Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-07-12 - AGENDA REPORTS - ETERNAL VALLEY MEMORIAL PARK EXPANSIONO Agenda Item: 1 1. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARINGS CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: DATE: July 12, 2022 SUBJECT: PROPOSED EXPANSION OF ETERNAL VALLEY MEMORIAL PARK DEPARTMENT: Community Development PRESENTER: Andy Olson RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council: 1. Conduct the public hearing. 2. Adopt a resolution for a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving Master Case 20-231, consisting of Ridgeline Alteration Permit 20-001, Hillside Development Review (4)20-005, Development Review 21-015, Architectural Design Review 21-022, Oak Tree Permit (2)21- 011, and Initial Study 20-007, to allow for the expansion of the Eternal Valley Memorial Park, located at 23287 Sierra Highway (Assessor Parcel Numbers: 2827-008-057 and 2827- 008-059) within the City of Santa Clarita, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A). BACKGROUND On June 7, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the proposed project. During the public hearing, the applicant requested the Planning Commission revise the project to replace the decorative block wall with a tubular steel fence. The block wall, as recommended by staff, would serve to provide a visual and sound buffer along Needham Ranch Parkway. With a 3-0 vote, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve Master Case 20-231 with two suggestions: 1) proceeding with the block wall as proposed and as recommended by staff, and 2) for the applicant to work with City Staff to enhance the architecture of the proposed mausoleum. The applicant has prepared updated architectural renderings, as shown in the attached Mausoleum plans, that address the Planning Commission recommendation. Page 1 Packet Pg. 9 O The existing cemetery, today known as Eternal Valley Memorial Park, has been established since the late 1800s. On January 18, 1957, the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission acknowledged that "a cemetery has been established as a proper use on the property." They further acknowledged that this lot "can continue to be used as a cemetery without additional approval from the Regional Planning Commission." On July 15, 1969, the Deputy County Counsel issued a memorandum reaffirming that the project site was legally established as a cemetery. As a result, the expansion area has been previously entitled by the County of Los Angeles (County) for cemetery use. However, the applicant is seeking approval to expand the cemetery use into areas that were previously undisturbed. The grading and development work are subject to review by the City of Santa Clarita (City). An application was filed on October 9, 2020, and deemed complete on July 8, 2021, for the grading and development of this cemetery expansion. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Setting The project site is surrounded by undeveloped land, the existing Eternal Valley Memorial Park cemetery grounds, and a business park, the recently developed Center at Needham Ranch (CANR), and includes a designated significant ridgeline. The site is currently vacant and previously approved as cemetery use by the County. The existing Eternal Valley Memorial Park has been established for over a century, with grave markers as early as 1882 on site, and the proposed expansion area is within the acknowledged boundaries of the historic cemetery use. The project site is zoned Open Space (OS). A zoning map, aerial vicinity map, and site plan are attached. Project Description The project involves the grading of the vacant land, including the existing protected ridgeline at the top of the existing cemetery. Grading would involve the cutting and filling of approximately 92,600 cubic yards of earth, along with over -excavation of 100,300 cubic yards of earth. The grading work would require no import or export of earth and includes minor encroachment into the ridgeline. The site is partially disturbed by grading for CANR and Needham Ranch Parkway. There is also an existing service road for a water tower located south of the project site. The proposed grading would create a 2:1 slope adjacent to Needham Ranch Parkway, which would be landscaped to provide a buffer between the cemetery and adjacent uses. A six-foot tall decorative block wall would be located at the top of the 2:1 slope to provide further screening. Grading within the cemetery, behind the block wall, would create a gentle 5:1 slope, creating new lawn burial space. The project also includes construction of a new loop road, consistent with those throughout the existing park. The loop road would connect to the existing service road accessing Needham Ranch Parkway; however, while the access on Needham Ranch Parkway would be used occasionally for processionals, primary access for the memorial park would remain located on Page 2 Packet Pg. 10 O Sierra Highway. The new lawn burial area would be developed in phases, as shown in the attached landscape plan, with burials initially located close to the existing cemetery. Landscaping along the interior of the block wall would be planted immediately upon completion of grading. To ensure that a sufficient landscape buffer is established, no burials would be permitted within 120 feet of the right-of-way until at least two years after the planting and subsequent growth of all landscaping along Needham Ranch Parkway. All portions of the graded area which are not landscaped upon completion of grading would be hydroseeded for stabilization until they are developed in the future. The overall expansion area would create roughly 13 acres of new cemetery inventory area, generating area for approximately 15,000 casketed burial spaces and 6,000 cremation inurement spaces. The construction of a new mausoleum is also proposed as part of the project. The mausoleum would be consistent with the existing architecture throughout the project site and would be set into the hillside. The structure would be 3,655 square feet and 22.5 feet in height, providing space for 780 caskets along with 560 cremation niches. Land Use & Zoning The existing cemetery and the proposed expansion area have a General Plan land use designation and are zoned as OS. There is a mixture of land use and zoning designations surrounding the project site, as described in Table 1 below. The CANR is to the west and south of the project site and is being built out in accordance with the project approved by the City Council in 2003. Table 1— Land Use & Zoning General Plan Zoning Current Land Use Designation Designation Project OS OS Undeveloped, partially disturbed open space Site Undeveloped hills North UR3 UR3 Faith Community Church MXC Multifamily apartments, preschool, and gas station/convenience store along Newhall Avenue Existing commercial/industrial uses and vacant land along East CR CR Sierra Highway State Route 14 Vacant land South BP* BP* CANR Phase 1 Future Los Angeles County Fire Department station site and heliad West BP* BP* CANR Phase 2 OS = Open Space, UR3 = Urban Residential 3, MXC = Mixed Use Corridor, CR = Regional Commercial, BP = Business Park *Subject to CANR Development Agreement ANALYSIS General Plan Consistency The proposed expansion of the existing cemetery would increase capacity of the memorial park, ensuring that this important public service can be continued to meet future needs. The project is Page 3 Packet Pg. 11 O consistent with the following Land Use and Planning objectives and policies, as well as the following Conservation and Open Space goals and policies: Objective L U 1.3: Plan for density and intensity of development that respects and is reflective of the natural terrain. Policy L U 1.3.2: Substantially retain the integrity and natural grade elevations of significant natural ridgelines and prominent landforms that form the Valley's skyline backdrop. Objective L U 2.1: Provide adequate, suitable sites for housing, employment, business, shopping, public facilities, public utility facilities, and community services to meet current needs and the anticipated needs offuture growth. Policy L U 2.2. 1: Identify areas ofscenic or aesthetic value to the community, and minimize the designation of uses in these areas that would diminish their aesthetic quality. Objective LU 8.1: Work with service providers to plan for adequate community facilities and services to meet the needs ofpresent and future residents. Objective LU 9.1: Coordinate land use planning with provision of adequate public services and facilities to support development. Goal CO 2: Conserve the Santa Clarita Valley's hillsides, canyons, ridgelines, soils, and minerals, which provide the physical setting for the natural and built environments. Policy CO 3.5.2: Where appropriate, promote planting of trees that are native or climactically appropriate to the surrounding environment, emphasizing oaks, sycamores, maple, walnut, and other native species in order to enhance habitat, and discouraging the use of introduced species such as eucalyptus, pepper trees, and palms except as ornamental landscape features. Goal CO 6: Preservation of scenic features that keep the Santa Clarita Valley beautiful and enhance quality of life, community identity, and property values. The City's General Plan Land Use Element speaks to the need for adequate public facilities and community services in the City, for both current and future needs. As the only active cemetery in the City, the Eternal Valley Memorial Park fills an important role in providing a unique and essential public service to citizens both inside and outside the City's boundaries. The proposed location of the expansion is uniquely suited to provide additional cemetery space, as it is adjacent to the existing cemetery use, supported by existing support infrastructure such as chapels and cemetery supplies, and previously approved by the