof theparking structurewould 53 City of Santa Clarita, Climate Action Plan Final Report, August 2012. 70 Initia 1 Study which may include but are not be insulate this space from outdoor limited to building orientation, temperatures. clerestory windows, skylights, placementand type of windows, overhangs to shade doors and windows, and use of light colored roofs, shade trees, and paving materials. Policy CO 8.3.7: Encourage the use of trees and landscaping to reduce The Project landscaping plan heating and cooling energy loads, incorporates existing trees and planted through shading of buildings and trees that would provide shade. parking lots. PolicyCO8.3.8:Encourage energy - The Project wouldbe required to conserving heating and cooling comply with applicable energy - systems and appliances, andenergy- efficiency requirements, including the efficiency in windows and insulation, State CALGreen Code and the 2019 in allnew construction. CaliforniaEnergy Efficiency Standards. Policy CO 8.3.9: Lim it excessive The proposed assisted livingand lighting levels and encourage a memory care facility would not reductionof lightingwhen businesses are closed to a levelrequired for include excessive lighting for exterior security. signage orparking lots. The Project includes little aboveground paved surfaces. Most Po licy CO 8.3.12: Reduce extensive parkingwould be in underground heat gain from paved surfaces through garage levels orpartially below grade. development standards wherever Further, the Project would only feasible. develop aportion of the Project Site, resulting in approximately 81 percent of the Project Site remaining as non - paved, landscaped areas. Objective CO 8.4: Reduce energy consumption forprocessing rawmaterials by promoting recycling and materials recoveryby all residents and businesses throughout the community. The Project wouldbe requiredto comply with the City's construction and demolition ordinance (05 -09), requiring all commercialproj ects over Policy CO 8.4.2: Adopt mandatory 1,000 square feet and allresidential residentialrecycling programs for all construction projects torecycle a residentialunits, including single- minimum of 65 percent of all inert family andmulti-family dwellings. materials and65 percent ofother m aterials.54 Further, the Project would be required to comply with mandatory City recycling programs during operation. Policy CO 8.4.4: Promote commercial The Project isnot a commercial or and industrial recy cling, including industrialuse. However, the Project recycling of construction and would have to comply with any demolition debris. mandatory construction debris 54 City of Santa Clarita, Green Santa Clarita: Construction and Demolition Recycling Ordinance, http://green saiitaclaiita.com/builders/construction-and-demolition-recycling-ordinance/, accessed June 12, 2020. 71 Initia 1 Study recy cling requirem ents during construction, as described above. Source: Bnvicom, AG/GHG Report, 2019. The CAP includes local GHG reduction measures that would result in appreciable reductions in GHG emissions. As stated above, while the CAP was only qualified under CEQAuntilAugust2020 and has effectively expired, there are GHG reduction measures included in the CAP Goal for 2020 thatmay be applicable for development of an assisted living and memory care facility. These measures are shown in Table VIII-3, below, along with a summary of how the Project would be consistent with those measures. Table VIII-3 CAP Consistency Source: Bnvicom, AG/GHG Report, 2019. As shown in Table VIII-3, the Pro j ectwould be consistent with applicable reduction m e a sure s of the City's CAP for reducing emissions of GH Gs. The Project would not conflict with the City's CAP, which is the applicable GHG emissions reduction plan. The Project would also notconflict with the applicable policies of the City's General Plan regarding GHG emissions reductions. SCAG2020-2045 R TPISCS (Connect So Cal) On September3, 2020, SCAG's Regional Council formally adopted the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (titled Connect SoCal). The SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is forecastto help California reach its GHG reduction goals by reducing GHG emissions from passenger cars b 8 percent below 2005 levels b 2020 and 19 percent b 2035 in HRedtiQnMeadsnreineludeProject Consistency in the `AP foal for 2020 AE-2: Establish On -site Renewable The Project would install rooftop solar Energy Systems -Solar Power panels to supplement electricity from utilities. The proposed facility would provide a LUT-5: Increase Transit Accessibility private shuttle bus/van and car service foruse by residents. The Project wouldbe required to insta 72 Initia 1 Study accordance with the in ostrecent CARB targets adopted in March 2018. SCAG states that the 8 percent reduction target for 2020 has been reached. Through various strategies, related to public transit infrastructure expansion and encouraging strategic placement of housing and employment centers, the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS aims to increase percentage of work trips made by carpooling (and reduce the number of commuters traveling by single -occupancy vehicles), reducing VMT per capita, increasing use of transit for work trips, reduce travel delay for passenger vehicles and trucks, create new jobs in the region, and conserve open space by focusing residential and commercial development in higher density areas to promote use of transit. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS details target VMT reductions in Los Angeles County from 22.2 daily VMTper capita (baselineyear 2016) to 19.2 VMT per capital by 2045. In short, the RTP/SCS aims to reduce GHG emissions from passenger vehicles and light trucks by reducing VMT across the region. The Project would contribute to this overall goal to reduce VMT throughout the region through its location in close proximity ahigh quality transit corridor and apark andride lot (thus promoting use of transit by employees and visitors), and because of the limited number of vehicle trips associated with the Project. See the discussion in Section XVII, Transportation/Traffic, of this Initial Study for more in formation. Further, the Sustainable Communities Strategy componentof the RTP/SCS identifies five strategies for implementing the RTP/SCS that would achieve GHGreductions. These strategies include focusing growth near destinations and mobility options, promoting diverse housing choices, leveraging technology innovations, and supporting implementation of sustain ability policies. The Project's consistency with these strategies is presented in Table VIII4,below. Table VIII4 SCAG 2020-2045RTP/SCS Consistency stainability Comtnttnities ProrectC"onsistency StraW06incl ded i n the 2020--2045 RTP/SCS The Proj ect would be located within a suburban environment that is served by existingpublic transit. Specifically, the Project Site is located approximately 750 feet south of the intersection of Sierra Highway and Newhall Avenue where there are three transit stops served by the Santa Clarita Transit Service, which connect this area to the Metrolink Station located approximately 1.7 miles northwest of Focus Growth Near Destinations and the Project Site, as well as other Mobility Options regional attractions, transit stations, and employment centers. Further, there is a Park and Ride lot operated by the City of Santa Clarita immediately north of the Project Site. The Sierra Highway and Newhall Avenue intersection is currently served by bus routes 12,102, 627, 629, 757, 797, and 799. As discussed in Section XVIII, Transportation/Traffic, of this Initial Study, Santa Clarita Transit Routes 797 and 799 meetthe definition of a high - I quality transit corridor and the 73 Initia 1 Study intersection of Newhall Avenue and Sierra Highway is classifiedby the City as a major transit stop. Therefore, the Project would focus growth near destinations andmobility options. The Proposed Project would include construction of an assisted living and memory care facility, which would provide housing opportunities for Promote Diverse Housing Choices seniors in the Santa Clarita region. As the Proj ectwould provide two different specialized residential units (memory care and assisted living), the Project would promote diversity in housing choices. The Proposed Project would provide eight electric vehicle/vanpoolreserved parking spaces to reduce the need for consumption of gasoline supplies for Leverage Technology Innovations transportation. Additionally, the Project would install rooftop solar panels to supplement electricity supplies from utilities. Therefore, the Project would leverage technology innovations. The Project would be constructed in accordance with the City of Santa Support Implementation of Sustainable Clarita Green Building Code. Policies Therefore, the Project would support implementation of sustainabik policies. As stated above, the Project would install rooftop solar panels to supplement the Project's electricity demand on utilities. Further, theProject would preserve portion of the Project Site as is, with development concentrated on approximately 1.1 acres on the eastern portion of the Project Site. In total, the building footprint and hardscape area would encompass approximately 18 percent Promote a Green Region of the total Project Site, with the remaining land consisting of new landscaping and undeveloped, naturally vegetated land. This would preserve regional wildlife habitat and protected oak trees, and would seiveto reduce the urban heat island effect, which is the result of expanses of hardscapes. With preservation of portion of the Project Site as natural open space and compliance with mandatory sustainable desi 74 Initia 1 Study standards, such as low flow water fixtures and rooftop photovoltaic panels, the Project would support develo mentofa greenregion. Source: SCAG, 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (ConnectSoCal), September2020. CARE 2OI7SCOpZngPlan The principal State plan and policy is Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, and the follow up, Senate Bill (SB) 32. The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990levels by 2020, and the goal of SB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 203 0. Pursuant to the SB 3 2 go al, the 2017 Scoping Plan was created to outline goals and measures for the state to achieve the reductions. The 2017 ScopingPlan's goals include reducing fossil fuel use and energy demand and maximizing recycling and diversion from landfills. The Project would be consistent with these goals through Project design, which, as described above, includes complying with the latest Title 24 standards (including the CALGreen Code and Building Efficiency Energy Standards) and installing energy -efficient features, such as light -emitting diode (LED) lighting; water -efficient faucets, showers, and toilets; Energy Star certified appliances; and water efficient landscaping and irrigation systems. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan. Therefore, based on the above analysis, the Project would not generate GHG emissions during construction or operations that would have a significant impact on the environment, nor would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, impacts related to Project GHG emissions would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. IX. HAZARDS AND a) Less Than Significant Impact: Materials are generally considered hazardous if HAZARDOUS they are poisonous (toxicity), can be ignited by open flame (ignitability), conode MATERIALS other materials (corrosivity), or react violently, explode, or generate vapors when mixed with water (reactivity). The term "hazardous material" is defined in the California Health and Safety Code as any material that, because of its quantity, concentration, orphysicalor chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environmentif released into the workplace or the environment." The code additionally states that a hazardous material becomes a hazardous waste once it is abandoned, discarded, or recycled. The transportation, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, a s well as the potential release of hazardous materials to the environment, are closely regulated through state and federal laws. Such laws include those incorporated into the California Health and Safety Code, such as the California Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory law and the California Hazardous Waste Control law, as well as other regulations governing hazardous waste promulgated by state and federal agencies, such as the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the US Environmental Protection Agency. The Proposed Project would construct an assisted living and memory care facility, including associated surfaceparking, driveways, and outdoor living areas (including both landscaping and hardscaping) on an undeveloped lot. Operation and 55 California Health and Safety Code, Section 25501(n)(1). 75 Initia 1 Study in aintenance of the facility and grounds by employ ees and contractors would likely involve the routine transport, use, and disposal of minor quantities of typical household hazardous materials, such as cleaning products, solvents, adhesives, refrigerants, paints, other chemicals used in building maintenance, smallamounts of oil and fuel associated with internal combustion engines, pesticides and herbicides, sharp or used needles, and electronic waste. This level of hazardous materials use would be typical for institutional uses and has not been identified as a significant threat to the environment. Regulations, such as those mentioned above, strictly regulate the use, transportation, and disposal of hazardous waste; they include training for employees in how to properly handle anddispose of hazardous materials, as well as filing floorplans with the Los Angeles County Fire Department showing loca tions o f hazardous material storage. Based on the typ e o f land use proposed; the fact that the Project Site is undeveloped and has notbeenused for anything other than light horse keeping in the recent past; the relatively minor anticipated level of use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials; and the requirement to comply with various state and federal laws regulating hazardous materials, the Project would notresult in significant impact involving the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. b) Less Than Significant Impact: Locations known to contain toxic substances and contamination are identified using data from the California DTSC. The Project Site is not identified as cleanup site, nor is it within one-half mile of a cleanup site listed in the EnviroStor database.56 Further, the GeoTracker database, maintained by the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), identified six cleanup sites within one-half mile of the Project Site. These cleanup sites are locatedat 23922 San Fernando Road (also known as Newhall Avenue), 20500 San Fernando Road (two cleanup sites at this address), 24347 SanFemando Road, 23502 SanFemando Road, and 2453 San Fernando Road. Five of these cleanup sites are former leaking underground storage tanks associated with fueling stations, all of which have completed cleanup requirements.s' The sixth cleanup site is located at 20500 San Fernando Road and is listed as a Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) site associated with a Chevron service station, which was classified as completed in 2001.58 Because Project -related ground disturbance would be limited to the Project Site, which is not listed on hazardous waste disposal or cleanup databases maintained by the state, the Project would not result in reasonably foreseeable upsetof existing contamination located at the cleanup sites in the Proj ect vicinity. Construction activities may also include refueling and minor maintenance of construction equipment on -site, which could lead to small fuel and oil spills; however, as described in response to Threshold Question X.a), below, a variety of routine construction control measures would be incorporated, including spill prevention/containment, sedimentation and erosion controls, and irrigation controls, to prevent conditions that would release hazardous materials into the environment during Project construction. Further, Project operation would not result in substantial use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials, as described in response to thepreceding threshold. Anysuch use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would be strictly regulated by state and federal laws. Therefore, there would notbe a significant hazard to the public involving the accidentalrelease of hazardous materials into the environment during Project operation. As such, the Proposed Project would not result in any reasonably - California Department of Toxic Substances Control, BnviroStordatabase query, completed January 9, 2020. 57 California State water Resources Control Board, GeoTracker database query, completed January 9, 2020. 58 California State water Resources Control Board, GeoTracker database, WDR100001357 report, January 9, 2020. 76 Initia 1 Study foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving explosion or the release of hazardous materials into the environment and impacts wouldbe less than significant c) No Impact: The nearest schoolto the Project Site is the Dr. J. MichaelMcGrath Elementary School, which is approximately 0.8 miles northwest of the Project Site (at 21501 Deputy Jake Drive, Santa Clarita, California). Therefore, there are no existing or proposed schools within one -quarter mile of the Project Site and there would be no impact. d) No Impact: The Project Site is not included on the Cortese list, which is the list of sites compiled by California DTSC under Government Code Section 65962.5.59 This means that the Project Site is not included on DTSC's list of: (65962.5(a)(1)) hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section251875 of the Health and Safety Code (the nearest site is located on 23357 Lyons Avenue, which is over 2.3 miles northwest of the Project Site);60 (65962.5(a)(2)) land designated as hazardous waste property orborder zoneproperty pursuant to Article 11;61 (65962.5(a)(3)) information received regarding waste disposals on public land;62 (65962.5(a)(4)) all sites listed pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code;63 or (65962.5(a)(5)) all sites included in the Abandoned Site Assessm entprogram.64 As such, the Proposed Project would notbe located on a site included on the Cortese List and would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment e), f) No Impact: The nearest airport to the Project Site is the Whiteman Airport, which is approximately 8.5 miles southeast of the Project Site. Therefore, the Project Site is notwithin 2 miles of apublic orprivate airportandwould notresult in asafety hazardor excessivenoise forpeople residing or working in the Proj ectarea, and there would be no impact. g) Less Than Significant Impact: As stated in the City's General Plan Safety Element, the City has freeway access along three routes, I-5 and SR 14 goingnorth and south, and SR 126 goingwest, which wouldbeusedin the eventof an emergency evacuation .65 There havebeen isolated incidents in the past that have restricted travel or closed these major evacuation routes, such as a 30-carpileup on I-5 and the Northridge earthquake in 1994, which damaged the I-5 and SR 14 interchange. For such future similar scenarios, the City's Emergency Operations Center, in coordination with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Traffic Division, California Highway Patrol, Caltrans, andMetrolink, developed traffic plans for alternateroutes and added additional commuter tra insto existing routesto alleviate traffic concerns. The Project would have two ingress and two egress points onto Sierra Highway, which is classified asa Major Arterial by the City's GeneralPlan. Both of the Project Site egress points would be right -turn -only onto Sierra Highway southbound, from which Project occupants could connect to the northbound I-5 or to Foothill Boulevardto 1-2 10 eastbound. 59 California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), Cortese List Data Resources, https://calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/, accessed January 10, 2020. 60 California DTSC, EnviroStor Database, Cortese List Hazardous waste and Substances Site List, January 10, 2020. 61 California SWRCB, GeoTracker Database, Cortese List Map of Active LUSTS, Santa Clarita, California, January 10, 2020. 62 California S WRCB, List of Site identified with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels outside the waste management unit, January 10, 2020. 63 California S WRCB, List of active Cease and desist orders and cleanup and abatement orders that do not concern discharges of wastes that are hazardous materials, January 10, 2020. 64 California DTSC, Cortese List: Section 65962.5(a), January 10, 2020. 65 City of Santa Clarita, General Plan, Safety Element, June 2011. 77 Initia 1 Study The City hasa Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP), adopted in 2004and updated in 2010 and 2015, which provides a framework for communications, decisions, and actions by emergency response personnel for emergencies requiring evacuation.66 The command structure would assess local conditions in an ongoing manner, to identify locations and severity of threats to life and property. Based on those assessments, decisions would be made on where to focus hazard response efforts, initiate calls for backup assistance and assignment of additional resources, and when/where to implement emergency evacuations if no other options are deemed viable. This existing emergency response system would be sufficient to address emergency evacuation scenarios for hazard events in the Project area that require evacuation of some or all of the Proposed Project. Further, the Project's proposed emergency access would be evaluated as part of the development review process, including whether the Project would have adequate driveway widths to accommodate access by fire trucks.67 Therefore, with compliance with the City's emergency access evaluation through the development review process, and the existing HMP, the Project would not impair implementation or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and impacts would be less than significant h) Less Than Significant Impact: Impacts associated with wildfire, as well as a discussion of Project access, water flow, and proposed fuel modification strategies, are provided in Section XX of this Initial Study, Wildfire. As discussed in that section, the Project would notresult in any significant environmental impacts related to wildfire. i) Less Than Significant Impact: Hazards associated with overhead transmission lines range from exposure to electrical magnetic fields to live wires and flashovers when a person or equipment gets too close to anoverheadline. Surface or subsurface - level natural gas or other fuel lines can pose risks when improper contact is made, resulting in leaks, fire, and/or explosions. While the Proj ect Site is currently undeveloped, it is located in a suburban area with major utilities running underneath nearby roads, such as Sierra Highway. Aboveground power lines run north and south along the east side of Sierra Highway and donot cross the Project Site boundary. Belowground, there is an existing oil line and high-pressure gas line running beneath Sierra Highway. The existing oil line runs north and south within the Sierra Highway right-of-way and does not cross the Project Site boundary. A high-pressure gas line is also located within the Sierra Highway right-of-way, which runs north and south; however, near the northem Project Site boundary, the gas line turns northwest and extends northwest, underneath the municipalPark andRide lotandthe driveway serving the auto -tuning shop immediately north of the Project Site. Since the majority of these utility lines are located underground, potential hazards would be reduced with standard construction precautions (such as identifying the location of gas lines before any Project -related ground disturbance takesplace). The overhead electricalpowerlines are located off -site and would not pose a significant risk to Project occupants. Therefore, theProjectwould notexposepeople to existing sourcesofpotentialheahh hazards and impacts would be less than significant X. HYDROLOGYAND The following analysis is based on information containedin the Hydrolog Study WATER QUALITY prepared for the Proposed Project, prepared by CRC Enterprises, dated June 9, 2020, and approvedby the City of Santa Clarita Engineering Services Division on 66 City of Santa Clarita, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, September 2015. 67 City of Santa Clarita, General Plan, Safety Element, June 2011. 78 Initia 1 Study June 10, 2020. This report, herein referred to as the Hydrology Study, is included as Appendix G of this Initial Study. a) Less Than Significant Impact: The Project Site is currently undeveloped land with no existing drainage devices on -site. Stormwater currently flows as a sheet in an easterly direction and leaves the Project Site at the northeast corner of the site. This runoff then continues northerly a long the northerly adjac en t property. Section 303 of the federalClean Water Act 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 SWRCB are required to develop water quality objectives that ensure theirregion m eets the requirements of Section 303. 