County for cemetery use. In addition, the existing ridgeline is already disturbed from prior grading and activity. The project would not substantially impact the ridgeline as a scenic resource and would not substantially alter the physical environment. Visual impact would be minimal from the east and the landscaping and buffer wall would enhance the views of the site from the west. Construction Page 4 Packet Pg. 12 O of a landscaped, park -like setting along the ridgeline will create a greater scenic resource than other more intensive types of development. Unified Development Code Consistency Because the land use has previously been approved by the County, as described above, no additional entitlements are required for the cemetery land use. However, the project will require the following entitlements. Ridgeline Alteration Permit and Hillside Development Review The project would be consistent with the intent and development standards of the Ridgeline Preservation Overlay Zone, the protected area surrounding the Significant Ridgeline. The project would not create any danger to the public health, safety, or general welfare, as the site would be properly graded in accordance with all laws, ordinances, and regulations and would be required to obtain a grading permit from the City's Engineering Services Division. The partially disturbed ridgeline is far away from, and would not impact the visual character of, existing neighborhoods and communities. The site would use creative design and remain sloped, with substantial landscaping installed, and the appearance of the existing mountains would not be depreciated. In addition, a buffer area would be installed adjacent to Needham Ranch Parkway, including landscaping, oaks and other trees, and a decorative block wall. The project would also plant an estimated 25 coast live oak trees and 37 holly oak trees. Grading would not substantially change the natural character of the ridgeline and would mimic the existing topography to the greatest extent possible, as shown in the attached Visual Simulations. While the ridgeline would be modified, it would remain the high point as viewed from both the east and the west. The site would continue to slope towards the existing cemetery on the east and towards Needham Ranch Parkway on the west as it does today. No natural landmarks or prominent natural features would be disturbed or altered. The project includes only one building, the proposed mausoleum, which is set into the hillside and is architecturally consistent with the existing buildings on site, as shown in the attached Mausoleum Plans. The mausoleum would use typical earth -tone colors, is within the height limits of the OS zone, and is not visually obtrusive. Landscaping would meet all applicable requirements, including the requirements of the Unified Development Code (UDC), any engineering requirements for slope stability, and Los Angeles County Fire Department Fuel Modification Unit requirements. The proposed loop road would follow the proposed slopes and would be consistent with existing internal roads, resulting in a natural extension of the existing cemetery. The project site would be buffered from Needham Ranch Parkway and adjacent uses with landscaping and a decorative block wall. View corridors and scenic vistas would not be disrupted. Architectural Design Review and Development Review The project was reviewed through the Development Review Committee process and meets all applicable UDC requirements. The proposed revised architecture of the mausoleum is consistent Page 5 Packet Pg. 13 0 with other buildings on site, and the proposed roadway, burial lawns, and landscaping would be consistent with the existing cemetery. Finally, the project would be within the previously established cemetery boundaries. Oak Tree Permit Encroachment into the protected zone of one or more oak trees requires the approval of an Oak Tree Permit. The project would not remove any protected oak trees; however, it may encroach into the protected zones of up to three oak trees, including one coast live oak and two scrub oaks. With the approval of the Ridgeline Alteration Permit, Hillside Development Review, Development Review, Architectural Design Review, and Oak Tree Permit, the project would be consistent with the City's General Plan and UDC, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A of the resolution). ENVIRONMENTAL An Initial Study (IS) was prepared for the project, which analyzed the potential impacts of the proposed project. Based on the findings of the IS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared. The IS/MND was circulated for public review and comment beginning May 17, 2022, and closing on June 7, 2022. Mitigation measures have been drafted for biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and tribal cultural resources. Two comment letters were received regarding the IS/MND. One letter from the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department discussed increased daytime population, temporary construction safety measures, secondary access, and roadway width. The applicant is providing a Knox box on the secondary access road off of Needham Ranch Parkway to provide emergency access. The second comment letter from Los Angeles County Fire Department discussed compliance with the conditions of approval, all applicable codes and ordinances, and the Fuel Modification Plan requirements for the Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The comment letters are included in the attached draft Final IS/MND. In accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52, the applicable Native American tribe was notified of the proposed project and offered an opportunity to consult. On February 2, 2022, the Fernandeno Tatavium Band of Mission Indians (FTBMI) requested consultation under AB 52, and on May 11, 2022, staff held a consultation meeting with the FTBML The FTBMI provided their recommended minor revisions to mitigation measures on June 2, 2022, and consultation was formally concluded on June 6, 2022. NOTICING All noticing requirements for a public hearing have been completed as required by Section 17.06.110 of the UDC. On June 21, 2022, 382 property owners and residents within a 1,000-foot radius of the subject property were notified of the public hearing by mail. A public notice was placed in The Signal on June 21, 2022, and a sign describing the public hearing was placed on the subject property on June 28, 2022. To date, the Department of Community Development has not received any comment letters on the proposed project. Page 6 Packet Pg. 14 O CONCLUSION The proposed expansion of the Eternal Valley Memorial Park is consistent with the types of uses envisioned for the OS land use and zoning designation and with the cemetery use previously acknowledged by the County for the project site. Therefore, staff has drafted the necessary findings for approval of a Ridgeline Alteration Permit, Hillside Development Review Permit (Class 4), Development Review Permit, Architectural Design Review Permit, Oak Tree Permit (Class 2), and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A of the resolution). FISCAL IMPACT The project would have no fiscal impact on the City. ATTACHMENTS Public Hearing Notice Resolution Vicinity and Zoning Maps Site/Grading/Landscape Plans Visual Simulations Mausoleum Plans Draft Final IS-MND (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) Page 7 Packet Pg. 15 1.a CITY OF SANTA CLARITA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT " . 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION APPLICATION: Master Case 20-231: Ridgeline Alteration Permit 20-001, Hillside Development Review 420-005, Development Review 21-015, Architectural Design Review 21-022, Oak Tree Permit 221-011, and Initial Study 20-007 PROJECT APPLICANT: SCI California Funeral Services, Inc. PROJECT LOCATION: 23287 Sierra Highway, Eternal Valley Memorial Park Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs): 2827-008-057 and 2827-008-059 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting approval of a Ridgeline Alteration Permit, Hillside Development Review Permit, Development Review Permit, Architectural Design Review Permit, Oak Tree Permit, and Initial Study to improve and expand the existing Eternal Valley Memorial Park. The project site is bounded on the north by undeveloped land, on the east by the existing cemetery, and on the south and west by the Center at Needham Ranch. The project site is currently vacant and previously approved as cemetery use by the County of Los Angeles. This project proposes to grade a 13.6-acre area and develop it as cemetery grounds, including a new loop road, landscaping, as well as burial plots. Additionally, the project would construct a new 3,665 square -foot mausoleum. The project would cut and fill 92,600 cubic yards of earth, to be balanced on site, and would also remove and recompact 100,300 cubic yards of earth for remedial grading. The site is in the Open Space zone. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: On June 7, 2022, the Planning Commission voted 3-0 to adopt a resolution recommending the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve Master Case 20-231 including its associated entitlements and for City of Santa Clarita staff to work with the applicant to enhance the architecture of the proposed mausoleum. The City of Santa Clarita City Council will conduct a public hearing on this matter on the following date: DATE: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 TIME: At or after 6:00 p.m. LOCATION: City Hall, Council Chambers 23920 Valencia Blvd., First Floor Santa Clarita, CA 91355 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: An Initial Study (IS) with a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared for this project and was posted for public review from May 17, 2022 to June 7, 2022. The Draft Final IS/MND includes all of the written comments received on the Draft IS/MND. A copy of the IS/MND and all supporting documents are available in the City Clerk's office located in the City Hall building at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 120, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. In addition, a copy will be available on the Planning Division's website. 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. 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. Packet Pg. 16 1.a Website: www.santa-clarita.com/planning. Send written correspondence to: 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Project Planner: Andy Olson, Associate Planner, aolson@santa-clarita.com. Mary Cusick, MMC City Clerk Published: The Signal, June 21, 2022 MASTER CASE 20-231 Eternal Valley Expansion Project 23287 Sierra Highway APNs: 2827-008-057 and 2827-008-059 Packet Pg. 17 RESOLUTION NO. 22- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVE MASTER CASE 20-231, CONSISTING OF RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 20-001, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (4)20-005, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 21-015, ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW 21-022, OAK TREE PERMIT (2)21-011, AND INITIAL STUDY 20-007, TO ALLOW FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE ETERNAL VALLEY MEMORIAL PARK, LOCATED AT 23287 SIERRA HIGHWAY (ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS: 2827-008-057 AND 2827-008-059) WITHIN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, SUBJECT TO THE ATTACHED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (EXHIBIT A) 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. On October 19, 2020, the applicant (SCI California Funeral Services, Inc.) initiated Master Case 20-231, consisting of Ridgeline Alteration Permit 20-001, Hillside Development Review (4)20-005, Development Review 21-015, Architectural Design Review 21-022, Oak Tree Permit (2)21-011, and Initial Study 20-007. The properties for which this application was filed are Assessor Parcel Numbers 2827-008-057 and 2827- 008-059 (hereinafter "Subject Site"); B. The Eternal Valley Memorial Park is an existing cemetery dating back to the late 1800s, with grave markers as old as 1882 present in the cemetery. On January 18, 1957, the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission acknowledged that "a cemetery has been established as a proper use on the property" for the Subject Site. On July 15, 1969, the Deputy County Counsel issued a memorandum affirming that the Subject Site was legally established as a cemetery. Thus, the Subject Site has been previously entitled by the County of Los Angeles (County) for cemetery use; C. The applicant proposed to expand the existing Eternal Valley Memorial Park. The proposal includes grading of a 13.6-acre area and developing it as cemetery grounds, including a new loop road, landscaping, and burial plots. Additionally, the project would construct a new 3,665 square -foot mausoleum, with a capacity of 780 caskets, and would include a 260 square -foot room, with niches for urns, at the top of the existing cemetery. The project would cut and fill 92,600 cubic yards of earth, to be balanced on site, and would also remove and recompact 100,300 cubic yards of earth for remedial grading (Proj ect); D. The zoning and General Plan land use designation for the Subject Site is Open Space (OS); E. The surrounding land uses include a mixture of land use and zoning designations. Parcels Page 1 of 11 Packet Pg. 18 1.b adjacent to the Subject Site are zoned OS, Urban Residential 3 (UR3), and Business Park (BP). The UR3 zone provides for both single-family and small-scale multifamily development. The BP zone provides for accessible mixed employment districts with high quality, master -planned developments. To the north of the Subject Site are UR3-zoned parcels, including undeveloped hills, a church, multifamily apartments, and commercial uses. To the east of the Subject Site is the existing cemetery. The BP -zoned parcels to the west and south of the Subject Site are part of the Center at Needham Ranch (CANR) development, which was approved by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita (City) in 2003. The CANR is currently governed by a Development Agreement and the business park is being built out in accordance with the City's prior approvals; F. The application was deemed complete on July 8, 2021; G. On June 7, 2022, 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 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita; H. At this public hearing, the Planning Commission considered the staff report, staff presentation, and public testimony. At the conclusion of the public hearing on June 7, 2022, the Planning Commission voted 3-0 to adopt a resolution recommending the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and approve Master Case 20-231, including its associated entitlements and for City staff to work with the applicant to enhance the architecture of the proposed mausoleum; I. Following the public hearing on June 7, 2022, staff prepared the Final Initial Study (IS) and MND. The Final IS/MND contained copies of all comment letters received on the Draft IS/MND and incorporated minor revisions to mitigation measures provided by the Fernandeno Tatavium Band of Mission Indians; On July 12, 2022, a duly noticed public hearing was held before the City Council at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita; and K. At this public hearing, the City Council considered the staff report, staff presentation, and public testimony. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FINDINGS. As documented in the Project and based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire IS and MND for the Project, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission and City Council, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds as follows: A. An IS/MND for the project have been prepared in compliance with CEQA; B. The IS has been circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public, and all comments received, if any, have been considered. The MND was Page 2 of 11 Packet Pg. 19 1.b posted and advertised on May 17, 2022, in accordance with CEQA. The public review period was open from May 17, 2022, through June 7, 2022; C. There is substantial evidence that, with the implementation of mitigation measures, the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment. The MND reflects the independent judgment of the City Council; D. The documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision of the City Council is made is the Master Case 20-231 project file, located within the Community Development Department, and is in the custody of the Director of Community Development; E. In accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52, the applicable Native American tribe was notified of the proposed Project and offered an opportunity to consult. On February 2, 2022, the Fernandeflo Tatavium Band of Mission Indians (FTBMI) requested consultation under AB 52 and on May 11, 2022, staff held a consultation meeting with the FTBMI. The FTBMI provided their recommended minor revisions to mitigation measures on June 2, and consultation was formally concluded on June 6, 2022; F. The Director of Community Development is hereby designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings in this matter Copies of the proposed MND, and all documents referenced in the proposed MND, are available for review at Santa Clarita City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 120, Santa Clarita, California, during normal business hours and on the City's website at https://www.santa-clarita.com/planning/environmental; and G. The City Council, based upon the findings set forth above, hereby finds the MND for this project has been prepared in compliance with CEQA. SECTION 3. GENERAL FINDINGS FOR MASTER CASE 20-231. As documented in the Project and based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire IS/MND for the Project, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission and City Council, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds as follows: A. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan; The proposed expansion is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan and the underlying land use designation of Open Space (OS) for the Subject Site. The previously approved cemetery use remains consistent with the types of public services envisioned by the OS designation. Furthermore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the following goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan: Page 3 of 11 Packet Pg. 20 Objective L U 1.3: Plan for density and intensity of development that respects and is reflective of the natural terrain. Policy LU 1.3.2: Substantially retain the integrity and natural grade elevations of significant natural ridgelines and prominent landforms that form the Valley's skyline backdrop. Objective L U 2.1: Provide adequate, suitable sites for housing, employment, business, shopping, public facilities, public utility facilities, and community services to meet current needs and the anticipated needs offuture growth. Policy L U 2.2.1: Identify areas of scenic or aesthetic value to the community, and minimize the designation of uses in these areas that would diminish their aesthetic quality. Objective L U 8.1: Work with service providers to plan for adequate community facilities and services to meet the needs ofpresent and future residents. Objective LU 9.1: Coordinate land use planning with provision of adequate public services and facilities to support development. Policy CO 3.5.2: Where appropriate, promote planting of trees that are native or climactically appropriate to the surrounding environment, emphasizing oaks, sycamores, maple, walnut, and other native species in order to enhance habitat, and