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 stormwater achieves compliance with receiving water lim itations. Thus, stormwater generated by a development that complies with the SQMP doesnot exceedthe limitations of receiving waters andthus doesnot exceed water quality standards. Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, which is known as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, regulates point source and non - point source discharges to surface waters. Under this section, municipalities are required to obtain permits for the water pollution generated by stormwater in their jurisdiction. These permits are known as Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Sy stems (MS4) permits. Stormwater and non-stormwater flows enter and are conveyed through the MS4 and discharged to surface water bodies of the Los Angeles region. These discharges are regulated under countywide waste discharge requirements contained in Order No. R4-2012-0175 (NPDES Permit 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 Municipal Code prescribes the requirem ents o f the NPDES compliance for all proposed grading activities. 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 Los Angeles County's LID Standards Manual Therefore, the applicant is required to prepare a LID plan for review and approval by the City that includes 1) feasibility of infiltration including a percolation report, 2) source control easures, 3) calculation of the Stormwater Quality Design Volume (SWQDv) which must be retained on -site, 4) discussion of the feasibility of stormwater runoff harvest and use, 5) stormwater quality control measures, and 6) proposed operation and maintenance plan. During construction, short-term impacts would occur whenpollutants of the greatest concern are sediment which may run off the Project Site during site gra ding or other site preparation activities, and hydrocarbon or fossil fuel remnants/spills from construction equipment and construction worker vehicles. In addition, on -site watering activities to reduce airborne dust could contribute to pollutant loading in surface runoff. The ProposedProject wouldbe required tocomply with all applicable City grading permit regulations to reduce sediment and erosion. Since the Project Site is greater than 1 acre in size, the Project would be required to obtain coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit with the state and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) with erosion and sediment control 79 Initia 1 Study measures to eliminate or control pollutants discharged from the Project Site. Implementation of the SWPPP and compliance with the City's permitting process would ensure that construction of the Project would not significantly alter the drainage on the Project Site orresult in discharges from the Project Site that would impactwater quality. Potential pollutants during Project operation would be typical of pollutants from urban land uses and would include runoff from impervious surfaces, which may contain sediment from vehicles using the Site, debris from landscaped and hillside areas, and oils/leakage from vehicles and maintenance equipment. Stormwater mnoff from the Project Site could result in the discharge of these potential pollutants into the City's storm drain system. As discussedabove, stormwater discharges containing urban pollutants are regulated by the countywide MS4 permit. The Project would include best m anagementpractices (BMPs) to treat the Proj ect's stormwaternmoff prior to discharge, such as biofiltration. Specifically, the Project would include desilting inlets at the western and southern ends of the development area, which would serve to interceptany debris from the adjacent hillside. The proposed locations for these desilting inlets are identified on Figure 12. Further, there would be various devices/catch basins on the Proj ect Site, which would collect the runoff and send it to one of two proposed underground infiltration devices. These underground infiltration basins would be located on the south end of the development area, underneath the loading area, and on the north end of the development area, immediately south o f the four surface parking spaces. The proposed locations for the infiltration basins are provided on Figure 12. A sump pump would pump water to an existing catch basin where the water would outlet to the north, consistent with existing conditions. The Hydrology Study prepared for the Proposed Project indicates that, compared with existing conditions, the Project would result in an additional runoff of 0.67 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 17,377 cubic feet during a 5 0 -y ear storm event (8.4 inches of rainfall), as is consistent with the County o f Los Angeles' Hydrology Manual. The LID analysis included in the Hydrology Study, which was performed to meet the requirements of the Los Angeles County's LID Manual, indicates that for a 85'1percentile-24 hour storm (1 inch of rainfall), the Project would generate 0.37 cfs, with a SWQDv of 2,959 cubic feet. The infiltration basinsproposed on the Project Site wouldbe sized to accommodate thisvolume of stormwater. In short, the Proj ectwould include desilting inlets to intercept any debris flow from the adjacent hillside. Runoff would be collected by various catch basins on -site to collect the runoff and convey it to one of two proposed underground infiltration trenches and then to a proposed sump pump. The runoff would outlet at the northeasterly corner of the site, same as in existing conditions. The proposed underground infiltration basins would be sized to accommodate the required SWQDv. With these Project features, as well as compliance with MS4 pennit and NPDES permit requirements, the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. As such, Project impacts would be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact: The Project Site is locatedwithin the Santa Clara River Valley Subbasin of the Santa Clara River Valley Groundwater Basin. Groundwater in the Santa Clara River Valley Subbasin is replenished by the Santa Clara River andits tributaries, andby stormwater percolation. 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 notphysically interfere with any groundwater supplies. 80 Initia 1 Study The Santa Clara River and its tributaries are the primary groundwater recharge areas for the Santa Clarita Valley.68 Because the Project Site is currently undeveloped, stormwater on the Project Site either percolates into the soil or runs off the property as sheet runo ff. As such, the Proposed Proj ect would alter the drainage o f a portion of the Project Site by adding impervious surfaces and collecting/conveying on -site stormwater to a storm drain. The majority of the Project Site would remain as undeveloped, open space and would, therefore, continue to allow stormwater to percolate into the substrate. Additionally, as described in the response to Threshold Question X.a) above, stormwater within the development area would be conveyedto two underground infiltration basins, which would allow the stormwater to percolate into the substrate. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, and the Project would have a less than significant impact. 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 cause an increase in siltation and sedim entation by increasing both soil/water interaction tim e and the sediment load potential of water. The Project Site does not include any discernable drainage courses; however, it would alter the drainage of the site by installing an engineered drainage system. The proposed drainage plan does not include the channelization of any drainage courses and would not focus surface water flows into areas of exposedsoil. In addition, the on -site drainage system, in accordance with the NPDES requirements discussed in response to Threshold Question X.a) above, is also required to include BMPs to reduce erosion andsiltationto the maximum extent practicable. These BMPs include desilting inlets, catch basins with insert filters designed to physically screen pollutants (such as trash and debris), and two underground infiltration basins. Further, as discussed in the Hydrology Study developed for the Proposed Project the two infiltration basins would be designed to manage the SWQDv for the 85" percentile 24-hour stone event, which would be 2,959 cubic feet and 0.37 cfs. As such, stormwater generated by the Proposed Project would not exceed existing conditions and would, therefore, not be discharged at arate thatcouldlead to siltation or scouring of a natural channel. 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. d) Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed in response to Threshold Questions X.a) and X.c) above, the Proposed Project would include a drainage system that would comply with the MS4 permit to handle the increasedrunoffresulting from the Proposed Project's impervious surfaces on -site. Therefore, the Project would not result in flooding on- or off -site, and the Projectwould have a less than significant impact. e) Less Than Significant Impact: As discussedin response to Threshold Questions X.a), X.c), and X.d) above, the Project would not increase stormwater runoff dischargedfrom theProject Site. The Projectwould also comply with allapplicable City grading permit regulations and NPDES requirements, and would implement BMPs to reduce and treat stormwater runoff from the Project Site. The Project is required to comply with the City's engineering standards for volume of water discharged in the storm drain system and would comply with the City's stormwater 68 City of Santa Clarita, General Plan, Conservation and Open Space Element, 2011. 81 Initia 1 Study ordinance to ensure that stormwater flows are properly treated before entering the storm drain system. As such, the existing stormwater infrastructure in the Project vicinity would have the capacity to serve the Project Site. Therefore, the Proposed Project wouldnot significantly affect the capacity of the stormwater drainage system and would not create any source of polluted runoff. f) Less Than Significant Impact: There are no water features on the Project Site. The nearestwa ter feature is the riverine feature identified by the National Wetlands Inventory located immediately west of the Project Site boundary. Because all proposed improvements associated with the Project would be concentrated on the eastern side of the Project Site, the Projectwould not alter this riverine feature, or any other water sources in the surrounding area. The Project would notbe a point - source generator of water pollutants and compliance with the City's stormwater ordinance would ensure that the Proposed Project would not generate stormwater pollutants thatwould substantially degrade water quality. However, as described above, the Project has the potential to generate short-term water pollutants during construction, including sediment, trash, construction materials, and equipment fluids. The countywide MS4 permit requires construction sites to implement BMPs to reduce the potential for construction -induced water pollutant impacts. These BMPs include methods to prevent contaminated construction site stormwater and 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 controlor structural BMPs; 2. Construction -related materials, wastes, spills, or residues shall be retained at the Project Site to avoid discharge to streets, drainage facilities, receiving waters, or adjacent properties by wind or runoff, 3. Non-stormwater runoff from equipment andvehicle wa shing and any other activity shallbe contained at the Proj ect Site; and 4. Erosion from slopes andchannels shallbe controlledby 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. As discussed abovein Threshold Question X.a), the Project is greater than 1 acre in size and is required to obtain coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit and submit to the SWRCB a Notice of Intent that includes an SWPPP outlining the BMPs that would be incorporated during construction to minimize construction -induced water pollutants by controlling erosion and sediment, establishing waste handling/disposalrequirements, and providing non-stormwater management procedures. Compliance with both the MS4's construction site requirements and the state's Construction General Permit, as well as implementing an SWPPP, ensures that construction activities on the Project Site would not significantly impact water quality and impacts wouldbe less than significant. g, h) No Impact: The Project Site is located within Zone D on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) flood insurance rate map, which means 82 Initia 1 Study the Project Site is included within an area of "undetermined flood hazard."" The Project is not located within a special flood hazard area (Zone A). Therefore, the Proposed Projectwouldnot place housing within a flood hazard area, nor would the Project place a structure within a 100-year flood hazard area that would impede or redirect flood flows. As such, theProj ect would have no related impacts. i) No Impact: As stated above, Project Site is not within a mapped flood hazardarea, and there are no levees or dam 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 Proj ectwould have norelated impacts. j) No Impact: No bodies of water in the vicinity of the Project Site are capable of producing seiche or tsunami. Similarly, the Project Site is not in an area prone to landslides, soil slips, or slumps. Runoff and debris from thehillside area to the west of the proposed development area would be collected by desilting inlets and catch basins with filter inserts. Stormwater would then be conveyed to underground infiltration basins, as described above. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact from seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. k) Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project would alter the Project Site's drainage patterns as compared with existing conditions. However, as discussed in the responses to Threshold Questions X.c) and X.d) above, compliance with City engineering requirements and the City's stormwater ordinance would ensure proper design of the proposed drainage system. In addition, the Project would require grading to prepare the proposed development area for the assisted living andmemory care facility. While the Pro jectwould require grading, as shown on the Grading Plan, available as Figure 12, grading would not extend into the groundwater table and would not place any subterranean structuresor foundations thatwould encroach into groundwater aquifer, as discussed in the Geotechnical Report prepared for this Project, available as Appendix F. Consequently, groundwater flows would not be affected. Further, there are no surface water features on the Project Site that would be impacted by the Proposed Project 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. I)No Impact: As previously discussed, the Proj ect Site does not contain a creek or riverine feature. As such, the Proj ect would notresult in the modification of a creek channel or river wash area. Therefore, there would be no impact in this regard. m) Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed above in response to Threshold Questions X.a), X.b), and X.d), the Project is required to comply with the City's stormwater ordinance, the countywide MS4 permit, and the State's NPDES Construction General Permit and is required to implement a LID compliance plan and SWPPP. Compliance with these requirements of the Clean Water Act and the NPDES would ensure the Proposed Project would not significantly impact stormwater management Further, the Project's engineered stormwater facilities would be designed so that stormwater flows off -site would not increase during the 85'1' percentile storm event as a result of Project construction, as discussed in response to Threshold Question X.a). As such, the Project would not significantly increase flows, impair beneficial uses of downstream uses, or harm the biological integrity of downstream waters. Finally, the Project would be required to comply with the City of Santa Clarita's construction and demolitionrecycling ordinance (05- 09) as well as required City recycling programs during operation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. "Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map 06037C1032F, 2008. 83 Initia 1 Study XI. LAND USE AND a) No Impact: As shown in Figure 10 of this Initial Study, the Project Site is located PLANNING in a suburban part of the City of Santa Clarita, where the surrounding built environment consists of large lot single-family residential to the northwest, open space/cemetery use to the south, commercialuses to thenorth, and a vacantlot to the east across Sierra Highway. The Project would use an existing public street (Sierra Highway) for access to the senior living facility andwould connect to utilities located within Sierra Highway. The Project would not result in the construction of a linear feature, such as railroad tracks, a flood controlchannel, or a majorroadway. Further, it would not otherwise result in a physical division of an established community or any physical alterations to landuses beyond the Project Site. Therefore, the Project would not physically divide an established community and there would be no impact b) No Impact: As stated in the Project Description of this Initial Study, the Project Site has GeneralPlan andzoningdesignationof Mixed -Use Corridor (MX-C) and is not included within any specific plan area. The MX-C land use designation is intended to promote the development of mixed -use development on specific commercial corridors in the City. An allowable residential use within this land use designation includes residential health care facilities, which require an approved Conditional Use Permit.70 Further, building heights within the MX-C zone are limited to a maximum of 50 feet As such, the Project would require a Conditional Use Permit to allow the structure to have a maximum height of 56 feet, 3 inches. Further, the City's Planned Development overlay zone includes the Project Site and is intended to provide additional discretion for previously vacant, or underutilized parcels. According to the Santa Clarita municipal code, all new developed located within the Planned Development overlay zone requires a Conditional Use Pernik therefore, a Conditional Use Permit is required for the Proposed Project' The Proposed Proj ectwould also require a minorusepermit to deviate from the minimum residential density within an MX-C zone. While the Project proposes to exceed maximum allowable height restrictions for the Project Site, the Project would be consistentwith the underlying City zoning and General Plan land use designation, as residential health care facilities are conditionally alloweduses in the MX-C zone. The Project Site is not within an area where special land use policies or zoning standards have been created for the purpo se of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects, nor is it within a local coastal program. However, the Project would be required to comply withthe City's existing Oak Tree Preservation regulations. Under these regulations, the Project would require an oak tree removal permit for the removalof five oak trees, as described in the response to Threshold Question IV.e. Implementation of mitigation measures described in Section IV, Biological Resources, relating to oak tree permits and construction -related encroachment protections, would ensure the Project's compliance with the City's Oak Tree Preservation ordinance. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the Project Site's General Plan and zoning designation and wouldnot conflict with any existing specific plan area, coastal zone, or other plan adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect Therefore, the Projectwould not conflict with any suchplan andthere would beno impact c) No Impact: As discussed in theresponseto Threshold Question IV.0 of this Initial Study, the Project Site is notwithin a habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved environmental resource conservation plan. Further, there are no land use restrictions for the Project Site that would require conservation of the Project Site for purposes of protecting wildlife habitat or other 10 City of SantaClarita, Municipal Code Section 17.35.010, Mixed -Use Corridor Zone. 71 City of SantaClarita, Municipal Code Section 17.38.060, Planned Development Overlay Zone 84 Initia 1 Study natural resources and there are no policies in the City's Safety Element thatestabm land use restrictions for the Project Site pertaining to avoidance of environmental hazards. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any adopted environmental conservation plans, and the Project would have no related impacts. XIL MINERAL AND a—b) No Impact: The Proj ect Site is not located within a Mineral Resource Zone as ENERGY RESOURCES shown on Exhibit CO-2, Mineral Resources, of the City's General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element." The Project Site is surrounded by MRZ-2 designated land to thewest andan estimatedoil andgas fieldto thenorth.73 As such, theProject Site does not contain any known mineral resources. Further, the Project Site has a General Plan and zoning designation of Mixed -Use Corridor (MX-C). Mineral recovery is not an allowable use within this zone. Therefore, theProj ectwould notresult in the loss of availability of aknown resotuce, and the Projectwould have no related im pacts. c) Less Than Significant Impact: A discussion of Project -related impacts associated with consumption of energy resources during construction andoperation is included in Section VI, Energy, of this Initial Study. Beyond fossil fuel consumption, the Project would utilize building materials and human resources for construction of the Project, many of which would be 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 maintenanceof the Proposed Project. Market -rate conditions encourage the efficient use of materials and manpower during construction. Similarly, the energy and water resources thatwould b e 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 impacts would be less than significant. XIIL NOISE The following analysis is based in part on the information contained in the "Noise and Vibration Study Sierra West Assisted Living and Memory Care Project" (Noise Study) prepared by Envicom Corporation, dated October 16, 2020. This report is available as Appendix H o f this Initial Study. The Noise Ordinance contained in the City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code provides exteriornoise standards forthe City, which are applicable to the Proposed Project: 11.44.040 Noise Limits. A. It shall be unlawful for any person within the city to produce or cause or allow to be producednoise which isreceived on property occupied by another person within the designated region, in excess of the following levels, exceptas expressly provided otherwise herein: City of Santa Clarita, General Plan, Conservation and Open Space Element, Exhibit CO-2, Mineral Resources. City of Santa Clarita, General Plan, Conservation and Open Space Element, Exhibit CO-2, Mineral Resources. 85 Initia 1 Study Table XIII-1 Noise Limits Region. Time Sound Level dB Residential zone Day 65 Residential zone Night 55 Commercial and Manufacturing Day 80 Commercial and Manufacturing Night 70 At the boundary line between a residential property and a commercial and manufacturing property, the noise level of the quieter zone shallbe used. B. Corrections to Noise Limits. The numerical lim its given in SubsectionA above shallbe adjustedby the following corrections, where the following noise conditions exist: Table XIII-2 Correction to Noise Limits Noise Condition Correction (in dB) (1) Repetitive impulsive noise -5 (2) Steady whine, screech, or hum -5 The following corrections apply to day only: (3) Noise occurring more than 5 but less than 15 +5 minutes per hour (4) Noise occurring more than 1 but less than 5 +10 minutes per hour (5) Noise occurring less than 1 minute per hour +20 11.44.070 Special Noise Sources —Machinery, Fans, and Other Mechanical Devices. Any noise level from the use oroperationof any machinery, equipment, pump, fan, air conditioning apparatus, refrigerating equipment, motor vehicle, or other m echanicalor electrical device, or in repairing orrebuilding any motorvehicle, which exceeds thenoise limits as setforth 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, shallbe a violationof this chapter. 