discouraging the use of introduced species such as eucalyptus, pepper trees, and palms except as ornamental landscape features. Goal CO 6: Preservation ofscenic features that keep the Santa Clarita Valley beautiful and enhance quality of life, community identity, and property values. The Project is consistent with the policies identified above. The City's General Plan Land Use Element speaks to the need for adequate public facilities and community services in the City, for both current and future needs. As the only active cemetery in the City, the Eternal Valley Memorial Park fills an important role in providing a unique and essential public service to citizens both inside and outside the City's boundaries. The proposed location of the expansion is uniquely suited to provide additional cemetery space, as it is adjacent to the existing cemetery use and supported by existing support infrastructure, such as chapels and cemetery supplies. In addition, while the Project would grade a Significant Ridgeline, the existing ridgeline is already disturbed from prior grading and activity. The IS for the Project determined that, with the approval of the Ridgeline Alteration Permit, no significant impact would occur with regard to ridgelines or scenic vistas. While the existing ridgeline would be developed, the site would remain sloped, with substantial landscaping installed. The visual simulations prepared for the Project demonstrate that the visual impact of the Page 4 of 11 Packet Pg. 21 1.b expansion area would be minimal from the east, and that the landscaping and buffer wall would enhance the views of the site from the west. Construction of a landscaped, park- like setting along the ridgeline will create a greater scenic resource than other more intensive types of development. The Project would also plant a substantial number of trees, including an estimated 25 coast live oaks and 37 holly oaks. B. The proposal is allowed within the applicable underlying zone and complies with all other applicable provisions of this code; The Project requires the approval of entitlements consisting of a Ridgeline Alteration Permit, Hillside Development Review Permit, Development Review Permit, Architectural Design Review Permit, and Oak Tree Permit in accordance with the City's Unified Development Code (UDC). With the granting of these entitlements and implementation of Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A), the Project, including the proposed grading and the expansion of the cemetery use into areas previously approved by the County for such uses, would be allowed within the applicable underlying zones and compliant with all other application provisions of the UDC. 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 The Project has been evaluated in accordance with the UDC and the General Plan and has been designed to be in keeping with the provisions of the UDC, as well as the goals and policies of the General Plan. The Project 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. The Project is designed to be compatible with the surrounding land uses, including adequate buffering from adjacent industrial uses, and is in keeping with the existing cemetery development. The proposal was fully evaluated by regulatory agencies through the development review process to ensure compliance with all applicable codes and regulations. The mausoleum structure would comply with all current building code requirements. The Conditions of Approval include conditions requiring compliance with all applicable building code requirements, engineering and grading requirements, and Los Angeles County Fire Department requirements. The IS/MND contains a thorough analysis of the construction and operations of the Project. The document includes mitigation measures which would be required for the Project to implement, including mitigation measures for biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and tribal cultural resources. Implementation of these mitigation measures, as well as the Conditions of Approval, would ensure there are no hazards to the public. Page 5 of 11 Packet Pg. 22 1.b 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; 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 oftraffic such proposal would generate; 3. Public protection service (e.g., Fire protection, Sheriprotection, etc) are readily available; and 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 Subject Site is located on vacant, disturbed land that is to the west of, and directly adjacent to, the existing Eternal Valley Memorial Park cemetery and that was previously authorized as a permitted use by the County. The proposed Project is consistent with the existing cemetery and does not conflict with adjacent land uses. The existing roadway network is sufficient to serve the proposed expansion, as described in the Traffic Memorandum prepared for the Project. The Subject Site currently receives adequate service from the Los Angeles County Fire Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. The Project area is likewise served by all applicable utilities. The IS/MND includes an analysis of the potential impacts of the Project on public services and utilities. The analysis determined that there would be no significant impacts to public services, traffic and transportation, or public utilities. SECTION 4. SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 20- 001. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record including, without limitation, the entire IS/MND for the Project, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission and City Council, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and City Council, 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; 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; Page 6 of 11 Packet Pg. 23 1.b 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; 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; E. The use or development minimizes the effects ofgrading to the extent practicable to ensure that the natural character of the ridgeline is preserved; E The proposed use or development is designed to mimic the existing topography to the greatest extent possible through the use of landform contour grading; and G. The proposed use or development does not alter natural landmarks and prominent natural features of the ridgelines. The Project would be consistent with the intent and development standards of the Ridgeline Preservation Overlay Zone, the protected area surrounding the Significant Ridgeline. It would not create any danger to the public health, safety, or general welfare, as the site would be properly graded in accordance with all laws, ordinances, and regulations and would be required to obtain a grading permit from the City's Engineering Services Division. While the Project would modify portions of an existing ridgeline, the ridgeline is already partially disturbed by existing access roads and grading. The ridgeline is located away from, and would not impact the visual character of, existing neighborhoods and communities. The appearance of the Subject Site after completion of construction would not differ substantially from adjoining ridgeline areas, as shown in the visual simulations prepared for the Project. The appearance of the existing mountains would not be depreciated. In addition, a buffer area would be installed adjacent to Needham Ranch Parkway including landscaping, oaks and other trees, and a decorative block wall consistent with surrounding uses. The establishment of the cemetery expansion would not impede the orderly development or improvement of surrounding properties and would not encourage inappropriate encroachments into the ridgeline. In addition, the cemetery use shows creative design in providing a sloping site with landscaping to complement the appearance of the adjacent cemetery use and to buffer the site from adjacent industrial uses. Development of the cemetery expansion will provide a direct benefit to both current and future residents of the City as a whole, by providing a necessary public service in a suitable location. Grading would be minimized to the extent feasible and would not substantially change the natural character of the ridgeline. The site would mimic the existing topography to the greatest extent possible while also meeting the slope requirements for a cemetery use. The overall elevation of the graded site would be similar to the existing elevation, and the site would continue to slope towards the existing cemetery on the east and towards Needham Ranch Parkway on the west as it does today. No natural landmarks or prominent natural features would Page 7 of 11 Packet Pg. 24 be disturbed or altered; therefore, with approval of the Ridgeline Alteration Permit, the Project would comply with the City's General Plan and UDC. SECTION 5. SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (CLASS 4) 20-005. As documented in the Project and based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record including, without limitation, the entire IS/MND for the Project, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission and City Council, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and City Council, 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; B. That natural, topographic prominent features are retained to the maximum extent possible; 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- 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- 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; F. That street design and improvements that serve to minimize grading alterations and emulate the natural contours and character of the hillsides are utilized; G. That grading designs that serve to avoid disruption to adjacent properties are utilized; and 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. As described above, the Project would match the existing form of the site to the maximum extent feasible. The visual