11.44.080 Special Noise Sources —Construction and Building No person shall engage in any construction work which requires a building permit from the City on sites within three hundred (3 00) feet of aresidentially 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 followingpublic holidays: New Year's Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas, Memorial Day, and Labor Day. Emergency work is permitted atalltimes. [As defined in SCMC Section 11.44.020]: Emergency work shall m can work made necessary to restore property to a safe condition following a public calamity, or work required to protect persons or 86 Initia 1 Study property from an imminent exposure to danger, or work by private or public utilities when restoring utility service. The Department of Community Developmentmay issue apermit forwork tote done "after hours"; provided, that containment of construction noises is provided. a) Less than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project would construct a senior living and memory care facility, which is considered a sensitive noise receptor. The City's General Plan Noise Elementincludes land use compatibility guidelines, which provide acceptable noise levels for various land use categories.74 The normally acceptable noise level for residential multi -family homes, as well as nursing homes, is between 50 and 60 dBA. Noise levels between 60 and 70 dBA are conditionally acceptable for these uses, and would require incorporation of noise insulation features in the Proj ect's design. B ased on the Noise Contour Map available as Exhibit N-6 of the City's General Plan Noise Element, the Proj ectSite is locatedwithin a 60 dBA contour area. Further, existing ambient noise levels were monitored at three locations within the proposed development area, which are depicted in Figure 3 of theNoise Study.As shown in Table 4-1 of the Noise Study, available asAppendix H of this Initial Study, the existing daytim e ambient noise levels ranged from 61 dBA to 65.4 dBA, with an average ambientnoise levelon theProj ect Site of 62.7 dBA.'s The land uses in the Project vicinity include single-family homes to the northwest, commercial uses to the north, a vacant lot to the east across Sierra Highway, and a m em orialpark and m ortuary to the south. There are no sensitive receptors within300 feet of the Project Site, as the single-family residential property to the northwest is located approximately 380 feet from the westernmost property boundary. The memorial park and mortuary to the south is not considered a sensitive receptor, as the City does not have noise standards specific to cemeteries. The use of equipment during construction of the Proposed Project would result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels. Perm anent increases in ambient noise levels would be due to operation of Project components such as HVAC units and vehicle trips generated on localroadways. The following impact analysis considers each of these types of noise impactsby topic. Construction The Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Construction Noise Handbook contains a national database of construction equipment noise levels, which the FHWA uses as reference noise levels in the Roadway Construction Noise Model Table XIII-3, below, identifies highest (L...) noise levels associated with the quantity and type of construction equipment expected in Project construction. This table is organized by equipment and describes the noise level for each piece of equipment at a 50-foot distance between the equipment and thereceptor. Construction proceeds in phases demolition, site preparation, rough grading, final grading, and vertical construction with each phase involving different types of construction equipment As shown in Table XIII-3, below, the construction equipment that generate the highest sound pressure levels are graders (used in the grading phase of construction) and cement mixers (used in the paving phase of 64 City of Santa Clarita, General Plan, Noise Element, Exhibit N-8, Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines, 2011. " Ambient noise data were collected on October 29, 2019 between 10:42 AM and 11:35 AM by Envicom Corporation, using a CasellaCEL- 633C Sound Level Meter meeting American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards S 1. 112004 (Type 1, D, Order 4, D). 87 Initia 1 Study construction), both of which would produce a maximum sound level (LmaX) of 85 dBA. Table XIII-3 Maximum Construction Equipment Noise Phase Equipment', Type I max at 50 ft. dBAY Site Preparation (grubbingand tree removal) Dozer Mobile 82 Loader Mobile 79 Tractor/Loader/B ackhoe Mobile 84 Loader Stationary 79 Grader Mobile 85 Grading (including soil import Rubber -tired Loader Mobile 79 Excavator Mobile 81 Dozer Mobile 82 Tractor/Loader/B Mobile 84 ackhoe Crane Mobile 81 Forklifts- Mobile 75 Building Generator Stationary 81 Construction Welder Stationary 74 Tractor/Loader/B Mobile 84 ackhoe Cement/Mortar Stationary 85 Mixer Paver Mobile 77 Paving Rollers Mobile 80 Paving Mobile 77 Equipment Tractor/Loader/B Mobile 84 ackhoe Architectural Air Compressor Stationary 78 Coating (painting) Source: FHWA, Construction Noise Handbook, 2006, Ch. 9, Construction Equipment Noise Levels and Ranges. Notes: 1. Equipment list generated by the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2016.3.2. 2. Typical noise level for comparable equipment type (manlift). This LmaX of 85 dBA is used to determine the hourly Leq for both the grader or cement mixer. Through the incorporation of usage factors obtained from the FHWA Construction Noise Handbook, which represent the portion of time equipment operates at fullpower, the Leq forboththe grader and the cement mixer would be 81 dBA at 50 feet The nearestreceptor identified by the Noise Study, the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary, is located 215 feet south of the proposed area of construction disturbance. This distance would reduce the noise generated by the loudest construction equipment, graders or cement mixers operating at 81 dBA, by 12.7 dBA to 68.3 dBA. The Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary is also separatedfrom the proposed assisted living facility by a steep ridge fine, which would furtherreduce noise impacts from Project -related construction activities. 88 Initia 1 Study As previously stated, since the memorial park and mortuary is not a residentially zoned property and there are no residentially zoned properties within 3 00 feet of the Project Site, the Project is not subject to the allowable hours for construction and building specified in the Municipal Code.76 In addition, there are no other established noise limits in the Municipal Code for construction noise. Furthermore, the 68.3 dBA maximum noise level from construction equipment, with attenuation, would be below the daytime and nighttime exterior noise limits of 80 dB and 70 dB, respectively, for commercial zones. Therefore, on -site construction noise impacts would be less than significant. Operation Although the Project Site is zoned Mixed -Use Corridor (MX-C), the following analysis conservatively applies the stricter residential zone standards, i.e., a daytime sound levelof 65 dB and nighttime sound levelof 55 dB, forthe operationalnoise evaluation." On -site OberationalNoise The Projectwould introduce stationary noise sources, mainly roof -mounted HVAC units, which are required to comply with City Noise Ordinance standards limiting the level of noise received on property occupied by another person. Table XIII4, below, presents the estimated noise levels that would be generated by the Project's roof -mounted mechanical equipment To reduce noise generated by roof -mounted HVAC units, the units would be shielded by a screen, set back from the property line, and built to manufacturer's specifications. Table XIII4 Calculations for Operational HVAC Noise To. of , Loq Distance HVAC Ambient; Ambient VAC dBAr from Leq d$A L,q3 Noise Units Property at Increase Line (%ety Property (tiBA) Line 88 HVAC 78.9 43.5 30.5 62.7 0.003 units Source: Bnvicom, Noise and Vibration Study, February 25, 2020. Notes: 1. Assumes all HVAC units for Project running simultaneously. 2. HVAC units would be set back approximately 20.5 feet from edge of northern roof and north - facing exterior wall would be set back at least 23 feet from northern property line, which is the closest property line to HVAC units. 3. Bnvicom, 2019, Ambient Sound Pressure Level Measurements, October 29. As shown in Table X11I4, the estimated noise level from the operation of HVAC unitswouldbe 30.5 dBA attheproperty line when accounting forthe loss of sound over distance (43.5 feetbetween the HVACunits andthe northernproperty line) and loss resulting from the metal screen that would surround th e H VAC units. Although the Project is located on property zoned Mixed Use -Corridor, as shown in Table XIII4, HVAC noise (30.5 dBA) would not exceed the most conservative daytime sound level standard of 65 dB and nighttime sound level of 55 dB for residential zones established in the City Noise Ordinance. 16 City of Santa Clarita, Municipal Code, Section 11.44.080, Special Noise Sources Construction and Building. 77 City of Santa Clarita, Municipal Code, Section 11.44.040, Noise Limits. 89 Initia 1 Study The combination of noise from operation of the HVAC units and ambient noise levels would result in an increase of less than 1 dB (0.003 dB) in the Project Site's ambient noise level. This in inim al ambient noise increase would not be perceptible to the human ear.78 Therefore, H VAC noise associated with Proj ect operation would not exceed standards established in the General Plan orNoise Ordinance and impacts would be less than significant. Off -site Opera tionalNo ise During project operations, Project -generated vehicle trips would cause an incremental increase in noise levels on local streets in thevicinity. When considering the combined effects of operational noise sources, noise levels cannot be added by arithmetic means because decibels are expressed in logarithmic units. In genera], doubling the noise at a source would only produce a 3 dB increase in the sound pressure level.79 Therefore, a doubling of traffic volume is required to result in a 3 dBA increase in noise, the point atwhich changes are barely perceptible to thehuman ear. Based on the Traffic Impact Study prepared for this Project, available as Appendix I of this Initial Study, the Pro jectwould generate an estimated 261 average daily trips (ADT).80 The existing ADT volume on the segm ent of Sierra Highway at the Project Site is 1 1,400trips.81 The addition of an estimated 216 daily tripsresulting from the Project to the existing 11,400 daily vehicle trips on Sierra Highway is an increase of 1.9 percent, which is below the 100 percent increase required to double traffic noise; therefore, the Proposed Projectwouldnotresult in a 3 dBA increase from operational vehicle trips. The addition of operational vehicle trip noise to the existing daytime and nighttime ambient noise levels would result in an increase of less than 1 dB (0.03 dB) in the ambient noise level, which would not be an audible increase in noise. Therefore, thevehicle trip noise of the Proposed Project would not exceed the most conservative daytime sound level standard of 65 dB and nighttime sound level standards of 55 dB for residential zones established in the City Noise Ordinance andwouldhave no im pact regarding exceedance of standards established in the General Plan andNoise Ordinance. Composite Operational Noise Table XIII-5, below, displays the composite operational noise level, which is the combination of operational HVAC noise with operational vehicle trip noise. Table XIII-5 Composite Operational Noise IIVAC L.q (dB) 'Vehicle Trips Composite Noise Level, Standard Significant Impact? 30.5 0.08 62.703 65 No 55.015 55 No Source: Envicom, Noise and Vibration Study, February 25, 2020. 78 According to Caltrans, the point at which changes in noise levels are perceptible to the human ear is 3 dBA. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Environmental Analysis, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Proto col, September 2013, page 2.15. 79 U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance, https:/hanvw.fhwa.dot.gov/environMent/noise/regulations and guidance polguide/polguide02.cfm, accessed March 3, 2020. 8o Associated Traffic Engineers, Traffic and Circulation Analysis for the Sierra west Assisted Living Project, City of SantaClarita, October 29, 2019. 81 Associated Traffic Engineers, Traffic and Circulation Analysis for the Sierra west Assisted Living Project, City of SantaClarita, October 29, 2019. 90 Initia 1 Study As shown in Table XIII-5, above, the combined effect of HVAC noise and vehicle trip noise would have an increase of less than 1 dB (0.003 dB) in the ambient noise level, for both daytime and nighttime noise level standards. Therefore, the composite operational noise of the Proposed Project would not exceed the most conservative daytime sound level standard of 65 dB, a s established in the City's Noise Ordinance. While the nighttime sound level standard of 55 dB for residential zones is only slightly exceeded, the Project itself would not cause an audible increase in noise levels and would, therefore, have no impact regarding exceedance of standards established in the GeneralPlan andnoise ordinance. Project operations would also include the use of domestic lawn mowers, backpack blowers, edgers, and landscape maintenance equipment for site upkeep. Contractors would reasonably be expected to conductroutine maintenance during daytim e hours, therefore avoiding th eperiodwhen such equipmentnoise is restricted by the City of Santa Clarita's noise regulations. The ProposedProj ect is consistent with the existing landuses in the area andwould not produce noise levels in excess of standards establishedin theCity's GeneralPlan or Noise Ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not expose persons to excess noise levels and would have no related significant impacts. b) Less Than Significant Impact: There are no established significance criteria to evaluate construction -related vibration impacts in the City of Santa Clarita. Therefore, the Caltrans guidelines contained within their Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, dated September 2013, are used to evaluate potential impacts related to construction vibration for potential building damage. Based on this Caltrans guidance, the criterion for structural vibration damage for older residential structures is 0.5 peak particle velocity (PPV) (in/sec) for transient vibration sources such as drop balls or other single, isolated events. As equipment generating continuous vibrations, such as vibratory compactors, would not be used during construction, the vibration damage criteria for transient sources of vibration is most appropriate for this Project. Based on the type of adjacent buildings (an auto -tuning business locatedwithin a former residential building) and the type of equipment expected to be used in construction, a structural damage criterion of 0.5 in/sec for older residential structures for transient sources is the standardused in this analysis. In term s of human response, groundborne vibration can range from severe to barely perceptible depending on whether the source is transientor continuous, the distance between the source andreceptor, andthe composition of the groundmaterial. These hum anresponses to ground -borne vibration vary from severe at2.0 PPV for transient sources of vibration (single, isolatedevents, such asblasting oruse of drop balls) to barely perceptible at 0.01 PPV for continuous sources of vibration. The Caltrans vibration criteria suggests the thresholds for human perception and annoyance are higher for transient vibration than for continuous or frequent intermittent vibration. For this analysis, an intermittent levelthatcould cause a strongly perceptible human response (i.e., 0.9 PPV in/sec) is the applicable standard used in this analysis. The closest building, an existing auto -tuning business located at 23347 Newhall Avenue, is situated 13.5 feet from the northern Project Site boundary.82 As stated above, this business is locatedwithin an older, residential -style building. Field -verified measurement by Fnvicom Corporation during site visit, October 29, 2019. 91 Initia 1 Study Table XIII-6 Estimated Ground -borne Vibration Levels During Construction Equipment PPV at 13.5 PPV at 25 ft PPV at 4 ft PPV at 75 ft ft(inlsee}r 4nlse4 (in/see), (iwscc} Large 0.224 0.089 0.056 0.017 Bulldozer Loaded 0.192 0.076 0.048 0.015 Trucks Jackhammer 0.088 0.035 0.022 0.007 Small 0.008 0.003 0.002 <0.001 Bulldozer Source: FTA, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Report No. 0123, September 2018. Notes: 1. Distance to nearest property line is 13.5 feet. As shown in Table XIII-6, the predicted vibration levels generated by a large bulldozer would be 0.224 PPV at a distance of 13.5 feet, which is below the level that could cause damage in older residential buildings (i.e., 0.5 PPV). Further, at 13.5 feet of separation, the predicted gro undborne vibration generated by a large bulldozer and loaded trucks (i.e., the most vibration intensive equipment anticipated onsite) would be below vibration levels necessary for a strongly perceptible humanresponse (i.e., 0.9 PPV in/sec). In conclusion, construction-relatedgroundborne vibration im pactswould not exceed applicable thresholds of significance for building damage in older residential buildings orvibration levels that would illicit a strongly perceptible humanresponse. Therefore, the Project would not result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels and impacts would be less than significant, with no mitigationrequired. Sources of vibrationduring Project operationwouldbe typicalof similaruses (e.g., vehicle circulation, delivery trucks, and building mechanical equipment) andwould not include any sources of substantial groundborne vibration such as heavy construction equipment. Such sources of operation vibration would not be perceptible at off -site sensitive receptors. Therefore, operation of the Proposed Project would not result in significant vibration impacts. c) Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed in the response to Threshold Question XIII.a) above, noise generated during Project operation wouldbe below the City's noise limits. Therefore, the Proposed Projectwould not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project and impacts would be less than significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed in response to Threshold Question XIILa) above, Project noise sources during construction would be below the City's noise limits. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a substantial temporary orperiodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project and impacts would be less than significant. e) No Impact: There are no public use airports in Santa Clarita, and no portion of the City is within an airport land use plan. f) No Impact: There are no private airstrips in Santa Clarita. 92 Initia 1 Study XIV. POPULATION AND a) Less Than Significant Impa ct: The ProposedProj ectwould construct an 83 unit HOUSING senior -living facility with assisted living and memory care levels of care; however, it would not include construction of growth -inducing infrastructure, such as roadway or utility extensions, to areas not already provided with such services. The Proj ect is anticipated to generate 137 residents at full capacity and approximately 21 employees.83 Because the Projectwould conform to the City's land use designation of MX-C upon completion of a Conditional Use Permit, the population growth associated with the Project is planned for in the City of Santa Clarita's General Plan. Further, the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS provides population and employment growth forecasts for municipalities within its j urisdiction, including the City o f Santa Clarita. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS estimates that the population in Santa Clarita will increase from 218,200 in 2016to 258,800 by 2045, and employment would increase from 91,200 in 2016 to 105,200 in 2045. Using these growth forecasts, the Proposed Project would account for approximately 0.34 percent of forecasted population growth between 2016 and 2045 and 0.15 percent of forecasted employment growth between 2016 and 2045 in the City.84 As such, the Proposed Project would not result in sub stantialunplanned population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly, and impacts would be less than significant. b) No Impact: The Proj ect Site is currently vacant Therefore, the Proposed Project would not displace any housing and would have no associated impacts. c) No Impact: The Project Site is currently vacant. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not displace any people and would have no associated im pacts. XV. PUBLIC SERVICES i) Less Than Significant Impact: Fire protection services for the Proj ect Site are provided by the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACoFD). Because the Project Site is currently vacant, construction of the Proposed Project (an 83unit assisted living and memory care facility) would increase the total number of structures servedby the LACoFD as comparedwith existing conditions. Thenearest fire station to the Project Site is Fire Station 73, which is located at 24875 North Railroad Avenue, approximately 2.25 miles northwest of the Project Site. Fire Station 73 provides emergency medical services, fire and rescue services, and safe haven services. The Project does not propose a unique land use or type of structure that cannotbe adequately served by LACoFD's existing resources. As such, Project impacts in this regard wouldb e less than significant. Furthermore, the Proj ect would be required to pay a fire -prevention im pact fee to the LACoFD upon issuance of the building perm it, which would further offset the burden for fire services.85 Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in the need for additional new or altered fk protection services and would not alter acceptable service ratios or response times. ii) Less Than Significant Impact: Po lice protection services for the Proj ect Site are providedby the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD). Specifically, the Project Site is served by the Santa Clarita Sheriff Station (SCV Station), located at 23740 Magic Mountain Parkway, which is staffed by 206 sworn personnel and 45 The Project would generate 137 residents because 29 of the proposed units would be studios, and the remaining 54 units would be one - bedroom or two -bedroom units. Assuming that up to two adult residents could occupy each one -bedroom or two -bedroom unit, the total number of residents would be 137. Employees were calculated using the Southern California Association ofGovemment's Employment Density Report, which provided an average employee density of 14.24 employees per acre for Special Care Facilities in Los Angeles County. While the Project Site is 3.99 acres in size, the buildable lot size is approximately 1.45 acres in size. Therefore, the estimated number of employees serving the Project would be 21. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Employment Density Study Summary Report, Table 13-1, Employment Densities (employees per acre) by Anderson Code, All Counties, 2001. Project -related proportion of population growth: 137 persons / (258,800-218,200)=0.34percent. Project -related proportion of employment growth: 21 employees / (105,200-91,200)= 0.15 percent. The City may collect mitigation fees for non -City agencies to implement goals and policies of the General Plan, as stated in Section 17.51.010(A) of the City's Municipal Code. 93 Initia 1 Study civilian employees. The LASD is currently constructing anew Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff's Station, which will include a 46,552-square-foot main station building and detention facility, as well as a 4,165-square-foot vehicle maintenance facility, a communications tower, and a helipad. The station, which will be locatedon Golden Valley Road, between Centre Pointe Parkway and Robert C. Lee Parkway, will be approximately three miles north of the Project Site and is anticipated to be operational in early 2021. The ProposedPro j ect would develop a currently vacant site with an 83 -unit assisted living and memory care facility, which would increase thedemandforpolice services provided by the LASD as compared with existing conditions. However, the Project does not propose any structures or uses that cannot be adequately served by the department's existing resources. The Proposed Project would also include on -site security resources, such as nurses and orderlies, to monitor andprotectresidents, as well as facility entry and exit points. Therefore, the Proposed Project is anticipated to have limited need for police services, other than to address infrequent minor crimes or vandalism issues on the property. As such, impacts would be less than significant. Furthermore, the Project would be required to pay a law enforcement development impact fee to the City upon issuance of the building permit, which would further offset the cost burden for police services and facilities. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in the need for additional new or altered police protection services and would not alter acceptable service ratios orresponse times. iii) No Impact: TheProject Site is locatedwithin theNewhall School District (NSD) for elementary school and the William S. Hart Union High School District (WHUHSD) for junior high and high school.86 However, because the Proposed Project would develop an assisted living and memory care facility, it would be inhabited by seniors and those affectedby memory loss. As such, there would not be any school -aged children living on the Project Site. Therefore, the Proj ect would not directly increase thepopulation of school -aged children servedby theNSDand the WHUHSD. The Project may indirectly result in the increase of school -age children living in Santa Clarita through the addition of approximately 21 employees; however, a portion of these employeesmay choose to live outside of the City andwould thus be located within other school districts. As such, the number of school -aged children associated with the Proposed Project that would live within the NSD and the WHUH SD would be negligible. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in the need fornew or expanded school facilities, which could result in environmental impacts, andtherewould be no impact. iv) Less Than Significant Impact: As stated in the Project Description of this Initial Study, the Proposed Project would constructan 83-unit senior living facility, which would include 54 assisted living units and 29 memory care units. The Proj ectwould include an enclosed courtyard for useby residents of the 29 memory care units. These residents,who would be afflicted with memory loss, are anticipatedto have limited mobility, and therefore would not substantially increase the demand on municipal parks and recreation resources. Additionally, the Project would provide outdoor landscaping with gardens and sitting areas on the rear of thebuilding (west elevation) for use by the Project's assisted living residents. Given the demographic of the residents of the proposed facility and the facility's onsite recreational amenities, the 86 William S. Hart Union High School District, Jr. High and High School Attendance Boundaries, March 2019; Newhall School District, SchoolSite Locator, http://apes. schoolsitelocator.com/?districtCode=00347, accessed January 2,2020. 94 Initia 1 Study Proposed Project would not result in the need for new or expanded parks. Impacts in this regard are less than significant. v) Less Than Significant Impact: The Project would involve the development of an 83-unit assisted living and memory care facility, which would provide on -site services, such as activities rooms and outdoor recreation space, for Proj ectresidents. Further, Project residents are anticipated to have limited mobility and are not expected to substantially increase the demand on public facilities, such as libraries and other governmentbuildings. The Projectwouldnotresult in the need for new or physically altered government facilities and, therefore, impacts in thisregard would be less than significant. Further, upon development review, the City m ayrequire the applicant to pay a development impact fee (in the form of a library facilities and technology mitigation fee), which would further offset any Project -related effects on public libraries and other government facilities. XVL RECREATION a) No Impact: As discussed in response to ThresholdXV.a)iv), above, the Project's residents are expected to have limited mobility and are not expected to substantially increase the demand on municipal park facilities. The Proposed Project would provide an enclosed, outdoor recreation area for memory care residents, outdoor gathering areas and gardens on the westernside o f the proposed structure for assisted living residents, and indoor activities rooms for allresidents. Therefore, the Project is not anticipated to result in physical deterioration of any existing recreational facilities, andwould have no related impacts. b) No Impact: As stated above, the Pro j ect is n o t anticip ated to increase the demand on municipal parks and recreation facilities in Santa Clarita. The Proposed Project would include outdoor recreation areas and indoor amenities such as a gym and activities rooms. Environmental impacts associated with construction of these recreational amenities are included in the Project analysis discussed in this Initial Study. Therefore, there would be no additional im pacts associated with constructing these outdoor recreation amenities beyond those already discussed. XVIL TRANSPORTATION/ The following analysis is based on the information contained in the Traffic and TRAFFIC Circulation Analysis for the Sierra West Assisted Living Project, City of Santa Clarita, prepared by Associated Transportation Engineers, dated October 29, 2019.87 This report, herein referred to as the Traffic Impact Study (TIS), is included as Appendix I of this Initial Study. A vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis, prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 (b), is included as Appendix J of this Initial Study. The TIS defined the study area for the analysis as generally containing the segment of Sierra Highway adjacent to the Project Site and the intersection of Sierra Highway and Newhall Avenue, north of the Project Site. The TIS analyzed the following conditions for potential Project -related transportation impacts on the surrounding roadway network: • Existing Conditions (Year 2019) — The analysis of existing traffic conditions provides a basis for the assessment of future traffic conditions. The Existing Conditions analysis in the TIS includes a description of key area streets and intersections, traffic volumes, and current operating conditions. The existing traffic volume for Sierra Highway and the existing AM and PM peak hour levels of service for the intersection of Sierra Highway and Newhall Avenue were taken from the year 2019 forecasts 87 Associated Transportation Engineers, Traffic and Circulation Analysis for the Sierra west Assisted Living Project, City of Santa Clarita, October 29, 2019. 95 Initia 1 Study provided in a traffic study prepared for the nearby Dockweiler Drive Alignment Project, completedin 2017." • Existing Conditions plus Project (2019) This scenario analyzes the potential intersection operation conditions and Sierra Highway operating conditions that could be expected if the ProposedProj ect were built under existing conditions. Cumulative Impacts without Project (2035) — This scenario analyzesthe potential intersection operating conditions thatcouldbe expected as aresul of regional growth and relatedproj ecttraffic in the study area by year 2035. Potential cumulative impacts are based on the year 2035 traffic forecasts contained in the traffic study prepared for the Dockweiler Drive Alignment Project. As discussed in the Dockweiler traffic study, the 2035 traffic volum es were provided by the City of Santa Clarita using the Santa Clarita Valley Con solid ated Traffic Model.89 This analysis provides the conditions by which the project impacts are evaluatedin the future atfullbuildout. • Cumulative Impacts with Project (2035) — This scenario analyzes the potential intersection operating conditions that could be expected if the Project were occupied in 2035. This analysis places the Project -generated traffic in the context of the Cumulative Impacts without Proj ect scenario to determine project significance. The City has established the following significance criteria to evaluate potential impacts of Project -generated traffic at the identified signalized study intersections: Table XVII-1: Project -Generated Traffic Significance Criteria D 1 35.0155.00 1 Equaltoorgreaterthan4seconds E, F I > 55.01 1 Equalto orgreaterthan2 seconds A project is considered to have a significant traffic impact on a signalized intersection if the increase in volume -to -capacity (V/C) ratio attributable to the Project exceeds a specific threshold based on the final intersection level of service (LOS). The minimum allowable increase in delay attributable to a Project decreases as the delay of the intersection increases. For arterial roadway s, the City's maximum acceptable LOS is LOS E. a) Less Than Significant Impact: Existing Conditions andExistingplus Project The Project Site wouldbe accessedfrom Sierra Highway,which originates near the SR 14 and I-5 interchange and traverses the Santa Clarita Valley to its terminus at lb David Evans and Associates, Traffic Impact Analysis: Dockweiler Drive Alignment Project, August 2017. 89 David Evans and Associates, Traffic Impact Analysis: Dockweiler Drive Alignment Project, August 2017, page 36. 96 Initia 1 Study Angeles Forest Highway north of the Angeles National Forest. Sierra Highway, which is classified a s a Mai or Arterial Highway by the City's General Plan, is a four - to six -lane major arterial highway south of the Newhall Avenue intersection. Adjacentto the Project Site, Sierra Highway has five lanes (three southbound and two northbound). As shown in Table 1 ofthe TIS, Sierra Highway attheProjectSite ha s a capacity of 45,000 vehicle trips with an ADT volume of 1 1,400trips. Therefore, the V/C ratio for Sierra Highway at the Project Site is 0.25 or LOS A, undercurrent conditions. As shown in Table 2 of the TIS, the Sierra Highway and Newhall Avenue intersection is currently operating at a LOS C during the AM and PM peak hour periods. Because the City's maximum acceptable LOS is LOS E, the existing operations of Sierra Highway roadway in front of the Project Site and theoperation of the Sierra Highway and Newhall Avenue intersection meet the City's LOS standard. As shown in Table XVII-2, the Proposed Project would generate a total of 216 average daily trips with 16 trips in the AM peak hour and 22 trips in the PM peak hour. Table XVII-2: Proposed Project Trip Generation AM Peak PM Peak ADTr . Aour, 14our,' Land Use Size 7�7 pe hate Trips hate Trips Assisted 83 Living units 2.60 216 0.19 16 0.26 22 Source: Associated Transportation Engineers, Traffic and Circulation Analysis for i ie Sierra West Assisted Living Project, City of Santa Clarita, October 29, 2019. i ADT = Average Daily Trips 2 Trip generation estimates were calculated for the Project based on rates presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual. The ITE Land Use Code for assisted living facilities is 254. As stated above, Sierra Highway currently operates at LOS A adjacent to the Project Site. As such, the minor amount of traffic added by the Project would not significantly impact Sierra Highway since it would continue to operate at LOS A with the addition of Project -related traffic. As shown in Table XVII-2, the Proj ectwould add approximately 16 AM peak hour trips and 22 PM peak hour trips to the Sierra Highway and Newhall Avenue intersection. While the intersection is currently operating at LOS C, as described above, the minor amountof traffic resulting from the Proj ectwould not significantly impact the intersection since it would continue to operate at LOS C with the addition of Proi ect-related traffic. This analysis assumes that all Project -related traffic would be to and from the north. Because someresidents, employees, andvisitors may access the site from and exit the site to the south, traffic impacts at the NewhallAvenue and Sierra Highway may be less thandisplayedin Table XVII-2. Cumulative Impacts and Cumulative lmpactsplusProject In year2035, Sierra Highway is anticipatedto be a six -lane highway adjacentto the Project Site. As shown in Table 4 of the TIS, Sierra Highway a t the Proj ect Site is 97 Initia 1 Study anticipated to have a capacity of 54,000 vehicle trips with an ADT vo lume of 32,700 trips. Therefore, the V/C ratio for Sierra Highway at the Proj ect Site would be 0.61 or LOS B, under 2035 conditions. As such, the segment of Sierra Highway adjacent to the Project Site would m eetthe City's performance standard of LOS E for arterial highways. Since the Project would add a total of 216 average daily trips, the Project would not significantly impact the segment of Sierra Highway adjacent to the Project Site as Sierra Highway would continue to operate at LOS B with the addition of Project -related traffic. As shown in Table 5 of the TIS, the Sierra Highway and Newhall Avenue intersection is anticipated to operate at a LOS D during the AM and PM peakhour periods in 2035. Because the City's maximum acceptable LOS is LOS E, the operation of the Sierra Highway and Newhall Avenue intersection in 2035 would meet the City's LOS standard. The minor amount of traffic added by the Proposed Project, 16AMpeak hour trips and 22PMpeak hour trips, would not significantly impact the performance of the Newhall Avenue and Sierra Highway intersection since it would continue to operate at LOS D with the addition of Project traffic. Therefore, cumulative impacts with the Proposed Project would be less than significant. Vehicle Miles TraveledAnalysis As of July 1, 2020, transportation impact assessments prepared in accordance with CEQA are required to detennine if a Proposed Project would conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b), which outlines a new set of criteria for analyzing transportation impacts using vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the primary measure of transportation impact VMT is generally defined as the amount and the distance of automobile travel associated with a Project. In June 2020, the City adopted transportation impact thresholds and VMT guidance on conducting transportation studies in the City to adhere to CEQA requirements set forth in Senate Bill (SB) 743 (referred to herein as the City's VMT guidelines and thresholds).90 The City's VMT guidelines and thresholds are informed by the California Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory, which includes recommendations regarding assessment of VMT, screening criteria, thresholds of significance, and mitigation measures.91 The following analysis of the Project's impactrelative to VMT is taken from the Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis created for th e Proposed Project by Associated Transportation Engineers, which is available a s App endix J o f this Initial Study." The City's VMT guidelines and thresholds suggest thatlead agencies may screenout VMT impacts using project -specific characteristics, such as prof ect location, project size, transit availability, and provision of affordable housing. Absent substantial evidence indicating that a projectwould generate a potentially significant level of VMT, or inconsistency with a sustainable communities strategy or general plan, projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day generally may be assumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact The City's VMT guidelines and thresholds further state that "projects located within Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) may also be exempt from VMT analysis." TPAs are defined in the OPR Technical Advisory as a one half mile radius around an existing or planned major transit stop or an existing stop along a high -quality transit corridor (HQTC). City of SantaClarita, Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Clarita, May 19, 2020. California Governor's Office of Planning and Research, Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, December 2018. Associated Transportation Engineers, Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis for the Sierra west Assisted Living Project, City of Santa Clarita, January 22, 2020. 98 Initia 1 Study A HQTC is defined in the OPR Technical Advisory as a corridor with fixed -route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. A "major transit stop" is defined as a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two ormore m ajor bus routes with a frequency of service intervalof 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.93 While the Project would generate more than 110 average trips per day, the Project Site is located approximately 750 feet (less than one quarter mile) south of the intersection of Sierra Highway and Newhall Avenue. There are three transit stops adjacent to this intersection that are served by the Santa Clarita Transit Service (located 750 feet, 850 feet, and 950 feet away from the Project Site). The transit service provides a link from this intersection to the Metrolink Station located approximately 1.7 miles northwestof the ProjectSite (at the comer of Market Street and Railroad Avenue), as well as other regional attractions, transit stations, and employment centers. Further, there is a Park and Ride lot operated by the City of Santa Clarita on Sierra Highway immediately north of the Project Site, as shownin Figure 10. The Sierra Highway and Newhall Avenue intersection is currently served by bus routes 12, 102, 627, 629, 757, 797, and 799. The service intervals for the above bus routes are detailed in the VNIT analysis prepared for this Initial Study, available as App endix J. The City's VMT guidelin es and thresholds identify two bus routes provided by Santa Clarita Transit that meetthe definitionof aHQTC: Routes 797 and799. TheCity also identifies theintersection ofNewhallAvenue and Sierra Highway as a major transit stop. Therefore, because the Project Site is less than one half mile away from Route 797 and 799 bus stops at the intersection of Newhall Avenue and Sierra Highway, the Project Site is locatedwithin a Transit Priority Area, as shown on Figure 7 of the City's VMT guidelines and thresholds, and can be screened from VMT analysis. The VMT guidelines and thresholds also provide situations in which a presumption of a less than significant impact may not be appropriate, including when a project has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.75 or less, when a project includes more parking than required by the City, when a project is inconsistent with th e SCAG RTP/SCS, and when a project replaces affordable residential units with a small number of moderate- or high -income residential units. The Project Site is currently vacant, so the Project would not displace any affordable housing. Further, the Project is consistent with the underlying MX-C zoning designation for the site and the corresponding parking requirements, and the Project is consistent with the SCAG RTP/SCS, as discussed in SectionI11, Air Quality and Section VIII, Greenhouse Gras Emissions of this Initial Study. Regarding FAR, the Proj ect Site is 3.99 acres in total, with the proposed development footprint concentrated in a relatively small portion of the Project Site. FAR is calculated by dividing the gross floor area of a building by the total area of the lot. For example, a two-story structure that covers an entie project site would have a FAR of 2.0. Similarly, a four-story structure that covers half of a prof ect site would also have a FAR o f 2.0. For the Proposed Project, dividing the Proj ect's floor area by the area of the entire Project Site would notbe appropriate given that the majority of the Project Site would be preserved as -is to protect the large number o f oak trees in the central and western portions of the Project Site and to avoid impacts to the steep ridgelines located on the western and southern ends of the Project Site. The FAR of the Proposed Projectwould more appropriately be calculated by usingthe Project Site's potential buildable area as thebasis for an FAR calculation. The buildable lot area of the Project Site is 63,195 square feet. Thetotal floor areaof the Proposed assisted living and memory care facility wouldbe 61,736 square feet. Asa result, the FAR of the Projectwould be approximately 0.98,which 93 Public Resources Code Section 21064.3 99 Initia 1 Study exceeds the 0.75 threshold provided in the City's VMT guidelines and thresholds. Therefore, because none of the above -described situations provided in the City's VMT guidelines andthresholds apply to the Project, the Project canbe screened from VMT analysis. Further, the residents afflicted with memory loss would not have personal vehicles and while some residents of the assisted living portion of the Project may continue to drive, some will not. The Project -affiliated shuttle service provided for Project residents, as well as the on -site amenities such as the salon, gymnasium, and gathering spaces, would reduce the amount of VMT associated with the Proposed Pro j ect. Therefore, because the Project Site is located within one-half mile of an existing in a j or transit stop, or an existing stop along a H QTC, and because none o f the above - m entioned situations precluding a less -than -significant finding apply to the Project, the Project is screened from VMT analysis given its proximity and location as described above. Therefore, the City canpresume that theProject would have a less than significant impacton VMT,per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1). 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 guidelines require that freeway monitoring locations be examined if the Proposed Project would add 150 peak hour trips (or m ore) in either direction during AM or PM peak hours. The CMP criteria for determining a significantimpactis an increase in demandby 2 percentof capacity (V/C> 0.020), causingLOS F (V/C> 1.00). If the facility is already atLOS F, a significant impact occurs when the Proposed Project increases demand by 2 percent of capacity (V/C > 0.02). The Project would be served by the Antelope Valley Freeway (SR-14), approximately 700 feet east of the Project Site; however, the Proposed Project is forecast to add much less than 150 peak hour trips to the nearestfreeway monitoring location on SR-14. Rather, theProjectwould add 16AM peak hour trips and 22 PM peak hour trips. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable congestion management program andimpacts would be less than significant c) No Impact: The Project Site is not within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public airportorpublic use airport. There are no airports in Santa Clarita. Consequently, the ProposedProj ect would notaffect any airport facilities and would not cause a change in the directional patterns of aircraft Therefore, the Proposed Project would have noimpactto airtraffic patterns. d) No Impact: Traffic volume is anticipated to be relatively low compared with a multi -family residential project of this size. As such, internal Project Site circulation and access would be adequate for the Project. The Project driveway is loca ted on the outside of a horizontal curve on Sierra Highway, which wouldprovide adequate sight distances for vehicles exiting the driveway. Additionally, there are no sharp curves or geometric design features within the internal driveway or parking structure that could create circulation hazards. The Project would not generate incompatible uses of area roadways, such as large farm equipment, that could impair circulation or safety on area roads. 100 Initia 1 Study Further, the Project Site's internal circulation system and driveways would be required to meet the mandatory design standards of the City of Santa Clarita as they relate to width, intersection control, and sight distance. e) No Impact: The project's ingress/egress and circulation are required to meet LACoFD's standards, which ensure thatnew developments provide adequate access for emergency vehicles. The Project Site and surrounding roadway network do not pose any unique conditions that raise concerns for emergency access, such as narrow, winding roads or dead-end streets. Thus, standard engineering practices are expected to achieve the LACoFD's standards. Furthermore, final Project plans are subjectto review and approvalby the LACoFD to ensure that the site's access complies with all LACoFD ordinances and policies. With the required compliance with all LACoFD ordinances and policies, the Project would not cause significant impacts due to inadequate emergency access. Therefore, the Projectwould haven impact related to emergency access. f) Less Than Significant Impact: As stated in the response to Threshold Question XVILa), above, there are three transit stops located between 750 and 950 feet north of the Project Site (at the intersection of NewhallAvenue and Sierra Highway) that are servedby the Santa Clarita Transit Service. Specifically, the intersection is seived by busroutes 12,102, 627, 629, 757, 797, and 799, which provide connections to the Metro link Station approximately 1.7 miles northwest of the Project Site (at the c omer of Market Street and Railroad Avenue), aswellas otherregiona I attractions, transit stations, and employment centers. Further, there is a Park and Ride lot operated by the City of Santa Clarita on Sierra Highway immediately north of the Project Site, as shown in Figure 10. As displayed in Table XVII-2 and the subsequent discussion, the Proposed Proj ectwouldnot generate enoughtrips to result in a significant impact to any of the identified study intersections; thus, these transit services would not experience a substantial delay in service due to traffic generated by the Proposed Pro j ect. Further, the Proposed Project would include 83 total units, with 29 units dedicated to people afflicted with memory loss disorders and 54 assisted living units. The assisted living residents and the memory care residents would have access to separate outdoor spaces. Additionally, since Sierra Highway is a major arterial highway, pedestrian infrastructure is limited in the area immediately surrounding the Project Site. As such, residents would likely use personal vehicles, transit, or the Project's shuttle to access pedestrian/trail systems within Santa Clarita, thus dispersing the impact on pedestrian infrastructure. Further, it is likely that not all of the assisted living residents would have the physical ability for substantial use of area trails and pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure. Therefore, there would be little to no impact on surrounding bus, pedestrian, orbicycle transit systems as aresult ofresidentdemand. The Proposed Projectwould provide employee parking as well as bicycle storm facilities on site, thus reducing the likelihood that the majority of employees would use transit options to access the Project Regardless, even if allProject employees used transit, which is unlikely, the impact on transit services would be less than significant given the smallnumber of employees associatedwith the Proj ectandthe large number of buses serving the Project area in the AM and PM peak hours (discussed above). Therefore, the ProposedProj ect would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decreasethe performance or safety of such facilities. Impacts would be less than significant XVIIL TRIBAL AND a)i), ii) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation: In compliance with CULTURAL RESOURCES Assembly Bill (AB) 52, a letter was sent to the Femandefio Tataviam Band of 101 Initia 1 Study Mission Indians and the Santa Ynez Band f Chumash Indians notifying them of the Proposed Project and the opportunity to consult with the City and comment on the Proposed Project. The Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians responded on December 27, 2019, with a requestto consult with the City on the Proposed Project; however, upon further discussion with the City, the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians decided on January 6, 2020, to defer to the localFernandeno Tatavium Band of Mission Indians and ended consultation with the City. On January 6, 2020, the City received a request from Jairo F. Avila, the Tribal Historic and Cultural Preservation Officer for the Femandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians for the Project's culturalresource assessment report, grading and excavation plans, and the Geotechnical Report. Consultation between the City and the Femandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians occurred via phone on April 22, 2020. The Femandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians provided written comments on the Proposed Project in a letter dated May 8, 2020.94 While the Cultural Report prepared forthis Project, available as Appendix D of this Initial Study, did not discover tribal cultural resources during a field investigation of the Project Site and while this report states that there is a low potential for encountering prehistoric archaeological resources, the Femandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians determined thatthe Project Site has potential to host tribal cultural resources. The Femandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians states in its consultation letter thatportions of the Project Site were previously graded, so cultural resources may be buried within berms. Further, poor ground visibility due to vegetation hinders the ability for field surveys to identify all cultural resources. Finally, the Femandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians states that the moderately flat topography andpresence of oak trees on the Project Site, as well as the proximity of other Tataviam villages in the Santa Clarita area, suggest that the property has the potential to have been used by the tribe in the past. As such, there may be tribal cultura I resources on the site as aresult of this use. In short, consultation initiatedby the City has resulted in the identification of tribal cultural resources on -site or in the Project vicinity. CEQA only requires mitigation measures if substantial evidence exists of potentially significant impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(4)(A) states "there must be an essential nexus (i.e., connection) between the mitigation measure and a legitimate government interest*" Therefore, because the Projectmay cause an adverse change in the significanceof a triba I cultural resource, mitigation is included in the form of construction in onitoring and compliance with existing regulations governing the accidental discovery of human remains in order to reduce Project impacts to less than significant levels. These mitigation measures are discussed in Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-3, below. Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Construction Monitoring. The Project applicant shallretain a professional Native American monitor procured by the Femandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians to observe all ground -disturbing activities that occur within the Proposed Proj ectarea which includes, but is not limited to, tree/shrub removal and planting clearing/grubbing, grading, excavation, trenching, compaction, fence/gate removal and installation, drainage and irrigation removal and installation, haniscape installation [benches, signage, boulders, walls, seat walls, fountains, etc.], and archaeological work. 94 Femandeno Tataviam Band ofMission Indians, Tribal Historic and Cultural Preservation Department, letter dated May 8, 2020. 102 Initia 1 Study The Native Am erican monitor shallobserve allground -disturbing activities up to 5 feetbelow the surface of native soil, unless there is evidence to suggest that cultural resources extend below the specified depth. If cultural resources are encountered, the Native American monitor will have the authority to request ground -disturbing activities cease within 60 feetof discovery to assess and documentpotential finds in real time. Previously monitored soil is not subject to further Native American monitoring Mitigation Measure TCR-2: Consultation with Tribe. The lead agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians and consulting tubes on the disposition and treatment of any tribal cultural resource encountered during the Project construction. If tribal cultural resources are discovered and not a candidate for avoidance or preservation in place, and the removal of the resource(s) is necessary to mitigate impacts, the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians shall consult on the preparation of the research design prepared by the archaeologist retained by the applicant that to evaluatethe resource for significance under CEQA criteria and any testing efforts needed to delineate theresource boundary. Mitigation Measure TCR-3: Accidental Discovery ofHumanRemains. If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities associatedwith theProj ect, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shallbe contacted pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and that code shallbe enforced for the duration of the Project. Inadvertent discoveries of human remains and/or funerary object(s) are subject to California State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and the subsequent disposition of those discoveries shall be decided by the most likely descendant, as determined by the Native American Heritage Commission, should those findings be determined as Native American in origin. XIX. UTILITIES AND a) Less Than Significant Impact: The Project would develop an 83-unit assisted SERVICE SYSTEMS living and memory care facility with related outdoor spaces. As discussed in response to Threshold Question XLb), while the Proposed Pro j ectwould require an approved ConditionalUse Permit to allow theproposeduse in a Mixed -Use Corridor zone, the Project is consistent with the underlying zoning and General Plan land use designationsfor the Project Site. None of the proposed use swould generate atypical wastewater such as industrial or agricultural effluent All wastewater generated by the Proposed Project is expected to be domestic sewage. Wastewater treatment facilities are designed to treatdomestic sewage; thus, typical domestic sewagedoes not exceed wastewater treatment requirements. Since the Projectwouldnot generate atypical wastewater and is consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning the Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements and impacts are less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact: Water is currently delivered to the Project Site via the existing 12-inch water line, operated by the Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency (SCV Water), which is located in Sierra Highway along the Project Site frontage. SCV Waterwas formed through the m erger of the three water agencies in the Santa Clarita Valley in 2018. The merger included Castaic Lake Water Agency (CLWA) and its Santa Clarita Water Division, the Newhall County Water District, and the Valencia Water Company. The Proj ectSite is located within the service area 103 Initia 1 Study of the Newhall County Water District, which is now called the Newhall Water Division. The Project would include new connections to the existing water line located in Sierra Highway in order to serve the Proposed Project (i.e., the assisted living and memory care facility, a s well as surrounding landscaping). Wastewater treatment in the Santa Clarita Valley is provided by the Santa Claris Valley Sanitation District, which is part of the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts) regional wastewater treatment network. The Sanitation Districts operate two, interconnected water reclamation plants (WRPs) in the Santa Clarita Valley, the Saugus WRPandthe Valencia WRP. Together, these plantsfonn the Santa Clarita Valley Joint Sewerage System (SCVJSS). The joint powers agreement that created the regional system allows the Valencia WRP to accept f lows that exceed the capacity of the Saugus WRP. The water is treated to tertiary levels (biological treatment followedby filtration and disinfection) and is discharged to the Santa Clara River. The wastewater generated by the Project wouldbe conveyedto a 15-inch sewer line in Sierra Highway, then to a sewer main located within Newhall Avenue. Further, the Project Site is located outside of the jurisdictional boundary of the Sanitation Districts and is required to be annexed into the Sanitation Districts. This process would require approvals from the City, as well as the Sanitation Districtsbefore sewerage service canbe provided to the Project Site. Because the Project Site is currently undeveloped, the Proposed Project would result in an increase in the demand for water and wastewater service as compared with current conditions. However, as discussed in response to Threshold Questions XIX.d) and XIX.e), below, the increase to water andwastewater service demand is minimal in comparison to the existing service areas of the water and wastewater service purveyors. The facilities currently maintained by the service purveyors are adequate to serve the proposed increase in treatment demand. The only water and wastewater improvements required for the Project are on -site connections to the infrastructure systems in place within Sierra Highway, which are subject to connection fees. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not require or result in the construction or expansion of new water or wastewater treatment facilities off -site, and impacts are less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed in response to Threshold Questions X.c) and X.d) of this Initial Study, the Proposed Project would implement an engineered drainage system that would discharge stonnwater on the north sideof the Project Site, mimicking existing conditions. 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 predevelopment peak runoff rates. As discussed in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Initial Study, the Project's engineered stormwater system meets this requirement Therefore, the Proposed Project would not require or result in the construction of new off -site stormwater drainage facilities orthe expansionof existing facilities off - site, and theproject wouldhave no related significant impacts. d) Less Than Significant Impact: While the Proposed Project would require an approved Conditional Use Permit to allow for the proposed use on the Project Site, and to allow the proposed structure to exceed existing building height maximums, the Project would be consistent with the underlying General Plan and zoning designations. As stated above, the Newhall Water Division, part of SCV Water, provides water services to the Project Site. SCV Water adopted the 2015 Ulan Water ManagementPlan (UWMP) in June 2016, which provides a detailed summary of present and future water resources and demands within the SCV Water service 104 Initia 1 Study area and assesses the valley's water resource needs." SCV Water's water sources are derived from the State Water Proj ect and loc al groundwater resources generated primarily from the Santa Clafa River. As stated in the UWMP, SCV Water has aprojected existing supply of 133,412 acre- feet (af) of water in 2020, with 12,795 of of planned supply (i.e., groundwater, recycled water, and banking/exchange programs). In 2050, water supplies are projected to include 115,332 of of existing water supplies and 41,834 of of planned water supplies.96 The total water demand for the SCV Water service area in 2018, reported by the 2018 Santa Clarita Valley Water Report, was approximately 78300 af, consisting of approximately 65,200 of for municipal use and 13,100 of for agricultural and other (m iscellaneous) u ses.97 While this value is above the projected water demand in the 2015 UWMP (which is attributed to weather conditions and the easing of State -mandated water conservation measures in 2015), the demand is less than the total available water supplies. The UWMP projects water demand in the SCV Water service area to increase to 93,900 of by 2050, which is still far below projected water supplies in 2050.98 As shown, the projected water supplies in the UWMP greatly exceed the projected water demand. In general, the amount of wastewater generated by a project can be estimated tote approximately the same as the amount o f water consumed by such project. Itis noted that some amount of water is lost due to evapotranspiration and landscaping irrigation. Using a wastewater generation factor for assisted living facilities provided by the Sanitation Districts, the Proposed Project would generate approximately 10,375 gallons per day (gpd) or 11.6 afper calendary ear of wastewater.99 To account for irrigation and evaporation losses, the Project's water demand is conservatively estim atedto be 25 percent greaterthan it's wastewater generation or 12,969 gpd or 14.5 af per calendar year. Since the existing water supplies are sufficient to serve the Proposed Project, the Proposed Proj ectwould notrequire new or expandedwater entitlements, and impacts would be less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact: As stated above, the Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District, aspart of the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, owns, operates, and maintains the wastewater conveyance system for the Santa Clarita Valley. The system conveys wastewater and wastewater so lids from the local sewer lines, which are either ownedby the City of Santa Clarita or Los Angeles County, to the Saugus and Valencia WRPs, which form the interconnected SCVJSS. The Proposed improvements would generate a wastewater flow of 10,3 75 gpd, based on wastewater generationrates providedby the Sanitation Districts for assisted living facilities. This wastewater would be treated by the SCVJSS, which, according to information recently gathered for another project in Santa Clarita, has a combined treatment capacity of 28.1 million ga llons per day (m gd).1 ' Therefore, because the 95 Castiac Lake water Agency (CLWA), CLWA Santa Clarita Water Division, Newhall County water District, and Valencia water Company, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for Santa ClaritaValley, June 2016. 96 CLWA, CLWA Santa Clarita Water Division, Newhall County Water District, and Valencia Water Company, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for Santa Clarita Valley, June 2016, Table 3-1, p. 3-2-3-3. 97 Santa ClaritaValley Water Agency and Los Angeles County Waterworks District 36, 2018 Santa Clarita Valley Water Report, 2019. 98 CLWA, CLWA Santa Clarita Water Division, Newhall County Water District, and Valencia Water Company, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for Santa Clarita Valley, June 2016, Table 2-2, p. 2-6. 99 The Sanitation Districts wastewater generation rate for assisted living facilities is 125 gallons per day per bed. The Project would develop 83 assisted living units. Thus, 83 units (beds) x 125 gpd/bed = 10,375 gpd water demand/wastewater generation. too Correspondence between Adriana Raza, Customer Service Specialist, Facilities Planning Department, Sanitation Districts ofLos Angeles County and Stephanie Zinn, Project Manager, Fuscoe Engineering, re: Westfield Valencia Town Center Patios Connection Project, dated April 8, 2019. 105 Initia 1 Study proj ect would result in 10,375 gpd(or 0.01 mgd), the Proposed Proj ectwould result in a determination by the wa stewater tre atment provider that it has adequate capacity to serve the proposed development, and impacts would be less than significant f) Less Than Significant Impact: There are three Class III (nonhazardous) landfills that serve the City: the Chiquita Canyon Landfill, the Antelope Valley Landfill, and the Sunshine Canyon Landfill. Accordingto CalRecycle's Solid Waste Information System facility database, the Chiquita Canyon Landfill, located at 29201 Henry Mayo Drive in Castaic, has a remaining capacity of 60,408,000 cubic yards; the Antelope Valley Landfill, located at 1200 W. City Ranch Road in Palmdale, has a remaining capacity of 17,911,225 cubic yards; and the Sunshine Canyon Landfill, located at 14747 San Fernando Road in Sylmar, has a remaining capacity of 77,900,000 cubic yards. The Project would generate a variety of common municipal solid wastes typical of residential and m edicaluses, including food, paper, plastics, andhousehold wastes. As described above, the landfills that serve the City would have sufficient capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs. In addition, as discussed below in response to Threshold Question XIX.g), the Project would be required to comply with the City's and California's solid waste diversion regulations. Therefore, impacts wouldbe less than significant. g) Less Than Significant Impact: The California Integrated Waste Management Act requires thatjurisdictions maintain a 50 percent or better diversion rate for solid waste. The City implements this requirement through the City's franchised Solid Waste Management Services. Per the agreements between the City and the franchised trash disposal companies, each franchisee isresponsible for m eeting the minimum recycling diversion rate of 5 0 p ercent on a quarterly basis. Franchisees are further encouraged to meet the City's overall diversion rate goalof 75 percent. The Proposed Project is required to comply with the applicable solid waste franchise's recycling system, and thus, would meet the City's and California's solid waste diversion regulations. Therefore, the Project would notcau se any significant impacts from conflictingwith statutes or regulations related to solid waste. XX. WILDFIRE a) Less Than Significant Impact: The City of Santa Clarita has a Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP), which was originally adopted in 2004 and updated in 2010 and 2015. It provides the overall direction for effortsby the City's agencies, organizations, and citizens to mitigate risk from natural and man-made hazards. Section 7 of the HMP addresses wildfire hazards, including existing conditions thatcreate wildfire hazards, identification of fire hazard areas, history ofmajorwildfires in Southern California, an assessment of wildfire vulnerability and potential damage, an overview of existing wildfire prevention and mitigationprograms, and key strategies and a ction itemsto respond to wildfire hazards. The HMP also provides a framework for communications, decisions, and actions by emergency response personnel for wildfire emergencies. The command structure would assess local conditions in an ongoing manner, to identify locations and severity o f threats to homes andbusin esses and any other land uses that put people in the path of a wildfire. Based on those assessments, decisions would be made on where to focus fire response efforts, initiate calls forbackup assistance and assign additional resources, and when/where to implementemergency evacuations if no otheroptions are deemedviable. Further, CalifomiaAB 749 (2008) added Section 1569.695 to the California Heahh and Safety Code, which specifies thatResidential Care Facilities for theElderly must have an emergency plan that includes evacuation procedures; plans for the community to be self-reliant for at least 72 hours following a major disaster, transportation needs and evacuation procedures to ensure that the facility can 106 Initia 1 Study community with emergency response personnel; and provisions of supplies such as medicines, water, and other medical equipment."' As such, the proposed facility would be required to prepare an emergency plan which would address emergency evacuation of its residents, many of whom may have special needs during an emergency such as supplies of medication andequipment such as oxygen tanks. If an evacuation is necessary, the proposed 83-unit facility would increase the number of residents and employees that could be affectedduring a wildfire event in this area and would incrementally add to the scale and complexity of evacuation procedures. There are few noncommercial uses with permanent residents on Sierra Highway south ofNewhallAvenue.As such, Project inhabitantswould likely beable to use Sierra Highway to travel north or south, connecting to major roadways including Newhall Avenue, SR 14, or I-5. As there would be several options for evacuation routes and given the existing roadway capacity of Sierra Highway discussed in Section XVII of this Initial Study, existing infrastructure capacity would be sufficient to allow evacuation of the Project Site if such an evacuation were deemed necessary. Therefore, the City's existing emergency response system, including the m anner in which emergency evacuations are initiated and managed, would be sufficient to address emergency evacuation scenarios in the event of future wildfires in the Project area that result in a need to evacuate some or allof the Proposed Project's residents. Developmentof the ProposedProj ect would notsubstantially impair the emerWncy response protocols established by the City's HMP or evacuation procedures identified by the proposed facility pursuant to AB 749. Therefore, Project impacts would be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact: As previously discussed, the Project Site is currently undeveloped and characterized by native and non-native grasses, shrubs, and trees. Further, theProj ectSite is locatedwithin a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), as identified by California's Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. The proposed development area, approximately 1.1 acres on the eastern portion of the Project Site adjacentto Sierra Highway, is relatively flat and hasbeenpreviously disturbed, due to presence of modern trash and evidence of past grading. The proposed development area is characterized by disturbed herbaceous habitats, which are dominated by annual grasses and forbs such as redbrome, rip-gutbrome, summer mustard, and red -stemmed filaree, all of which are highly flammable in dry conditions. The Proj ect Site would be built to stringent standards to resist ignition and slow the spread of fire per LACoFD standards. Further, the Project's Fuel Modification Plan, available as Figure 13, provides detailed landscaping and vegetation management procedures in three zones (labeledZonesA, B, and C). ZoneA would consist of fire- resistant landscaping within 20 feet of any combustible structures. Zone B would extend from ZoneA to 100 feet from the structure and would include irrigated, non- flammable landscaping consisting of ground covers and adequately spaced shrubs and trees. Zone B would extend up the slopes to the west and south of the Project's proposed development area. Zone C of the fue I modification planwould extend from 100 to 200 feet away from the proposed structure and would experience vegetation thinning/clearance so as to reducewildfire fuelloads. There would be no additional landscape plantings in Zone C. Further, no building permits would be issuedby the 101 California Assisted Living Association, Emergency Preparedness in Assisted Living, pages 18-20, undated. 