simulations demonstrate that the proposed topography does not change substantially compared to the existing topography. While a portion of the ridgeline would be modified, it would remain the high point, as viewed from both the east and the west. This ridgeline has been previously disturbed due to previous development activities. Page 8 of 11 Packet Pg. 25 1.b The Project includes only one building, the proposed mausoleum, which is set into the hillside and is architecturally consistent with the existing buildings on site. The mausoleum would use typical earth -tone colors. The mausoleum is within the height limits of the OS zone and, as shown in the visual simulations, is not visually obtrusive. The Subject Site is partially graded with low-lying sage scrub habitat. The three existing oak trees on site would be protected in place during grading, and the Project would plant additional landscaping, including native oaks, as part of buildout. Landscaping would meet all applicable requirements, including the requirements of the UDC, any engineering requirements for slope stability, and Los Angeles County Fire Department Fuel Modification Unit requirements. In addition, native landscaping would be planted with hydroseed until turf is installed. The proposed loop road would follow the proposed slopes and would be consistent with existing internal roads, resulting in a natural extension of the existing cemetery. The Subject Site would be buffered from Needham Ranch Parkway and adjacent uses with landscaping and a decorative block wall. View corridors and scenic vistas would not be disrupted, as demonstrated in analysis of Aesthetics in the IS/MND prepared for the Project. Therefore, with approval of the Hillside Development Review Permit, the Project would comply with the City's General Plan and UDC. SECTION 6. SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR OAK TREE PERMIT (CLASS 2) 21-011. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record including, without limitation, the entire IS/MND, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports, and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission and City Council, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds 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; 2. 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; 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 4. The approval of the request will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of the code. 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 Page 9 of 11 Packet Pg. 26 1.b 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 UDC establishes standards for oak tree preservation in Section 17.51.040. Encroachment into the protected zone of one or more oak trees requires the approval of an Oak Tree Permit. The Project would not remove any protected oak trees; however, the Project may encroach into the protected zones of three oak trees, including one coast live oak and two scrub oaks. There are no heritage oak trees identified on site and no heritage oak trees would be affected by the Project. The applicant has prepared an oak tree report and Conditions of Approval have been provided by the City's Urban Forestry Division regarding these trees. In addition, the applicant is proposing to plant an estimated 25 coast live oaks, along with 37 non-native holly oaks. With the approval of the Oak Tree Permit, encroachment into the protected zones of these trees would comply with the City's General Plan and UDC. SECTION 7. RESOLUTION. Based upon the staff report, including the materials considered by and the recommendations made by the Planning Commission, the testimony at the public hearing, and the findings as set forth in this ordinance, the City Council hereby adopts a MND and Master Case 20-231, consisting of Ridgeline Alteration Permit 20-001, Hillside Development Review (4)20-005, Development Review 21-015, Architectural Design Review 21- 022, Oak Tree Permit (2)21-011, and Initial Study 20-007, to allow for the expansion of the Eternal Valley Memorial Park, located at 23287 Sierra Highway (Assessor Parcel Numbers: 2827-008-057 and 2827-008-059) within the City of Santa Clarita, 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. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of July, 2022. ATTEST: CITY CLERK DATE: MAYOR Page 10 of 11 Packet Pg. 27 1.b 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 No. 22- was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 12'h day of July, 2022, by the following vote of the City Council: AYES: COUNCIL,MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL,MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL,MEMBERS: CITY CLERK Page 11 of 11 Packet Pg. 28 EXHIBIT A MASTER CASE 20-231: RESOLUTION P22-09; RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 20-001, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (4)20-005, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 21-015, ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW 21-022, OAK TREE PERMIT (2)21-011, AND INITIAL STUDY 20-007 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL CONDITIONS GC1. The approval of this project shall expire if the approved use is not commenced within two 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 (City) 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 two years 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 two-year 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 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 30 days of said change. GC5. 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 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. Packet Pg. 29 1.b 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 DIVISION PL1. The applicant (SCI California Funeral Services, Inc.) is approved for the following entitlements for the Eternal Valley Memorial Park Expansion Project: A. Ridgeline Alteration Permit 20-001; B. Hillside Development Review (4)20-005; C. Development Review 21-015; D. Architectural Design Review 21-022; and E. Oak Tree Permit (2)21-011. The project shall be constructed as indicated on the approved site plan on file with the Planning Division. All uses, construction, and operations shall be in accordance with the approved plans on file with the Planning Division. Any changes to the approved plans shall require additional review by the Director of Community Development and approval by the applicable review authority. PL2. The applicant is permitted to grade the 13.6-acre area shown on the grading plan on file with the Planning Division. No import or export of earth is permitted and grading shall be balanced on site. Grading shall be in compliance with all requirements of UDC Section 17.38.070 (Ridgeline Preservation Overlay Zone) and Section 17.51.020 (Hillside Development). 2 Packet Pg. 30 1.b PL3. The applicant is also permitted to develop the graded area as cemetery space as shown on the plans on file with the Planning Division, including new lawn burial space and construction of a new mausoleum along with an extension of the cemetery's existing road. PL4. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) prepared for the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. PL5. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of a Landscape Plan Review Permit (LPR) for the project site. The LPR shall address any phasing proposed as part of the project development. Subsequent LPRs shall be required if necessary for phased development or for modifications to the landscape plans. PL6. The applicant shall install a six-foot tall decorative block wall at the top of the 2:1 slope near Needham Ranch Parkway, as shown on the approved plans. The decorative block wall is required to screen and buffer the cemetery from adjacent uses. The block wall shall be installed prior to grading permit final, and no burials or other use of the cemetery expansion area shall occur until the wall is installed and approved by the Director of Community Development. PL7. All trees and landscaping shown on the conceptual landscape plan shall be installed upon completion of grading, except for those trees and turf areas identified as "Future Planting". All trees and other landscaping adjacent to the block wall shall be installed immediately upon completion of grading. All portions of the site which are not landscaped with turf directly after shall be hydroseeded with native seed materials and maintained to ensure slopes remain stable and natural in appearance until future phases of the project are developed. PL8. The approved plans include planting of the 2:1 slope adjacent to Needham Ranch Parkway. This landscape area is located between Needham Ranch Parkway and the decorative block wall. This area shall be landscaped in conformance with the visual simulations in the project file. This landscaping shall be installed a minimum of two years prior to any burials located closer than 120 feet to the Needham Ranch Parkway right-of- way. PL9. Prior to development of any future phases, the applicant shall notify the Planning Division and shall, if necessary, update the landscape plans to reflect final placement and design of trees and other vegetation. In addition, a qualified biologist shall, at the applicant's expense, determine whether any surveys of vegetation are required prior to grubbing, as required by Mitigation Measure MM BIO-1. PL10. The applicant shall be permitted to encroach into the protected zone of three oak trees, subject to the Oak Tree Conditions of Approval herein. PL11. The access road connecting to Needham Ranch Parkway shall remain gated and primary access for the cemetery shall be continue to be at Sierra Highway. The use of the access road at Needham Ranch Parkway is permitted for occasional processional use only. PL12. Any cemetery lighting shall be shown on the required landscape plans. Lighting shall be directed downward and be of a cut-off design so the luminary and/or lens does not protrude below the luminary housing and is not visible from a public right-of-way. Packet Pg. 31 1.b Lighting may not illuminate other properties and shall be directed downward to prevent off -site glare. Lighting shall be operated so that it does not disturb the peace, quiet, and comfort of adjacent, neighboring uses, and shall be screened and/or shielded from surrounding properties and streets. PL13. The Project shall conform to all standards and guidelines of the UDC, and specific zoning for the subject property, unless set forth in this permit and shown on the approved site plan. PL14. Heavy construction (including grading operations and earth movement) shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays unless otherwise approved by the Director of Community Development upon formal written notification. PL15. The project shall comply with all City codes and the requirements of all City divisions, including, but not limited to, the Building & Safety Division and Engineering Services Division. The applicant shall also comply with all other regulations regarding the cemetery use, including but not limited to any regulations or requirements of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health or State of California Department of Public Health. PL16. No signage is included within this approval and is subject to a separate permit. The applicant shall provide a sign program prior to the installation of signs on the project site. PL17. Construction and operations of the proposed Project and all associated equipment shall comply with the City's noise standards and comply with the City of Santa Clarita's Noise Ordinance. PL18. This approval does not supersede the approval of any other affected agency. LANDSCAPE LS1. Prior to issuance of grading permit(s), 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/UDC requirements. LS2. 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. LS3. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall install all proposed irrigation and landscaping, including irrigation controllers, staking, mulching, etc., to the satisfaction of the Director 4 Packet Pg. 32 1.b of Community Development. The Director may impose inspection fees for more than one landscape installation inspection. LS4. 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. LSS. 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 Landscaping and Irrigation Standards (§17.51.030) in the UDC. LS6. The project site is located within the High Fire Severity Fuel Modification Zone. As a result, the landscape and irrigation plans will require the review and approval of the Los Angeles County Fuel Modification Unit. The applicant shall submit the final set landscape and irrigation plans for review to the Fuel Modification Unit and the City at the same time to allow for a concurrent review of the plans. The applicant shall be aware that multiple revisions to the landscape plans may occur from each agency due to conflicting landscaping requirements. The City will make every effort to assist you through this process; however, it is the responsibility of the applicant to work through conflicting requirements with each agency to acquire approval of one landscape and irrigation plan for the project. LS7. The applicant shall submit the following materials to the Fuel Modification Unit with the landscape and irrigation plans to undergo review: A. Labeled photos of the project site; B. Labeled photos of the surrounding properties to the project site; C. An aerial photo (can be copied from the City of Santa Clarita's website); D. Contact information for the City Planner assigned to the project, including address, phone number, and email address; and E. Project site plan and building elevations. LS8. The latest Fuel Modification Plan Guidelines, which includes the most recent Undesirable and Desirable Plant list, is available at: http://www.fire.lacounty.gov/forestry- division/forestry-fuel-modification. Please use this document as a reference when designing the final landscape and irrigation plans. ENGINEERING SERVICES DIVISION General Requirements EN1. 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. 5 Packet Pg. 33 1.b EN2. Applicant shall be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of Best Management Practices (BMPs) onsite to the satisfaction of the City Engineer until such time the site is further developed. 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. Grading and Geology Requirements EN4. 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 landslide. ENS. Prior to grading plan approval, the applicant shall obtain a notarized Letter of Permission for grading outside of the property lines from the adjacent property owner(s). EN6. Prior to grading final, the applicant shall construct all grading and drainage facilities within the project site, install appropriate BMPs, obtain rough grade certifications, and a compaction report approved by the City Engineer. Drainage Requirements ENT Prior to 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 located in Needham Ranch Road. EN8. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall form DBAA to fund the ongoing maintenance of storm drain inlets/LID mitigation devices that are not transferable to LA County Flood Control District but required to be maintained by the City of Santa Clarita. The DBAA formation may not be necessary if LA County allows the property owner(s) to maintain the onsite storm drain inlets. 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 EN10. 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. 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 6 Packet Pg. 34 1.b disturbed area that adds more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area. 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 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. BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISION Plans and Permits BSI. Construction drawings shall be prepared and submitted to the Building & 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 (CalGreen). Note that the next expected updates to these codes will be January 2023. BS3. Construction drawings submitted for plan review shall be complete. Submitted plans shall show all architectural, accessibility, 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 & Safety Division. BS4. Construction drawings shall be prepared by qualified licensed design professionals (California licensed architects and engineers). BSS. The City of Santa Clarita has amended some portions of the California Building Codes. A copy of these amendments is available at the Building & Safety public counter and on our website at: htt2://www.santa-clarita.com/Home/ShowDocument?id=17773. 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 & 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. A. It appears the roof of the building can be occupied by the public for use of the niches. Occupied roofs shall comply with CBC sections 302.1 (for assembly use), 503.1.4 and 1006.3, which will require guardrails all around and two means of egress. 7 Packet Pg. 35 1.b 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 & Safety Division directly at (661) 255-4935. BS10. Prior to submitting plans to Building & Safety, please contact a Permit Specialist at (661) 255-4935, for building addressing. Agency Clearances BS 11. Prior to issuance of building permits, clearances from the following agencies will be required: A. Santa Clarita Planning Division; B. Santa Clarita Engineering Services (soil report review and grading); C. Santa Clarita Environmental Services (Construction & Demolition Plan deposit); D. Los Angeles County Fire Prevention Bureau; E. Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency; F. William S. Hart School District and appropriate elementary school district; and G. Santa Clarita Urban Forestry Division (for construction near Oak Trees). H. An agency referral list with contact information is available at the Building & 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 BS12. 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. BS13. An accessible route between all accessible building entrances, the accessible parking space(s), and the public sidewalk shall be provided and shown on the plans. Where more than one site route is provided, all routes shall be accessible, except as indicated in 11B-206.2.1, Exception 2. A. The occupied roof shall be accessible for use by the disabled (elevator or ramp) if a reasonable amount (10%) of uses or services provided on the roof (niches) are not provided on the ground floor. B. If the roof is required to be accessible, then the two means of egress shall also be accessible per CBC 1009.1. Soils Report and Grading BS14. 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 Packet Pg. 36 1.b drawings. A copy of the report shall be submitted to Building & Safety at time of plan submittal. BS 15. When the soils/geology report recommends grading and/or recompaction, the following shall be completed prior to issuance of building permits: A. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Division and all rough grading and/or re -compaction shall be completed. B. A final compaction report and a Pad Certification shall be submitted to and approved by the Engineering Services Division. BS16. 