107 Initia 1 Study City until construction plans have been reviewed and determined to be in full compliance with allapplicable standards for development in a VHFHSZ. By converting flammable landscape on the eastern portion of the Project Site to a development comprising hardscapes, an assisted living facility, and irrigated/managed fuel medication and landscaped areas, the Project would reduce the fuel loads foundon portions of the ProjectSite andthusreduce the chances of a wildfire occurring or intensifying on -site and threatening surrounding properties. Further, because the Project would not involy e storage, u se, or disposal o f significant quantities ofhazardous materials, there would be no significant sources ofhazardous materials that could addto the fuel load and produce harmfulpollutants in the event of a wildfire. As such, the Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks and would not create conditions that would expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. The impacts of the Project would be less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact: Project -related construction activities could exacerbate wildfire risks through discarding lit cigarettes, use of flammable materials and fuels, and operation of combustion -powered machinery that could generate a spark that could ignite spilled fuels or other flammable materials as well as vegetation. Given the Project Site conditions which support substantial areas of flammable vegetation and the location in an area that ishighly affectedby wildland fire hazards, there is a potential for a small fire incident on -site to expand into a wildfire that could spread to surrounding landscapes and developed neighborhoods. This risk is most pronounced during periods of high temperatures, dry conditions, and strong winds. The Project would be constructed according to stringent standards to resist ignition and slow the spread of fire per LACoFD standards andno building permits would be issuedby the City until construction plans have beenreviewed and determinedto be in full compliance with all applicable standards for development in a VHFHSZ. Such standards include requirements for incorporating fire-resistant building materials, sprinkler systems, certain water flowpressures for fire hydrants, adequate internal circulation, and site access for fire engines andcrews. All wet and dry utilities would connect to existing utilities within Sierra Highway and would be underground, thus reducing the risk of fire. Further, fuel modification zones described above, as approved by the LACoFD, would require periodic irrigation, thus reducing the risk ofwildfire spread. No other wildfire -resistant design measures, such as emergency water storage facilities, additional fire roads or fuel breaks, or additional power facilities, have been identified by the Fire Department for the Proposed Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project design would not exacerbate fire risks or result in temporary or ongoing negative environmental impacts. d) Less Than Significant Impact: As stated above, the fuel modification plan, as approved by the LACoFD, would involve irrigation and/or vegetation thinning of the sloped areas immediately surrounding the proposed development area. This would effectively reduce the vegetation fuelload and reduce chances that a wildfire would strip the steep slopes immediately west andsouthof the proposed development area of vegetation, thus creating possible landslide or flooding conditions due to bare slopes. Per the Geotechnical Report prepared for this Project, the slopes on the Project Site are stable andthe Proj ectis not locatedwithin a landslide area. Further, the proposed drainage system associatedwith the Project would include catch basins, desilting inlets, and infiltration basins designedto accommodate debris accumulating behind the proposed retaining walls during various intensity rainstorms. Thus, the on -site drainage system would not discharge runoff to surrounding land uses or to Sierra Highway. Therefore, because the Proposed Project's fuel modification plan 108 Initia 1 Study would reduce fuel loads and increase irrigation on the Project Site in areas that would be susceptible to landslides following wildfire events, the Proj ect would not expose people or structures to significant risks as aresult ofrunoff , post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Therefore, Proj ect impacts would be less than significant. XIX.MANDATORY a) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation: Based on the analysis in FINDINGSOF Section IV, Biological Resources, of this Initial Study, with the incorporation of SIGNIFICANCE Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4, the Proposed Project would not have substantial impacts to special -status species, streamh abitat, or wildlif e dispersal and migration. Further, 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 Section V, Cultural Resources, of this Initial Study, the Proposed Project would not have substantial impacts to historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources with incorporation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2. Thus, the Project 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 impactsto biological or cultural resources. b) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation: The Proposed Project would not cause impacts that are cumulatively considerable. The Project has the potential for significant biological resource, cultural resource, and tribal cultural resource impacts; however, with the mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring Program attached to this Initial Study, these Project impacts would be mitigatedto less than significant levels. A significant cumulative impactmay occur if the Project, in conjunctionwith related projects in the region, would result in impacts that are less than significant when viewed separately but would be significant when viewed together. When considering the Proposed Project in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the vicinity of the Project Site, the Proposed Project does not have the potentialto cause impacts that are cumulatively considerable. As detailed in the above discussions, the Proposed Project would not result in any significant andunmitigable impacts in any environmental categories. In allcases, the impacts associated with the Project are limited to the Project Site and would not result in a significant contribution to any cumulative impacts. Therefore, based on the analysis contained in this Initial Study, the Proposed Project would notresult in a Mandatory Finding of Significance due to cumulative impacts. c) Less Than Significant Impact: As detailed above, the Proposed Project does not have the potentialto result in direct or indirect substantial adverse effects onhuman beings. Specifically, as discussedin SectionX, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Initial Study, the Proposed Project would not expose persons to flooding. Section VII, Geology and Soils, of this Initial Study explains that occupants of the Proposed Project could be exposed to strong seismic earth shaking due to the potential for earthquakes in Southern California; however, the Project would not exacerbate seismic risks and the geologic conditions of the Project Site (which is located within a liquefaction zone) would be alleviated by the required compliance with the California Building Code and adherence to the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report prepared for the Project. Thus, the Proposed Project would not result in adverse effects on human beings from geotechnical considerations. In all other environmental issue areas, the Proposed Project does not exceed significance thresholds typically associated with direct or indirect effects on people, such as air, water, or land pollution, natural environmental hazards, transportation -related hazards, or adverse effects to emergency service response. Therefore, the Proposed 109 Initia 1 Study Project would not result in a Mandatory Finding of Significance due to direct or indirect effects on human beings. 110 Initia 1 Study MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Identification©f MitigationMeasuresandMonitoringActivities L AESTHETICS None Required IL AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES None Required III. AIR QUALITY None Required IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure BIO-I: Pre -Project Botanical Survey Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Pre -Project Surveys for Special -Status Wildlife Species Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Nesting Bird Surveys Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Tree Protection Measures during Site Preparation andProj ect Construction V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure CUL-I: Archaeological Monitoring Plan Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Paleontological Monitoring Plan VL ENERGY None Required VIL GEOLOGY AND SOILS None Required VIIL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS None Required IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS None Required X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY None Required XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING None Required XIL MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES None Required XIIL NOISE None Required XIV. POPULATIONAND HOUSING None Re uired III Initia 1 Study Identification of Mitigation MeasuresandMonitoringActivitics XV. PUBLIC SERVICES None Required XVL RECREATION None Required XVIL TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC None Required XVIIL TRIBAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure TCR-l: Construction Monitoring Mitigation Measure TCR-2: Consultation with Tribe Mitigation Measure TCR-3: Accidental Discovery of Human Remains XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS None Required XX. WILDFIRE None Required 112 Initia 1 Study References Associated Traffic Engineers. 2019. Traffic and Circulation Analysis for the Sierra WestAssisted Living Project, City of Santa Clarita. 2020. Vehicle Miles TraveledAnalysis for the Sierra WestAssisted Living Project, City of Santa Clarita. California Department of Conservation. n.d. California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed December 31, 2019. hops://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. n.d. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation map. Accessed May 14, 2020. agmd.gov/docs/default-source/cega/documents/agmd prQ)ects/2015/toxicrules-dea.pdf. California Energy Commission. 2019. "California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2017." Accessed December 27, 2019. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000 2016/ghg inventory_ trends_00-16.pdf. California Energy Commission. n.d. Building Energy Efficiency Standards FAQ. May 14, 2020. hops://www.ener�,y.ca.�ovfpro�,rams-and. topics/programs/building-enemy-efficiency- standards/2019-building-enemy-efficiency. CalEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency). n.d. Cortese List Data Resources. Accessed January 10, 2020. https://calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/. California Assisted Living Association. n.d. Emergency Preparedness in Assisted Living. http://caassistedliving.org/provider-resources/ands more/disaster-preparedness/. Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2013. Division of Environmental Analysis. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot- media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tens-sep2013-a1 ly.pdf. Castaic Lake Water Agency, Santa Clarita Water Division, Newhall County Water District, and Valencia Water Company. 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for Santa Clarita Valley. https://yourscvwater.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/2015-FINAL-Urban-Water-Management Plan-for-Santa-Clarita-Valley_l 6JUN2017-1.pdf. City of Santa Clarita. 2001. Santa Clarita Beautification Master Plan. https://www. santa-clarita. com/home/showdocuinent2.id: 10836. --. 2009. Community Character and Design Guidelines. https://www.santa-clarita.com/city- hall/departments/community-development/planning/community-character-and design -guidelines. --. 2011 a. General Plan, Conservation and Open Space Element. https://www.codepublishing.com/C,,A/S antaClarita/htnil /SantaQantaGP/6%20- %20Conservation%20and%20C)pen%20Space%20Elernent.pdf. --. 2011b. General Plan, Land Use Element. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaClarita/htnl/SantaClan* taGP/2%20- %20Land%20Use%20EIement.pdf. --. 2011 c. General Plan, Safety Element. httj2s://www.codej2ublishing.com/CA/SantaClarl a/html/SantaClaritaGP/7%20- %20Safety%20Elernent. pdf. --. 2011 d. General Plan, Noise Element. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaClarita/htn l/SantaClaritaGP/5%20- %20Noise%20EIement.pdf. 113 Initia 1 Study 2012. Climate Action Plan Final Report. https://www.ca-llg.org/sites/main/files/file- attachments/approved-cap-august-2012.pdf? 1472518980. 2015. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. http://filecenter.santa- clarita. corn/EmergencyMgmt/2015%20Hazard%20Mitigati on%20Plan-Final%20Dmft.pd£ 2019. Mapping Your City. Accessed December 16, 2019. http://gis.santa- clarita.com/html5/MasterPUB.html. 2020. Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Clarita, May 19, 2020. n.d. Green Santa Clarita: Construction and Demolition Recycling Ordinance. Accessed June 12, 2020. http://greensantaclarita.com/builders/construction-and-demolition-recycling-ordinance. CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission). n.d. Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program. Accessed December 10, 2019. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/rps. David Evans and Associates. 2017. Traffic Impact Analysis: Dockweiler Drive Alignment Project. DTSC (California Department of Toxic Substances Control). EnviroStor Database, Cortese List Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Accessed January 10, 2020. n.d. EnviroStor database query. Accessed January 9, 2020. Envicom Corporation. 2019. Sierra West Assisted Living and Memory Care Project Energy Use Impacts. 2020a. Biological Resources Assessment: Sierra West Assisted Living and Memory Care Project. Prepared for the City of Santa Clarita. 2020b. Cultural Resources Phase I Assessment for Sierra West Assisted Living and Memory Care Project (Envicom Project #19-105-101). 2020c. Noise and Vibration Study, Sierra West Assisting Living and Memory Care Project. Envicom Corporation and Michael Baker International. 2020. Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures. Federal Highway Administration. n. d. "Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance." Accessed March 3, 2020. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/envilronMent/noise/regulations andguidance/polguide/polguideO2.cfm. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2008. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 06037C1032F. Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians, Tribal Historic and Cultural Preservation Department, letter dated May 8, 2020. Historic Resources Group. 2009. Historic Preservation Survey & Planning Analysis. https://scvhlstory.com/scvhlstory/citypreservationsurvey2009.pdf. Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists. 2019. Protected Tree Report forAssisted Living Facility Sierra Highway, Santa Clarita, CA 91321. Michael Baker International. 2020. Peer Review of Cultural Resources Phase I Assessment for Sierra West Assisted Living and Memory Care Project. OPR (California Governor's Office of Planning and Research). 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. Raza, Adriana. 2019. Customer Service Specialist, Facilities Planning Department, Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. Correspondence to Stephanie Zinn, Project Manager, Fuscoe Engineering, re: Westfield Valencia Town Center Patios Connection PrQ)ect. April 8, 2019. 114 Initia 1 Study Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency and Los Angeles County Waterworks District 36. 2019. 2018 Santa Clarita Valley WaterReport. https://yourscvwater.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2018-SCV- Water-Report.pdf. SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments). 2001. Employment Density Study Summary Report, Table B-1, Employment Densities (employees per acre) byAnderson Code, All Counties. 2016. 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. --. 2020a. 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect so Cal). --. 2020b. 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal), Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report. SchoolSite Locator. n.d. Newhall School District. Accessed January 2, 2020. http://apps. school site locator. com/?d1strictCode=06347. South Coast Air Quality Management District. 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. https://www.agmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/cega/air-quality-analysis-handbook. --. 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default source/cega/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-lst-methodology- document.pdf?sfvrsn=2. 2017. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. 2015 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/cega/documents/agmd-projects/2015/toxicrules-dea.pdf Southwest Geotechnical, Inc. 2019. Geologic and Soils Engineering Feasibility Report, Proposed Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility, Sierra Highway, APN2827-005-042 & -043, City of Santa Clarita, California, 2019. SWRCB (California State Water Resources Control Board. n.d. GeoTracker database query. Accessed January 9, 2020. n.d. GeoTracker database, WDR100001357 report. Accessed January 9, 2020. --. n.d. GeoTracker Database, Cortese List Map of Active LUSTS, Santa Clarita, California. Accessed January 10, 2020. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/search?CMD=search&case number=&business name=&main street name=&city=&zip=&county=&SITE_TYPE=LUFT&oilfield=&STATUS=&BRANCH=&M ASTER BASE=&Search=Search. --. n.d. List of site identified with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels outside the waste management unit. Accessed January 10, 2020. https://calepa. ca.gov/wp- content/uploads/sites/6/2016/10/SiteCleanup-CorteseList-CurrentList.pdf. --. n.d. List of active cease and desist orders and cleanup and abatement orders that do not concern discharges of wastes that are hazardous materials. Accessed January 10, 2020. https://calepa.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2016/10/SiteCleanup-CorteseList- CDOCAOList.xlsx. US Energy Information Administration. 2016. Environment Carbon Dioxide Emissions Coefficients. https://www.ela.gov/environment/erru*ssions/co2—vol mass.php. US Fish and Wildlife Service n.d. National Wetlands Inventory: Surface Waters and Wetlands map. Accessed March 27, 2020. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands. 115 Initia 1 Study William S. Hart Union High School District. 2019. Jr. High and High School Attendance Boundaries. https://www.hartdistrict.org/apps/pages/attendance-boundaries. 116 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA SIERRA WEST ASSISTED LIVING AND MEMORY CARE FACILITY INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ERRATA Prepared for: : rr''L:r CITYOF SANTA CLARITA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION 23920 VALENCIA BOULEVARD, SUITE302 SANTA CLARITA, CA 91355 Prepared by: 3760 KILROYAIRPORT WAY, STE 270 LONG BEACH, CA 90806 MARCH 2O21 This document identifies minor edits and changes to the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Sierra West Assisted Living and Memory Care Project (Project) that have been made since the document was circulated for public review on January 26, 2021. The minor editsand changes provide information that clarifies and/or amplifies the IS/MND, butdo not alter the analysis or conclusions of the document. The Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (NOI) was published by the City of Santa Clarita on January 26, 2021 and invited comments on the Project's IS/MND to be submitted to the City through February 16, 2021 (21 days). All potentially significant environmental impactswere disclosed in the analysis included within the Draft IS/MND and no substantial revisions to the IS/MND are necessary. Therefore, because the document was adequately circulated for public comment per Section 15072 of the CEQA Guidelines, and because the minor edits and clarifications provided in this document merely make insignificant modifications to the IS/MND and do not constitute a substantial revision per CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5, the City is not required to recirculate the document following the changes outlined below. Revision were made to the pages of the IS/MND noted below as identified with revision marks (underline for new text and strike thrni ,rh for deleted text). REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT IS/MND The following clarification regarding impacts to oak trees as a result of fuel modification activities has been added to the Project Description, second paragraph on page 4 of the IS/MND: To accommodate the Proposed Project, a portion of the Project Site would be graded, which would involve removal of the vegetation within the proposed footprintof thefacilityand associated driveways, paths of travel, outdoor gathering spaces, and proposed landscaping. This would include the removal of five protected oak trees (one heritage and four non -heritage oaks). The balance of the oak trees on or overhanging the Project Site (49 oaks) would be retained and incorporated into the Proposed Project's landscaping plan. Of the 54 total oaktrees located on or overhanging the Project Site, four are considered heritage oak trees per the City's oak tree preservation ordinance. One of the five oak trees that would be removed by the Project is considered a heritage oak. Project construction may encroach upon nine additional oak trees, two of which are considered heritage oaks. Additional oak trees may be encroached upon and/or pruned as a result of required, annual fuel modification activities to reduce on -site wildfire risks. Such potential encroachments are described further in Section IV, Biological Resources, of this Initial Study. Grading of the development area in preparation of Project construction would result in approximately 10,000 cubicyards of cutand 400 cubic yards of fill, resulting in 9,600 cubic yards of soil to be exported from the site. The following sentence was added to the "Other public agencies whose approval is required" section of the Project Description on page 6 of the IS/MND, based on comments received from the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County: Project Site annexation into the Los Anaeles County Sanitation Districts' jurisdictional boundary (requiring approval from the City and the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts). The following paragraph on page 52 in Section IV(e), Biological Resources, has been revised to clarify oak tree encroachments that may occur as a result of mandatory, fuel modification activities performed by the Project: Based on the Tree Inventory and Protected Tree Reportconducted for this Project (available as Appendix C of this Initial Study), there are 54 qualifying oak trees protected by the City of Santa Clarita's Oak Tree Preservation ordinance on or overhanging the Project Site. One of these protected oak trees is dead, three are located off -site but overhang the Project Site, and one is located on the southern property line. The remaining 49 oaktrees are scattered throughoutthe Project Site. As stated above, five of these protected oak trees would be removed (four live oak and one scrub oak) and another five would be encroached upon (four live oak and one scrub oak) as a result of Project grading -,-and/or construction, and�GF 41e4 FnGdifiGatieR activities. Four additional trees located along the southeast Project Site boundary with Sierra Highway may be encroached upon as a result of Project construction; however, these trees are unlikely to be impacted, as discussed below. The remaining, ep+mpasteGIoaks (40 oak trees) would be located uphill from Project -related construction activities and would be located behind protective fencing during construction (see discussion of mitigation measure BIO-4, below). Additional oak trees may be encroached upon during the construction process through required fuel modification activities. These potential encroachments are discussed below. One of the five oak trees proposed for removal and two of the nine total trees that may be encroached upon are considered "heritage" oak trees, which are defined in Section 17.51.040 of the Unified Development Code as oak trees measuring 108 inches or greater in circumference for single trunk trees or72 inches or greater in circumference for trees with multiple trunks. The following paragraph has been added to page 53 in Section IV(e), Biological Resources, to clarify oak tree impacts that may occur as a result of mandatory, fuel modification activities performed by the Project: Fuel modification activities may require additional annual pruning and/or encroachment into the protected zone of oak trees located within the fuel modification areas described in Section XX, Wildfire, of this Initial Study and displayed in Figure 13. The Project applicant is required to submit a final fuel modification plan, which would be reviewed by the City prior to planning approval and the issuance of building permits. Upon City review of the Project's fuel modification plan, if the Projectwould require pruning or encroachment of oaktrees other than those identified above, then such activities would also be required to comply with the City's Oak Tree Preservation ordinance on an annual basis. With mandatory compliance with the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance, and with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-4, Project fuel modification activities would not result in a significant impact to protected oak trees. The following sentences regarding annexation of the Project Site into the jurisdictional boundary of the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County have been added to the end of the second paragraph on page 104, Section XIX(b), Utilities and Service Systems, of the IS/MND, based on comments received from the Sanitation Districts: Wastewater treatment in the Santa Clarita Valley is provided by the Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District, which is part of the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts) regional wastewater treatment network. The Sanitation Districts operate two, interconnected water reclamation plants (WRPs) in the Santa Clarita Valley, the Saugus WRP and the Valencia WRP. Together, these plants form the Santa Clarita Valley Joint Sewerage System (SCVJSS). The joint powers agreement that created the regional system allows the Valencia WRP to accept flows that exceed the capacity of the Saugus WRP. The water is treated to tertiary levels (biological treatment followed by filtration and disinfection) and is discharged to the Santa Clara River. The wastewater generated by the Project would be conveyed to a 15-inch sewer line in Sierra Highway, then to a sewer main located within Newhall Avenue. Further, the Project Site is located outside of the jurisdictional boundary of the Sanitation Districts and is required to be annexed into the Sanitation Districts. This process would require approvals from the City, as well as the Sanitation Districts before seweraae service can be provided to the Project Site. 3 Agenda Item: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING MANAGER APPROVAL DATE: February 16, 2021 SUBJECT: MASTER CASE NO. 18-235; RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 18-002; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 18-011; HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 19-001; OAK TREE PERMIT 18-013: MINOR USE PERMIT 18-021; DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 18-024; ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW 20-022; INITIAL STUDY 19-003 APPLICANT: Norris Whitmore LOCATION: The subject property is located on the west side of Sierra Highway, approximately 680 feet south of the intersection of Sierra Highway and Newhall Avenue, in the Mixed Use -Corridor (MX-C), Ridgeline Preservation, and Planned Development (PD) overlay zones (APN 2827- 005-048) in the community of Newhall. CASE PLANNER: Mike Marshall RECOMMENDED ACTION Adopt Resolution P21-01 recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project and approve Master Case 18-235 (Ridgeline Alteration Permit 18-002, Conditional Use Permit 18-011, Hillside Development Review 19-001, Oak Tree Permit 18-013, Minor Use Permit 18-021, Development Review 18-024, Architectural Design Review 20-022, and Initial Study 19-003) for the proposed Residential Health Care Facility, located on the west side of Sierra Highway, south of Newhall Avenue (APN: 2827-005-048), subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A). Master Case 18-235 RAP18-002; CUP 18-011; HDR 19-001; OTP 18-013; MUP 18-021; DR 18-024; ADR 20-022; IS 19-003 Page 2 of 14 February 16, 2021 REQUEST The applicant is requesting the approval of a Ridgeline Alteration Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Hillside Development Permit, Oak Tree Permit, Minor Use Permit, Development Review Permit, and an Architectural Design Review Permit for the construction of an 83-unit, 61,736 square -foot senior living facility on a 1.1-acre flat portion of a 3.99-acre project site. BACKGROUND On November 19, 2018, the applicant submitted an application requesting the approval of an 83- unit, 61,736 square foot Residential Health Care Facility located in the Mixed Use -Corridor (MX-C) and Planned Development (PD) overlay zones approximately 680 feet south of the intersection of Sierra Highway and Newhall Avenue. The project was deemed complete on December 19, 2018. Development Review Committee meetings were conducted on January 30, 2019, June 20, 2019 and May 8, 2020. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project would include an 83-unit, 61,736-square-foot senior living facility, which would consist of independent, assisted living, and memory care units. The proposed development area would be concentrated on an approximately 1.1-acre, flat portion of the 3.99-acre project site located adjacent to Sierra Highway. The proposed building would include a total of six levels, five of which would be aboveground and one of which would be subterranean. However, due to existing varied topography, five levels would be visible aboveground on the eastern elevation and four levels would be visible aboveground on the western elevation. The subterranean level would consist of guest parking spaces, clean air vehicle parking spaces, and employee parking spaces. The subterranean level would be accessed by guest and employees through a gated entrance at the northeast corner of the building and would include laundry, storage, equipment rooms, and separate elevators for the independent/assisted living and memory care portions of the building. Level one would consist of resident parking spaces, bike storage, and a front entrance lobby and covered porch. Also included on level one would be an electrical equipment room, mail room, office space, and amenities including a salon and gymnasium. Residents would enter and exit on the first -level parking area through a gated entrance on the southeast corner of the building. All 29 memory care units would be located on level two which would also consist of resident dining facilities, the kitchen, common areas, and an enclosed courtyard for the exclusive use of the memory care residents. This floor would also include its own secure outdoor area for memory care residents, along with separate dining facilities and a designated elevator. Levels three and four would each contain 19 independent/assisted living units and a common area, while level five would contain 16 independent/assisted living units, a common area, and a rooftop deck on the east side of the building. Master Case 18-235 RAP18-002; CUP 18-011; HDR 19-001; OTP 18-013; MUP 18-021; DR 18-024; ADR 20-022; IS 19-003 Page 3 of 14 February 16, 2021 In total, the proposed building would include 29 studio (325-square-foot) memory care units, 51 one -bedroom (650-square-foot) independent/assisted living units, and 3 two -bedroom (845 square -foot) independent/assisted living units, for a total of 83 units. Of the 54 oak trees onsite, the proposed project would include the removal of one heritage oak and four non -heritage oak trees. The balance of the oak trees on the Project Site (49 oaks) would be retained and incorporated into the Proposed Project's landscaping plan. Grading of the development area would result in approximately 10,000 cubic yards of cut and 400 cubic yards of fill, resulting in 9,600 cubic yards of soil to be exported from the site. Vehicular traffic would access the site through two driveways: an existing driveway located on Sierra Highway, and a new driveway located approximately 180 feet from the existing driveway. A truck loading space and fire turn -around access would be located on the south side of the building. Finally, approximately 81 percent of the site would consist of natural open space and new landscaping. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING The General Plan land use designation for the subject property is Mixed Use -Corridor (MX-C). The zoning designation for the subject property is also MX-C and is located in a Planned Development (PD) overlay zone. Section 17.35.010 of the UDC states that the MX-C zone "is intended for mixed use development, which is encouraged along specified commercial corridors in which revitalization of underutilized parcels or aging buildings is desired, subject to the applicable requirements of the code. Mixed uses along corridors may be either vertical or horizontal; provided, that residential units in these areas should be protected from adverse impacts of high -volume arterial streets, and will typically be located an appropriate distance from the roadway. Nonresidential uses consistent with this district include those in the neighborhood commercial (CN) and community commercial (CC) districts. The residential density range in mixed use corridors shall be a minimum of eleven (11) to a maximum of thirty (30) dwelling units per acre, and maximum floor area ratio for the nonresidential portion of the development shall be 1.0." Further, Section 17.38.060 of the UDC states that the "planned development (PD) overlay zone regulations are intended to provide additional discretion for previously vacant, or underutilized parcels, as identified on the City's zoning map. All new development or redevelopment in excess of fifty percent (50%) valuation of the existing structures, as determined by the Building Official, whether permitted, minor, or conditionally permitted, shall be subject to the approval of a conditional use permit." The subject property is bounded to the north by an auto repair use, to the south by Eternal Valley Cemetery, to the west by a church, and to the east by vacant undeveloped land. Master Case 18-235 RAP18-002; CUP 18-011; HDR 19-001; OTP 18-013; MUP 18-021; DR 18-024; ADR 20-022; IS 19-003 Page 4 of 14 February 16, 2021 General Plan Zoning Land Use Project MX-C MX-C Residential Care Facility North MX-C MX-C Auto Repair South OS OS Cemetery West UR3 UR3 Church East CR CR Vacant ANAT VCTC Entitlements The following is a list of the entitlements required for the construction of the proposed 83-unit residential health care facility: • Rddgeline Alteration Permit: Required for the encroachment into the 100-foot vertical ridgeline protection zone. A thorough analysis of the potential impacts to the adjacent significant ridgeline was conducted by staff. Because the proposed development does not include the physical alteration of the significant ridgeline and that the majority of the development activity would take place on a relatively flat portion of the project site tucked between adjacent hillside areas, the proposed development would not significantly detract from the aesthetic value of the significant ridgeline. Master Case 18-235 RAP18-002; CUP 18-011; HDR 19-001; OTP 18-013; MUP 18-021; DR 18-024; ADR 20-022; IS 19-003 Page 5 of 14 February 16, 2021 • Conditional Use Permit: Required for the operation and maintenance of a Residential Health Care Facility in the MX-C zone, for the development of a property in the PD overlay zone and for the construction of a building in excess of 50 feet in height. The proposed development went through a thorough review process that included the review of the potential impacts of the anticipated operational characteristics, the consistency with surrounding land uses, and the proposed building height. The proposed use would result in vehicle trip generation that is less than other residential and commercial uses, would not be considered a source of noise generation that would exceed the noise thresholds established in the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, would not impede on pedestrians, vehicles or surrounding uses due to the proposed height of the building, and would be consistent with the General Plan. • Hillside Development Review: Required for development activity on natural slopes in excess of 10% slope. Staff conducted a thorough review of the potential impacts to adjacent hillside areas as a result of the proposed project. Though the project site has an average cross slope of 24%, the majority of the development activity would occur on a relatively flat portion of the project site tucked between hillside areas that will remain in their natural state with the exception of a proposed retaining wall. • Oak Tree Permit: Required for the removal of five oak trees (one heritage and four non - heritage), and the encroachment into an additional nine oak trees (two heritage and seven non -heritage). The City's oak tree specialist reviewed the oak tree study prepared for the project, and has issued conditions of approval that would fully mitigate for the value of the trees proposed for removal as described below in the oak tree analysis. Minor Use Permit: Required for the reduction of the required minimum number of residential units in an MX-C zone. The proposed development went through an extensive review process that included a review of the potential impact of the reduction of residential units on the project site. The project will function as a quasi -residential and commercial land use. The fact that the use operates to provide a viable housing alternative serves to counterbalance the reduction of traditional residential units. Master Case 18-235 RAP18-002; CUP 18-011; HDR 19-001; OTP 18-013; MUP 18-021; DR 18-024; ADR 20-022; IS 19-003 Page 6 of 14 February 16, 2021 • Development Review: Required for the approval of a commercial construction project. The proposed development went through an extensive development review committee review process to ensure the projects consistency with the UDC. Architectural Design Review: Required for the review of the proposed architectural elements associated with the proposed project. The proposed development went through an extensive architectural review process with the City's architectural design consultant, RRM Design Group to ensure the projects consistency with the City of Santa Clarita Community Character and Design Guidelines. The proposed architecture was found to be consistent with the Contemporary Western Style associated with the community of Newhall. Initial Study: Required as a part of the environmental review process per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to CEQA, an Initial Study was conducted by the City's on call environmental consultant, Michael Baker, International who determined that the project warranted the preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The result of the MND was a determination that with mitigation, the proposed project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact to the environment. Land Use The proposed land use would be a for -profit enterprise consisting of an 83-unit, 61,736-square- foot senior living facility, including independent living, assisted living and memory care units. Meals, healthcare services and other personal and recreational services will be made available to residents by onsite staff. The proposed use is consistent with the types of quasi -residential and commercial land uses in terms of operational characteristics and the employment opportunities envisioned for the zone. Section 17.42.010(11) of the Unified Development Code (UDC) defines Residential Health Care Facilities as facilities usually occupied by the elderly that provide rooms, meals, personal care and health monitoring services under the supervision of a professional nurse or other professional health care provider and that may provide other services, such as recreation, social and cultural activities, financial services and transportation and is therefore consistent with the UDC definition of a Residential Health Care Facility which requires the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the MX-C zone. Master Case 18-235 RAP18-002; CUP 18-011; HDR 19-001; OTP 18-013; MUP 18-021; DR 18-024; ADR 20-022; IS 19-003 Page 7 of 14 February 16, 2021 Significant Ridgeline The ridgeline preservation (RP) zoning overlay classification was established in an effort to achieve the City's objective to preserve the ridgelines within the City limits for the public health, safety and welfare for the long-term benefit of the community, maintenance of the unique visual characteristics, resources and ridgeline integrity, and to achieve a higher quality of life for its residents. As shown in Image 1 below, a designated significant ridgeline parallels the northern boundary of the property highlighted in yellow. Image 1: Significant Ridgeline Image 2 shows the exisitng condition of the project site looking west from Sierra Highway with the significant ridgeline located in the background. Master Case 18-235 RAP18-002; CUP 18-011; HDR 19-001; OTP 18-013; MUP 18-021; DR 18-024; ADR 20-022; IS 19-003 Page 8 of 14 February 16, 2021 Image 2: Existing condition with significant ridgeline The precise ridgelines are defined as the line formed by the meeting of the tops of sloping surfaces of land. The RP overlay zone was established to protect the visual integrity of the area within 100 feet vertical and 100 feet horizontal from the ridgeline. The red line shown in Image 3 identifies the location of the significant ridgeline. The shaded green area identifes the full extent of the 100-foot horizontal ridgeline protection overlay zone and a portion of the 100-foot vertical ridgeline protection overlay zone. The gold color shaded area identifies the remaining portion of the 100-foot vertical ridgeline protection overlay zone located outside of the horizontal ridgeline protection overlay zone. Image 3 demonstrates that the proposed development activity would be located within the both the horizontal and vertical portions of the ridgeline protection overlay zone. Therefore, as stated in Section 17.38.070 of the UDC, the proposed use requires the approval of a Ridgeline Alteration Permit. Master Case 18-235 RAP18-002; CUP 18-011; HDR 19-001; OTP 18-013; MUP 18-021; DR 18-024; ADR 20-022; IS 19-003 Page 9 of 14 February 16, 2021 Image 3: Significant Ridgeline Exhibit IMYH+ VV 4" PCC .iYf#'MK.K 3fl p� A wr�sFn eaua arrawx� wnci. � V 4� � � 7p` f \ n.c eavcwrw seara�x ,aev swws ram. arAarr. �pWV r � � �, � � `% � r�l , l'/ - � ipuV A1� fkg9W d11CG0.5'4'W85 MR ARCH. �IWI��II� aCNt4]AtiG' iF£€ ro PE RLMfi4Y'd rPtl A H k 1 wraro5in uO CMIL cur: sire qnr ,R sans tRER 2j 2u '' PR '17$.[D CdSKi"MC Y ii. „ii�llllllllllll i ,�;, M � '� PAI U1.. ryy' p ;a:y!�h�, Wye I � 'R � w „, , rxf (e�1 iJkra � I % � uil �� + C n w r tlrr �,. �mna "x ti Mfi,4 tg- i° , rrr w gp vY .�:n ry p RY7Mk rwt�'+m ( uv' 6 ywi �� fff J; rrG,w F� �u&nr rou+r`,'ii f tI f ,,x Jar a� err usi�,nmunvi7'2Yx.rrgr�c�.�,+ if I All, p 7,u m raw q�, l r 1 [ -4� ,a �fu r�" ` rrxie" a 11 v ar w� r i s✓ r iw " . �r P E ID�✓ �, I r i "," 77 �p'i, rcL xi rd tit���Iv ;f ! u u oM1 mnl 6 I� N tl�pwM➢ 5 � �VI The proposed Project would utilize creative site design strategies to limit the majority of the development activity to the portion of the site that possesses the least amount of natural topography therefore limiting required grading activity and reducing impacts to adjacent hillsides. The Project would conserve natural topographic features and appearances by means of contour grading and would mimic the existing topography to the extent possible so as to blend any manufactured slopes or required drainage benches into the natural topography. By placing the proposed building on a portion of the site with limited variation in topography surrounded by the adjacent natural hillside, the proposed development would utilize a relatively flat portion of the Project site and would therefore not alter prominent natural features of the ridgelines. Images 4 and 5 show the proposed architectural renderings. Despite the fact that the proposed building would partially obscure the designated significant ridgeline, a significant portion would still be visible from Sierra Highway and State Route 14. Building Height The maximum allowable building height in the MX-C zone without the approval of a CUP is 50 feet. As proposed, the five -story building would be 56 feet-3 inches in height. However, the varying horizontal planes at the upper extent of the building facade is recessed back from the Master Case 18-235 RAP18-002; CUP 18-011; HDR 19-001; OTP 18-013; MUP 18-021; DR 18-024; ADR 20-022; IS 19-003 Page 10 of 14 February 16, 2021 vertical face of the building to provide for visual variation and to reduce the impacts to pedestrians and vehicle traffic at the street level as shown in Images 4 and 5 below. Architecture All new construction within the City of Santa Clarita is subject to the Santa Clarita Community Character and Design Guidelines (SCCDG). The SCCDG has established specific design criteria for the community of Newhall. The City utilized the services of RRM Design Group (consultant), the City's on -call architectural consultant for the review of the proposed architecture. The proposed design was reviewed for compliance with the SCCDG, specifically the portions relating to the community character of Newhall and multifamily development. It was the determination of the consultant that the proposed project is consistent with the "Contemporary Western" style specified for the community of Newhall_ Images 4 and 5 include the proposed architectural renderings for the project. Master Case 18-235 RAP18-002; CUP 18-011; HDR 19-001; OTP 18-013; MUP 18-021; DR 18-024; ADR 20-022; IS 19-003 Page 11 of 14 February 16, 2021 Parking Section 17.42.010(11) of the UDC requires that 0.5 parking spaces be provided onsite for each unit or bed. The proposed Residential Health Care Facility consists of 83 units. Therefore, a total of 42 onsite parking spaces are required for the proposed use. The site plan provided demonstrates that 77 onsite parking spaces would be provided. Therefore, the proposed project would provide 35 onsite parking spaces in excess of what is required by the UDC. A total of 73 parking spaces would be provided within the five -story parking structure, while 4 spaces would be provided as surface parking spaces for a total of 77 spaces. The table below demonstrates how the parking is distributed onsite and includes a provision for guest parking spaces and Clean Air/Vanpool/Electric Vehicle parking spaces. Parking Resident Guest Parking Employee Parking Unassigned Clean Total Level Parking Air/Vanpool/Electrical Vehicle Parkin Basement 21 * l l * 1** 33 Level Level 1 40 40 Surface 4 4 Parkin Total 40 21 15 1 77 *Includes 1 Clean Air/Vanpool/Electric Vehicle Parking Space * * 1 additional space included with Guest Parking and 1 with Employee Parking for a total of 3 Master Case 18-235 RAP18-002; CUP 18-011; HDR 19-001; OTP 18-013; MUP 18-021; DR 18-024; ADR 20-022; IS 19-003 Page 12 of 14 February 16, 2021 Hillside Development Section 17.35.010 of the UDC requires a minimum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of .25 and a maximum FAR of 1.0 in the MX-C zone. The subject property is 3.99 acres in size and therefore, the minimum allowable floor area of the proposed building area would be 43,451 square feet. Further, the maximum allowable floor area would be 173,804 square feet. However, the subject property has an average slope of 24%. Section 17.51.020(B) of the UDC requires a 35% reduction from the allowable floor area for commercial uses with an average slope of 24%. When applying the required 35% floor area reduction, the minimum allowable floor area decreases to 28,243 square feet while the maximum allowable floor area decreases to a maximum of 112,972 square feet. As proposed, the Residential Health Care Facility would be 61,736 square feet in size which is between the minimum allowable floor area of 28,243 square feet and the maximum allowable floor area of 112,972 square feet making the proposed building area consistent with the UDC in terms of allowable floor area as shown in the table below. MXC F.A.R. With Hillside Proposed Zone Reduction (3.99 ac) Minimum .25 43,451 sf 28,243 sf FAR 61,736 sf Maximum 1.0 173,804 sf 112,972 sf FAR Oak Trees The proposed project would result in the removal of five oak trees, and the encroachment into the protected zone of an additional nine oaks. Of the five oak trees to be removed, one is a heritage status oak. Further, of the nine oak trees to be encroached upon, two are heritage status oaks. Image 6 is the Protected Tree Plan and shows the proposed removals in red and the proposed encroachments in blue. Those trees designated as heritage oaks are outlined in yellow. Tree numbers 1, 2 and 3 would be removed as they are in the footprint of the proposed building. Trees 31 and 32 would be removed as a result of the construction of proposed walls. All proposed encroachments would occur as a result of minor grading activity associated with the construction of the same walls used to create open space area for residents and street improvements along Sierra Highway. Master Case 18-235 RAP18-002; CUP 18-011; HDR 19-001; OTP 18-013; MUP 18-021; DR 18-024; ADR 20-022; IS 19-003 Page 13 of 14 February 16, 2021 Per Condition of Approval SD24 (Attachment A), the applicant shall mitigate for the ISA tree value of $268,500. Mitigation shall be determined by the City and can be an acceptable combination of replacement oaks planted on the site and the balance of the replacement value paid into the City Oak Tree Fund. Image 6: Protected tree plan PROTECTECITREE PLAN I411) v Y l j1 Of r„Propo,ed oni-hest ge oak en roach ents %� , f Proposed non -heritage rit �k, removals @ Proposed heriftageoak. encroachments Proposed heritageoak removal ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS 2 An Initial Study was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Initial Study determined that impacts related to biological resources, cultural resources, and tribal and cultural resources as it relates to the proposed project are considered to be less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of CEQA. The initial study was circulated from January 26, 2021 to February 16, 2021. PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS On January 26, 2021, a Notice of Public Hearing was sent to all property owners within a 1,000- foot radius of the project site in accordance with Section 17.06.110(B) of the UDC. A legal notice advertising the public hearing was placed in The Signal, and a sign was posted on the project site. To date, the Community Development Department has not received any comments related to the proposed project. Master Case 18-235 RAP18-002; CUP 18-011; HDR 19-001; OTP 18-013; MUP 18-021; DR 18-024; ADR 20-022; IS 19-003 Page 14 of 14 February 16, 2021 ATTACHMENTS Resolution P21-01 Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A) Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study Site Pan, Floor Plan, Grading Plan, Landscape Plan Colored Elevations Public Hearing Notice RESOLUTION NO. P21-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVE MASTER CASE 18-235; RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 18-002; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 18-011; HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 19-001; OAK TREE PERMIT 18-013; MINOR USE PERMIT 18-021; DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 18-024; AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW 20-022 TO ALLOW AN 83-UNIT RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF SIERRA HIGHWAY, SOUTH OF NEWHALL AVENUE (ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 2827-005-048), IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council make the following findings of fact: A. An application for Master Case 18-235 (Ridgeline Alteration Permit 18-002; Conditional Use Permit 18-011; Hillside Development Review 19-001; Oak Tree Permit 18-013; Minor Use Permit 18-021; Development Review 18-024; Architectural Design Review 20-022; and Initial Study 19-003) was filed by Norris Whitmore (hereinafter "Applicant") with the City of Santa Clarita (City) on November 19, 2018. The property for which this application was filed is located west of Sierra Highway and south of Newhall Avenue Assessor's Parcel Number (APN): 2827-005-048 (hereinafter "Subject Site"); B. The Project consists of a five -story, 83-unit, 61,736 square -foot senior -living facility, including independent living, assisted living and memory care units consistent with the Residential Health Care Facility land use designation; C. The application was deemed complete on December 19, 2018; D. Development Review Committee meetings were conducted on January 30, 2019, June 20,2019, and May 28, 2020; E. The zoning and General Plan designation for the subject site is Mixed Use -Corridor (MX-C) and is located in the Ridgeline Preservation and Planned Development (PD) overlay zones; F. The property is bound by Sierra Highway to the east, a mortuary and memorial park to the south, an auto tuning workshop to the north, and undeveloped hills to the west; G. On February 16, 2021, a duly noticed public hearing was held before the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, Council Chambers, 23920 Resolution P21-01 Master Case 18-235 February 16, 2021 Page 2 of 11 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita; H. At this public hearing, the Planning Commission considered the staff report, staff presentation, applicant's presentation, and public testimony. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council find as follows: A. An Initial Study and a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this Project have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); B. The Initial Study has been circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public, and all comments received, if any, have been considered. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted and advertised on January 26, 2021, in accordance with CEQA. The public review period was open from January 26, 2021 through February 16, 2021; C. There is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment with the required mitigation. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City; D. The location of the documents and other material which constitutes the record of proceedings upon which the decision of the Planning Commission is the Master Case 18- 235 Project file within the Community Development Department and is in the custody of the Director of Community Development; and E. The Planning Commission, based upon the findings set forth above, hereby finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration for this Project has been prepared in compliance with CEQA. SECTION 3. GENERAL FINDINGS FOR MASTER CASE 18-235. Based on the foregoing facts and findings for Master Case 18-235 the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council find as follows: A. That the proposal is consistent with the General Plan; The proposed Project is consistent with the City of Santa Clarita's General Plan (General Plan). Specifically, the General Plan Land Use Element, Objective 3.1 and Policy 3.1.6 state: Objective 3.1: Provide for a diversity of housing types available to provide safe and suitable homes for all economic levels, household sizes, age groups and special needs groups within the community. Resolution P21-01 Master Case 18-235 February 16, 2021 Page 3 of 11 Policy 3.1.6: Promote development of housing suitable to residents with special needs, including, but not limited to senior citizens and persons with disabilities. The proposed Project would construct an 83-unit Residential Health Care Facility. The facility would provide an active environment for senior citizens and provide on -site services including medical supervision. A portion of the units would be dedicated to memory care. B. The proposal is allowed within the applicable underlying zone and complies with all other applicable provisions of the UDC; The proposed use is allowed within the applicable underlying zone, MX-C, via the Conditional Use Permit process. The proposed Project is consistent with all General Plan goals, objectives and policies for architecture, and site design and meets the applicable UDC provisions identified in Sections 17.34, 17.42, 17.51, 17.53 and 17.57 for residential and commercial developments as identified in the Conditions of Approval generated for the proposed Project. C. The proposal will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, or be materially detrimental or injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located; and An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were completed for the proposed Project. With the required mitigation, the Project will produce either no impact or less than significant impacts in all areas identified by the study. The Project will not handle or use commercial quantities or types of hazardous materials, will have less than significant impact on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, will not generate noise beyond that contemplated by the City's Noise Ordinance, is not subject to landslide hazards or flood hazards, will have less than significant impact on water quality, will not divide any existing community, and will have less than significant impact on population and housing. D. The proposal is physically suitable for the site. The factors related to the proposal's physical suitability for the site shall include, but are not limited to, the following: 1) The design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics are suitable for the proposed use; The proposed Project is an 83-unit Residential Health Care Facility is located on a previously disturbed vacant parcel in the MX-C zone. The subject property is approximately 3.99 acres in size, with an approximate 1.1-acre development area. The proposed Project is consistent with all applicable UDC provisions identified in Sections 17.34, 17.42, 17.51 and 17.55. The proposed facility complies with the Resolution P21-01 Master Case 18-235 February 16, 2021 Page 4 of 11 City's Community Character and Design Guidelines and is consistent with the massing and density of development allowed in the area. Further, the Residential Health Care Facility has operational characteristics such as reduced vehicle trip generation that reduces the potential for adverse impacts making the use suitable for the proposed location. 2) The highways or streets that provide access to the site are of sufficient width and are improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such proposal would generate; The proposed Project is fronted by Sierra Highway, a major arterial highway. Over 16,200 daily trips occur on the segment of Sierra Highway that fronts the subject site. The proposed Project would generate approximately 216 new daily trips which would increase the total daily trips on the adjacent segment of Sierra Highway by slightly greater than one -tenth of one percent. Finally, all ingress and egress from the Project will be right -turn in and right -turn out only. No traffic leaving the site will be allowed to perform a left turn across traffic. These design features comply with all applicable requirements for commercial development by the Traffic Engineering Division. 3) Public protection services (e.g., Fire protection, Sheriff protection, etc.) are readily available; and The proposed Project would not create any significant adverse impacts to public services, nor would it necessitate the construction of new facilities for fire, police, school services or parks. Although the proposed use could result in an increase in the number of local trips for medical purposes, because a portion of population at the proposed use would be derived from the current City population, these would not be new trips. Further, because the proposed Project only contains 83 units, the number of actual new trips would be low and well within the current capacity of existing emergency services. 4) The provision of utilities (e.g., potable water, schools, solid waste collection and disposal, storm drainage, wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal, etc.) is adequate to serve the site. The proposed Project is required via the Conditions of Approval to establish all needed utilities prior to the issuance of building permits. Resolution P21-01 Master Case 18-235 February 16, 2021 Page 5 of 11 SECTION 4. RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT FINDINGS FOR RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 18-002. Based on the foregoing facts and findings for Ridgeline Alteration Permit 18-002 the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council find as follows: A. The use or development will not be materially detrimental to the visual character of the neighborhood or community, nor will it endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare. The Project would not be materially detrimental to the visual character of the site, as the Residential health Care Facility use would be appropriate in relation to adjacent uses and the development of the community as is evidenced by development allowed on parcels adjacent to the intersection of Sierra Highway and Newhall Avenue. The proposed buildings would utilize materials and design elements consistent with the Community Character and Design Guidelines for the community of Newhall and the built - environment of all proposed development would be consistent in scale and massing with surrounding allowable development. Mitigation measures recommended in the MND and compliance with all local codes ensure that the Project would not endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare. B. The appearance of the use or development will not be substantially different than the appearance of adjoining ridgeline areas so as to cause depreciation of the ridgeline appearance in the vicinity. The proposed buildings would utilize materials and design elements consistent with the Community Character and Design Guidelines for the community of Newhall and the built -environment of all proposed development would be consistent in scale and massing with allowable development on surrounding properties. Furthermore, the Project maintains views of the site's prominent ridgeline for pedestrians and travelers along Sierra Highway and Newhall Avenue. C. The establishment of the proposed use or development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties, nor encourage inappropriate encroachments to the ridgeline area. Implementation of the Project would not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property nor encourage inappropriate future encroachments into the ridgeline areas. Overall, the Project would not alter the visual integrity of the ridgeline as the majority of the ridgeline will remain visible by pedestrians and vehicle traffic on Sierra Highway and development of the site would not restrict the views of other ridgelines located off the Project site. Resolution P21-01 Master Case 18-235 February 16, 2021 Page 6 of 11 D. The proposed use or development demonstrates creative site design resulting in a Project that will complement the community character and provide a direct benefit to current and future community residents of not only the proposed use or development, but the residents of the City as a whole. The proposed Residential Health Care Facility would incorporate design elements consistent with the Community Character and Design Guidelines for the community of Newhall and would utilize creative site design strategies to limit the majority of the development activity to the portion of the site that possesses the least amount of natural topography reducing impact to adjacent hillsides and limited grading activity. Further, the proposed use would be a direct benefit to residents of the community as it provides employment opportunities and serves an aging population and those in need of ongoing memory care services. E. The use or development minimizes the effects of grading to the extent practicable to ensure that the natural character of the ridgeline is preserved. The entirety of the Project site is located within the 100-foot vertical ridgeline protection zone. However, the proposed Project would utilize creative site design strategies to limit the majority of the development activity to the portion of the site that possesses the least amount of natural topography reducing impact to adjacent hillsides and limited required grading activity. F. The proposed use or development is designed to mimic the existing topography to the greatest extent possible through the use of landform contour grading. While limited grading would occur within the ridgeline protection zone, the Project would still be consistent with Conservation and Open Space Element Policies. The Project would conserve natural topographic features and appearances by means of landform grading, so as to blend any manufactured slopes or required drainage benches into the natural topography. The proposed building would be located on a portion of the site with limited variation in topography and surrounded by natural hillside thereby conserving the significant ridgeline located outside the subject property boundaries. G. The proposed use or development does not alter natural landmarks and prominent natural features of the ridgelines. By placing the proposed building on a portion of the site with limited variation in topography surrounded by the adjacent natural hillside, the proposed development would utilize a relatively flat portion of the Project site and would therefore not alter prominent natural features of the ridgelines. While grading would occur at the base of the ridgeline protection zone, the Project would still be consistent with Conservation and Open Space Element because the Project would only alter a limited portion of the ridgeline. Further, Resolution P21-01 Master Case 18-235 February 16, 2021 Page 7 of 11 there are no public scenic overlooks on or adjacent to the Project site. Therefore, the proposed Project would not alter natural landmarks. SECTION 5. SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (CLASS 4) 19-001. Based on the foregoing facts and findings for Hillside Development Review 19-001 the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council find as follows: A. That the natural topographic features and appearances are conserved by means of landform grading to blend any manufactured slopes or required drainage benches into the natural topography; While limited grading would occur within the ridgeline protection zone, no portion of the existing ridgeline would be graded, and therefore the proposed Project would be consistent with Conservation and Open Space Element Policies. The Project would conserve natural topographic features and appearances by means of landform grading, so as to blend any manufactured slopes or required drainage benches into the natural topography. The proposed building would be located on a portion of the site with limited variation in topography and surrounded by natural hillside thereby conserving the significant ridgeline located outside the subject property boundaries. B. That natural, topographic prominent features are retained to the maximum extent possible; The grading plan would involve an estimated cut of 10,000 cubic yards and a fill of 400 cubic yards resulting in 9,600 cubic yards of soil to be exported from the site. The total development footprint would cover approximately 1.11 acres. The Project includes grading within the Ridgeline Preservation (RP) overlay zone for the construction of retaining walls to create the final building pad area. The Project site contains hillsides with an average cross -slope in excess of 10% requiring the approval of a Hillside Development Review in accordance with the UDC. The grading will blend into the neighboring hillsides, utilize appropriate contour grading techniques to soften the impacts associated with the grading, and will comply with Hillside Development standards of the UDC. C. That clustered sites and buildings are utilized where such techniques can be demonstrated to substantially reduce grading alterations of the terrain and to contribute to the preservation of trees, other natural vegetation and prominent landmark features and are compatible with existing neighborhood; The proposed development consists of a single five -story building that is situated within a relatively flat portion of the subject property that however includes grading into the adjacent slopes for the purposes of retaining walls to complete the remainder of the building pad area. Of the 54 onsite and adjacent oak trees, 49 will remain in place and approximately 2.88 acres of the 3.99-acre Project site will remain undeveloped in its natural state. Therefore, the proposed design of the Project will contribute to the Resolution P21-01 Master Case 18-235 February 16, 2021 Page 8 of 11 preservation of trees to the extent possible, other natural vegetation, prominent features and would be compatible with surrounding existing development. D. That building setbacks, building heights and compatible structures and building forms that would serve to blend buildings and structures with the terrain are utilized; The proposed building is consistent with the setback requirements of the UDC. The colors, materials, massing and other architectural elements utilized in the proposed building are consistent with the Community Character and Design Guidelines. Further, the proposed Project utilizes landform grading to blend any slopes or drainage benches into the natural topography. Therefore, building setbacks, building heights and compatible structures and building forms that would serve to blend buildings and structures with the terrain have been utilized. E. That plant materials are conserved and introduced so as to protect slopes from slippage and soil erosion and to minimize visual effects of grading and construction on hillside areas, including the consideration of the preservation of prominent trees and, to the extent possible, while meeting the standards of the Fire Department; The proposed development area consists of a relatively flat 1.11-acre portion of the 3.99- acre Project site. As a result, approximately 2.88 acres of the overall Project site would be left in its natural condition conserving existing plant material. The proposed Project would retain 49 of the existing 54 oak trees existing on or immediately adjacent to the subject property. Further, the landscape plan would include a plant palette consisting of native species that would have best chances of thriving in their environment. Therefore, the proposed Project would serve to prevent erosion activity and minimize the visual effects of grading on the Project site. F. That street design and improvements that serve to minimize grading alterations and emulate the natural contours and character of the hillsides are utilized; The proposed Project includes the construction of one five -story, 61,736 square foot residential health care facility with two driveways located immediately adjacent to Sierra Highway, an existing major highway. All proposed vehicular circulation would be facilitated at that portion of the Project site most adjacent to Sierra Highway, a relatively flat portion of the Project site. Further, no additional roadways are proposed as a part of the Project. Therefore, the street design and improvements would serve to minimize grading alterations and emulate the natural contours and character of the hillsides. G. That grading designs that serve to avoid disruption to adjacent properties are utilized; and The proposed Project does not include off site grading of any kind. Further, all proposed grading would be concentrated with the development footprint which is located on a relatively flat portion of the subject property. Therefore, the proposed grading would not disrupt adjacent properties. Resolution P21-01 Master Case 18-235 February 16, 2021 Page 9 of 11 H. That site design and grading that provide the minimum disruption of view corridors and scenic vistas from and around any proposed development are utilized. The Project is not located within any scenic vistas and is not anticipated to have a significant impact to the visual character of the site. The Project includes development within the ridgeline protection zone of an identified Significant Ridgeline in the City's General Plan Conservation Element. No portion of the existing ridgeline would be graded as a part of the proposed Project and therefore the Project would still be consistent with Conservation and Open Space Element Policies. Based on the evaluations of existing conditions, including the fact that the ridgeline on the Project site is not a character - defining feature of the Newhall community, the Project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. SECTION 6. OAK TREE PERMIT FINDINGS FOR OAK TREE PERMIT 18-013. Based on the foregoing facts and findings for Oak Tree Permit 18-013 the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council find as follows: A. The approving authority shall make one (1) or more of the following findings before granting an oak tree permit: The condition or location of the oak tree(s) requires cutting to maintain or aid its health, balance, or structure; ii. The condition of the tree(s) with respect to disease, danger of falling, proximity to existing lots, pedestrian walkways or interference with utility services cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable preservation and/or preventative procedures and practices; iii. It is necessary to remove, relocate, prune, cut or encroach into the protected zone of an oak tree to enable reasonable use of the subject property which is otherwise prevented by the presence of the tree and no reasonable alternative can be accommodated due to the unique physical development constraints of the property; or iv. The approval of the request will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of the code. The Project site contains 54 oak trees that are protected by the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. The Project consists of the removal of one heritage oak tree and four non -heritage sized oak trees, the potential encroachment encroachment of up to nine oak trees, two of which are considered heritage oak trees. The City would require replacement oak trees to be planted in the landscaped areas of the Project site to offset the loss the removed of oak trees. If planting on -site is not possible, the applicant may donate the replacement oak trees to the City or provide the equivalent monetary value of the replacement trees to the City's Oak Tree Fund. Further, compliance with Resolution P21-01 Master Case 18-235 February 16, 2021 Page 10 of 11 the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance, including the Standards for Performance of Permitted Work of the Oak Tree Preservation Guidelines, would ensure that the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and impacts. B. No heritage oak tree shall be removed unless one (1) or more of the above findings are made and the review authority also finds that the heritage oak tree's continued existence would prevent any reasonable development of the property and that no reasonable alternative can be accommodated due to the unique physical constraints of the property. It shall further be found that the removal of such heritage oak tree will not be unreasonably detrimental to the community and surrounding area. The proposed project includes the removal of one heritage oak tree. The heritage oak tree is located in the only relatively flat portion of the project site where preservation of the tree would require additional grading into the ridgeline protection zone to create a sufficient building pad area to facilitate any reasonable development of the site. Further, due to the properties unique constraints including the immediately adjacent significant ridgeline protection zone, the limited amount of relatively flat topography and its immediate adjacency to Sierra Highway, no reasonable alternative can be accommodated. Removal of the heritage oak tree would not be unreasonably detrimental to the community and the surrounding area as 49 of the existing 54 oak trees will remain onsite and the City would require replacement oak trees to be planted onsite to offset the loss of the removed oak trees. If planting onsite is not possible, the applicant may donate the replacement trees to the City or provide the equivalent monetary value of the replacement trees to the City's Oak Tree Fund. SECTION 7. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita, California, as follows: Adopt Resolution P21-01, recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, approving Master Case 18-235, Ridgeline Alteration Permit 18- 002; Conditional Use Permit 18-011; Hillside Development Review 19-001; Oak Tree Permit 18-013; Minor Use Permit 18-021; Development Review 18-024; Architectural Design Review 20-022; and Initial Study 19-003, to allow for an 83-unit Residential Health Care Facility, located on the west side of Sierra Highway, south of Newhall Avenue (APN: 2827-005-048), subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A). Resolution P21-01 Master Case 18-235 February 16, 2021 Page 11 of 11 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of February, 2021. CHAIRPERSON PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: RACHEL CLARK PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I, Rachel Clark, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 16th day of February 2021 by the following vote of the Planning Commission: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY S\ IAVI I ANNIN(' L)I rIYONV('U' INIV!261rU�4�.1 d-2n�(Sirn I].j, �A �stedl i�,u��,}\�. _Yl iuwy,� c cuzr� �4n\1a„235N R satnlunidoc„ ... ....... ..._ ..... ....... ... .... ..