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 BS17. This project is located within the City's Fire Hazard Zone. New buildings and adjacent accessory buildings (trash enclosures) 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 & Safety's public counter or visit: htt2://www.santaclarita.com/home/showdocument?id=10685. Plans submitted to Building & Safety shall show compliance with all applicable Fire Zone requirements. BS18. Indicate in the project data of the plans that this project is located in a Fire Hazard Zone, is not located in a Flood Hazard Zone, and is not located in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zone. Additional Information BS19. After the project receives a final building inspection, a Certificate of Occupancy will be issued. Shell buildings will receive separate Certificate of Occupancies after each tenant improvement is completed. BS20. Each separate new detached building or structure, such as trash enclosures, 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. BS21. These general comments 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 & Safety. LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT Access Requirements FD 1. Access shall comply with Section 503 of the Fire Code, which requires "all weather" access. All weather access may require paving. 0 Packet Pg. 37 1.b FD2. The project site shall remain in compliance with all applicable Fire Department codes, ordinances, and regulations. FD3. 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. FD4. The designation allows for appropriate signage prohibiting parking. Fire Apparatus Access Roads must be installed and maintained in a serviceable manner prior to and during the time of construction in accordance with Fire Code Section 501.4. FD5. 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. FD6. For buildings where the vertical distance between the access roadway and the highest roof surface does not exceed 30 feet, provide a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet, exclusive of shoulders and an unobstructed vertical clearance "clear to sky" Fire Apparatus Access Roads to within 150 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. The highest roof surface shall be determined by measurement of the vertical distance between the access roadway and the eave of a pitched roof, the intersection of the roof to the exterior wall, or the top of parapet walls, whichever is greater (Fire Code 503.1., 503.2.1.2 & 503.2.12.1). FD7. 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 to provide all- weather driving capabilities (Fire Code 503.2.3). FD8. The Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall be provided with a minimum of a 32-foot centerline turning radius (Fire Code 503.2.4). FD9. 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). FD 10. 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 11. Approved building address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification shall be provided and maintained 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). Fuel Modification FD12. 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 building plan check approval. Please 10 Packet Pg. 38 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.lacounly_gov/forestry-division/forestry-fuel-modification/. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ES1. Provide sufficient trash enclosures to house at least three 3-yard bins — one bin for trash, one for recycling, and one for green waste/organic materials. ES2. The enclosure(s) should be shown on the site plan with dimensions, bin layout/floor plan, consistent with the surrounding architecture and shall be constructed with a solid roof. The enclosure(s) shall be located to provide convenient pedestrian and collection vehicle access. ES3. 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. ES4. C&D Materials Recycling Ordinance: A. 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. B. A minimum of 65% of the entire project's inert (dirt, rock, bricks, etc.) waste and 65% of the remaining C&D waste must be recycled or reused rather than disposing in a landfill. C. For renovation or tenant improvement projects and new construction projects, a deposit of 2% of the estimated total project cost or $15,000, whichever is less, is required. For demolition projects, a deposit of 10% 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% of the inert and remaining C&D waste was recycled or reused. ES5. 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 or recycled. For a phased project, such material may be stockpiled on site until the storage site is developed. ES6. All projects within the City that are not self -hauling their waste materials must use one of the City's franchised haulers for temporary and roll -off bin collection services. Please contact Environmental Services staff at (661) 286-4098 or visit GreenSantaClarita.com for a complete list of franchised haulers in the City. 11 Packet Pg. 39 1.b TRANSIT DIVISION TS1. At this time the Transit Impact Fee does not apply to commercial/industrial developments. This fee is currently under revision. Applicant shall pay the fee in place at the time of building permit issuance. SPECIAL DISTRICTS DIVISION Oak Trees SD 1. The applicant has submitted an oak tree report prepared by Greg Applegate of Arborgate Consulting Inc. dated August 06, 2021 which identifies two scrub oak (Quercus berberidifolia/dumosa) trees, and one coast live (Quercus agrifolia) that may be impacted as a result of the proposed grading. SD2. The applicant shall be required to submit for an Oak Tree Permit for impacts to the scrub oak trees and the coast live oak tree (for impacts to 1-3 trees). SD3. The applicant is advised that any intrusion into the protected zone of an oak tree is classified as an encroachment. The protected zone is an imaginary line located at 5 feet outside the dripline of the tree canopy. The dripline is the outer edge of tree canopy. For smaller trees, the protected zone shall be no less than 15 feet from the trunk of any protected oak tree. SD4. Encroachment is any disruption to the soil or canopy of the oak tree. Encroachments may include but are not limited to grading, trenching, excavation, or any other alteration to the soil that would impact the roots or natural flow of water to the oak tree, or drainage. SDS. For preservation, the applicant shall be required to install chain link protective fencing located at the protected zone of each oak tree. Due to the close proximity of the two scrub oaks, the two scrub oaks can be grouped together with the protective fencing. SD6. Protective fencing shall consist of chain link material no less than five feet in height and shall not exceed six feet in height. Fencing shall be supported by driving 2-inch diameter steel / galvanized poles directly into the ground and spaced eight feet on center. 36-inch silt fencing shall be installed at on the outer edge of the protective fence with two levels of sand bags firmly placed up against the bottom to secure the silt fence and keep additional soil from entering the protected zone of the tree during all grading and construction operations. SD7. In addition to non-native oak trees, the applicant is proposing thirty-seven 24-inch box Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) trees to be planted in and around the proposed mausoleum and burial plots. SD8. All oaks (Quercus agrifolia) shall be planted outside of the turf areas in locations where irrigation is minimal and will not come in contact with the trunk or canopy of the oak tree. No overhead irrigation shall be permitted within 15 feet of any oak tree. Where the required clearance between proposed Quercus agrifolia and overhead spray cannot be met, alternative tree species may be provided. Quercus agrifolia "coast live oak" trees shall be planted at the outer edge of all turf areas in order to eliminate overhead irrigation from coming within 15 feet of the trunk of the tree and from coming in contact with the 12 Packet Pg. 40 1.b canopy. In areas where coast live oak trees are proposed and water is likely to come in contact with the oak tree, the applicant shall consider incorporating either one, or both of the following native species; Quercus tomentella "Island oak" or Quercus engelmannii "Pasadena oak". Irrigation should be adjusted to minimize the amount of contact. SD9. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a final landscape plan showing all proposed oak trees. The site plan shall have a detailed legend showing the unit cost and extended cost of the thirty-seven oak trees. SD10. Upon completion of the project and Final inspection, the applicant shall be required to submit quarterly monitoring reports for a period no less than two years for a total of six reports to the Planning Department as required by the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Ordinance and preservation and protection Guidelines. SDI 1. The applicant and their contractors shall comply with the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Ordinance and Preservation & Protection Guidelines at all times throughout said project. Landscape Maintenance Districts SD12. This parcel is located within Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) Areawide Zone 2008-1, which was established to fund the construction and maintenance of landscaped medians on major thoroughfares throughout the City of Santa Clarita. Prior to final approval (sign off), the applicant is required to financially contribute to the Areawide Zone in a manner reflective of this LMD zone's assessment methodology. SD13. This parcel is located within Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) Zone 28 (Newhall), which was established to fund the construction and maintenance of landscaped parkways throughout the Newhall community. Prior to final approval (sign off), the applicant is required to financially contribute to LMD Zone 28 in a manner reflective of this LMD zone's assessment methodology. SD14. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall contact Special Districts to determine if the existing assessment must be updated to reflect the additional use of the site. The proposed project site was not previously improved and therefore may not have been part of the original assessment. Streetlight Maintenance District SD15. These parcels were 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. Prior to final approval (sign off), the applicant will be required to annex the parcel(s) into the Santa Clarita Landscaping and Lighting District (SCLLD). 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 20/21 $86.86), and add the cost of living escalator (CPI). There is a one-time annexation fee of $500.00 + $100.00 per Equivalent Benefit Unit (EBU). Benefit Units are based on land use and 13 Packet Pg. 41 1.b vacant/unimproved parcels are not assessed. Additional information may be required from the applicant to calculate the fee. A. 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 to be calculated by assessment engineer. B. 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. C. Developer will work with Special Districts and obtain approval on the LED light fixtures, if any, to be installed on public streets. D. Ownership of all new streetlights installed on public streets will be transferred to City of Santa Clarita. E. Developer will work with Special Districts to determine if the streetlights will be metered or unmetered. 14 Packet Pg. 42 1.c MC20-23 Vicinity Map 1 fi Mi a "i 7 t d � r •A ug y, .aa aV4, li W�' m„M \ } y r�, .c. ,. Oer''!! d ht} '� e.. + j, � ... �� .. gt3i1 ^ &• ' 'h '. 'a r.n?e r':]¢ 6" � i �a. 04 r,v f�wr �4--'�r�t K �i, 4 � •�Y aih Y,�p.+i. a ,a` � w (P u.:,�3�, ' y� a �, w x' g� � i a � �3 � � v o. �a 47 n 1 � s sill Ac Wjlh ^ .a +it a y� f ` yam•. 1" �1 •" " - y� 4A, -17 Expansion Area.^ r "�€ X. " Existing Eternal 4 *A Valley Memorial Park _ w , � •..� � . �r ' „"M„�.,< a _`a •e,' �- ,ti A.y Y a yA ro 00� ' 9N - , x " a 4 'Yi �. � ''IL '� .w m. 4 alb.. "i' Sf i"h ,• , F If v y{' 10 e: ee � a dha� pkq f i -1PR xCAt � 4 i .W w a : 8 F a e . ) k ri ryti. > • i - la ^ ,ram, +�,,e� 1 E ,� at r�Ak 3". Y±w Ali :1� ..0 ,d "6 �. .+'a�`" Ya.. .• T. a.. . �v `k•^S e { �•.�-�a��. `� ' Packet Pg. 43 (dd�l 130(oad uoisuedx3 A01len Ieua013) sdew fiuiuoZ pue AI!UI3in :Iuauay)ellV b.1J O N M N O N S'ed NM'+-d 4 r dll r >86 c3Vt>J3<or a,bZ 49s) 3 d o6a6fK 499) 7If r Wl" 9L ARF IMAD ► Sum ssna h ti? -Im • tza WS VH a -W rmx OMMAMf1S - ONIM33NDN3 - ONINNVId SO80038 1V101330 30 99669bOLtOZ Y V ►�-I��HS 0 N I 'S 3 1 3 0 N V S 0 1 'ON 1N3W HISNI SV LIOZ Y kVW 03080038 'S0000-91-V11 Ol 1N3W1sf1fOV T/�/ T S31VIDOSSY 9 11331VSNRH 3NIl 1Ol H03 3ONVIld W03 JO 31VOIJU830 30 Z 101 ONV S0803DU 1V131-130 � � --1 -I15 DV8G6 IDVCG t lV 30 *966@iN]INI MOO ON IN]liOl 8015NI SV LIOZ '£ AVW 0308303J 'C (INV 91-V11 OOf'6l OOf'6L 30VNNIHHS Ol 1N3W15MOV 3NIl 101 H03 30NVIldW00 30 31V013LLH30 30 £ ONV Z SLOI 0 OO£'OOt 00£'oOL NOIIVAVOX3-83h0 ]VA 2-9IOSnVN/ 9 WOOf'-dl _OV_6 DOj TTU OVTZSOL 0r3 NOIIVAVOX3 SSVW Wd LJTITT�TW O�1HOdx3 AN Ali a V�7'IVA 17 Nl' -';L -q •r 53HJNI 0 z/, {I .a o113, o or .rn oos-.I NOLL03NNOO °VOU dVw NOUV001 _ /\ SAVM)nVM °NV v4n3-Kmv V °3SGJ0Ud N - - - - % N3°IjVD WHIS N3adVJ 1VIlInB S30FJn01 °3SOtKXW f NMV1 oNLLSIX3 3o AaV1 ano oNu SDG ----------- _- -_ 1 OWA 3:NVN31N j. �kVM)i1VM 3181SS300V j IC AlIII3Yj HSYal ".: I \,� � \ !, j` .... � 1� ti.�''`, i ; Y`i -,.. \,''\� .' �� r•' . •� t. Arad -ivvUMBN .......... 3QIM ,t3Tron �VNkl31� 10N) UN whINIW SZi �Y(TV °3SOdQHd M SAVM)rwm r ........ �..._.fi...._. _ „ --- t \ t AVM 3NMVI EI1SIX , ll� _ _ 1 ✓ _- _ - , j t �\ % / j 1 (�pi1 3NN00 °VOd \, i I,z -) � �. / 1 �' Z �...5• Cl _ \\ • .-,- � - - � -_ -'= -� -' � y ' ,� ;,;tom: 1 �'�/ ----=----' '" •--� , //� 3 t\\ \ \-�/jr,5• ./ ' ' �•y.'- `..,..:..Y11, �' •sfl'^ j ..h- 4/ 7a7 V ♦ /IGl<7 I !>t _- 03NN00 t l ®Ak13S38d 38 Ol Q,/ - - - --'"'°°. l - —-f' - 1 S)IVO 9nuosSol �' ` _ ._._...,_ -,�„ 3NV1 s:Il3 °NV �lVM3Ni� 31VN>:Id I 4n% " , •- :oflivin f dp °3sodo3d �,,, + w ___, --ter_ �,- -- °VOl� 3°IM SZ / 1 " '�.. `�� �, \ --_, _, - __.__._._ _----..•,� � __,max , '- , - �/ ..-;1 � , 3Nn 330V-d 38'TIVM nwo road � ' H0N 1N30VrCJV� , AVM3AN0 VNdd irws ,9 mivuoow °d 3so(jo C I " ell o3AEM3W 38 a4 - ..... - A'o inn 1sV03' - N t NIVFiO- 1' Tro'M °390dOdd _ \ I " - L7NMI.SIX3 � SS °3L0i�LLS 10 - r' _ - NrYVHo1S ONUMS 31Vo �3 - 31S °3�I001 HlIM SS300V � t - • . • • _.�°"., / ,�,,�-=ONKTVUD 30 I11W1 �.N Jl0N30H3i'43/Akf`dQJ003S 3d01S l Z 30 dOl 1V °30V1d 1 NOLLVI00SSV S83NMO A163dOr id - «✓ S11VM nW0103rOr id HONVH WVH°$d HONVd WVH°33N k8 1N30Vr°V H01VY4 Ol WO100 <11VM nno / �� %!:i`•;%%� ; <r -% r- aof idos � 3WIMM 3e lz 1 30V3 1l1dS -9 3ALLVF�003° O3SOd0l�d �y `i %-- PHASE I OF PHASE by"Imm TREE I arT. BUFFER GRADING &m 24'BOX PLANTING TO BE INSTALLED 50TAP4CAL NAME LAdMMTRDV'nA NO" AT COMPLETION corrvN more CRAft MYRTLE "CIOLA tv Lew EVERGREEN SHRUB BUFFER OPTIONS INTERMEDIATE SLOPE AFREAS OPTIONS 60MEr) Tuw LEc.Epc> 6yriam ary. um SMANrAL M&PT CQT70N NAM a ary. sm sm"w.AL mAry omvxx,,"m mLc44 NOTE VRAce" rw ISCAULONLA TAD. I C.K. PK;Sr%APJ" RRMTKATE MPSEMAWWY L 9�13 AREAS, W� A r "TOR Mft rPW&TRATL6 OF 9LAW "":" Sam io,-n ppowco S.Arr" TO mNam " *-"�AL HETEROMM26 AP09UTPGLLA L AF4-LY PIALCH AOWUND ALL T"M TftMCS N - 61 Ell— r�, Toych Tow AMEAS, EXTEND MLCH A MK OF MWM op ROOTSALL& FP I FUTURE PHASE PLANTING - I ary. I 0 T.. — -- — -------------- ... -- — t—pL -- ADFORD, CALLART MAN Lcw 24* 50X Pft* ELDARC-A ARW-LAN PINE Lcw 15 U. aERMA AORPOLA COAST LMI OAK LON ARMOP" A&W Low $7 WOM CA&poa& ULX HCLLY OAK Low (3DO 'A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z, ------ orl) .. .... . .......... vl� ... .. ...... . ......... ............ yi ♦ • I ........... ........ ........... . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ♦ 4 1 . . . . . . . . . . ... ...... jah ... .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 . 4 1. 4 .... . . . . . . . . • • . h �1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 PI-� ........... . ............ ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �:z ....4 4:: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X., 1 4 1 4 1 4 .......... ♦base:: . . . . . . . . . . PLANT OCHECULE (1EEC14AM RANCH WTALLED SLOPE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... .... APPROXIMATE PHASING - SUBJECT TO CHANGE • 1 - PHASE 1 COMPLETED BY 2030 2 - PHASE 2 COMPLETED BY 2036 . . . . . . . . . 3 - PHASE 3 COMPLETED BY 2040 .......... ......... ID f (PHASES WILL INCLUDE INCREMENTAL ADDI TIONS OF TURF AND IRRIGATION EVERY 2 TO 3 YEARS . . . . . . . . . . . mnu oeoo�� - c�eoo�� . oe©o�� - oeeem� __ oeee�� Bunn== Munn== Munn== R0-� MEDPAM RANCH METALLED SLOP© arystsSC09AL SMAW4M N-65cme mnc•reoL PER CONC& M" Lcw MAN 'fCWK*TCF""2*Y W vv 4 LgW FM 4p~ CHLO LHEARS camu WLLaw RAN AH A LAW a AORRIY COAET LW OAK NORTH p9m &P�4W mm"rns FLM -AAA "mmm? 0 25' 50' 109 CAMERA LOCATION #1 : VIEW SHOWING AREA WITHOUT NEW DEVELOPMENT CAMERA LOCATION #1 : VIEW SHOWING AREA WITH NEW DEVELOPMENT CF XN 18 4 ♦c _ 'f< CAMERA LOCATION #1 Simulation at Initial Planting Z O0 OQ DR- ARICBIEC CHECKED MG DATE 09-2321 JOB NO 15-021 SHEET PS-2 OF 13 SHEETS Packet Pg. 47 CAMERA LOCATION #4: VIEW SHOWING AREA WITHOUT NEW DEVELOPMENT Aw 71 CAMERA LOCATION #4 CAMERA LOCATION #4: VIEW SHOWING AREA WITH NEW DEVELOPMENT Simulation at Initial Planting I The use o/these plans and sped/ ations shah be restricted to the ongnal site for whicM1 They were pre Dared and pubNcah Dn th<reol is e.Dressly Nmaetl to such ... Re ,d-t— p.bl,,,t,., or reuseb,any method V,,,,l -It- Mh these plans and sp<clacahons constaute Dnma lade evidence of the acceptance of these restnchpn. CAMERA LOCATION #5 : VIEW SHOWING AREA WITHOUT NEW DEVELOPMENT Fs CAMERA LOCATION #5 : VIEW SHOWING AREA WITH NEW DEVELOPMENT Zy qF AnY t �: per � �- � .f �.�� .��5= � J� ,•/ �. `�' .� " �. s CAMERA LOCATION #5 Simulation at Initial Planting Q Y z d J Q w J SW N ` W W� J OQ� z'o QQz cc w N QLw N Z 0 O OQ � R Awry ARICBIEC !NECKED MG DATE 09-2&21 JOBNO 15-021 SHEET PS-4 13 ;1EETS Packet Pg. 49 CAMERA LOCATION #5: VIEW SHOWING AREA WITHOUT NEW DEVELOPMENT CAMERA LOCATION #5 -0 VIEW SHOWING AREA WITH NEW DEVELOPMENT s "M 2 C i¢ . .c • x r CAMERA LOCATION #5 Simulation at 5 Years Z 0 O OQ a U) DRAWN AWCB/EC CHECKED MG DATE ,2421 JOB NO 15-021 SHEET PS-10 SHEETS Packet Pg. 50 f d l'I _`�+'� t '}•_ �,�'.}�'!- '�;, ;>z yr � ...,t,r1 -. •� •.n._.. -- esq. sit - CAMERA LOCATION #8: VIEW SHOWING AREA WITHOUT NEW DEVELOPMENT ao � r �# ��h x p � ;j► y, a ,.,_... m ., ,,. ... � �.`. � ,"atsr 3A 4af w � �� ht� ��.:, ��•" `���y�a�2` AA CAMERA LOCATION #8: VIEW SHOWING AREA WITH NEW DEVELOPMENT r ,i ✓Y S ✓P f �r C � :� -•t � 1. � 4 Art �'"€.. � � � , t - � � "�` { �.* t . � .. CAMERA LOCATION #8 Simulation at Initial Planting • _.-�a itil'�!' `lf ram-' � i� a - { �g CAMERA LOCATION #10: VIEW SHOWING AREA WITHOUT NEW DEVELOPMENT t • t Y mom 1pw�� re a r, CAMERA LOCATION #10 : VIEW SHOWING AREA WITH NEW DEVELOPMENT t F .f. 4 h CAMERA LOCATION #10 Simulation at Initial Planting r� Q n O W Z Q J ?OU W J W � C � C W_ W N J Q ce Z'o QQz Q ce 00 W W N Q W N Z 0 O OQ DRAWN AR/CWEC CHECKED MG DATE 09-29 21 JOB NO i5-on SHEET PS-6 OF SHEETS Packet Pg. 52 CAMERA LOCATION #11 : VIEW SHOWING AREA WITHOUT NEW DEVELOPMENT , CP- " .r +,.. �'• .,. r ""fir r � lit �► � ,►1.k, b...� �; � '.�` � "�'+�i.� ,,.' . 1F .ap #' tr J��¢ a ".•,se Jl► 7I,'9B14t , Y. ',' ` '' +y,p j ,... ;�'61 �„- �'�i 's„" "i � � • - i w��..Ali�` +wir*� 'mow '' `�' >:. _ ,. - _ ... CAMERA LOCATION #11 : VIEW SHOWING AREA WITH NEW DEVELOPMENT � 'ss• 1Y a � � t «E A 4- "S. CAMERA LOCATION #11 Simulation at Initial Planting N V r i Q1 > n LL>J O Z OYC } C C Q LU 0 _ O G W Q W N J � Q H QUO z n 11J W00 N Q LL~J N z O0 OQ a U) DRAWN AR/CBIEC CHECKED MG DATE 05-1622 JOB NO 15-021 SHEET PS-7 Packet Pg. 53 CAMERA LOCATION #11 : VIEW SHOWING AREA WITHOUT NEW DEVELOPMENT CAMERA LOCATION #11 : VIEW SHOWING AREA WITH NEW DEVELOPMENT , 45 CAMERA LOCATION #11 Simulation at 5 Years AI r3 O z Z QT3 L Q S Diu w0= 0< ce L J C J Q ry QJO (0QZ Q Z r� d' w M Q w N z O0 O Q a �NANM nWCB,EC CHECKED MG DATE OS-1i22 JOB NO 15-021 SHEET PS-11 '­ELTS Packet Pg. SC CAMERA LOCATION #12 : VIEW SHOWING AREA WITHOUT NEW DEVELOPMENT CAMERA LOCATION #12 Simulation at Initial Planting CAMERA LOCATION #12 : VIEW SHOWING AREA WITH NEW DEVELOPMENT V CAMERA LOCATION #12 : VIEW SHOWING AREA WITHOUT NEW DEVELOPMENT CAMERA LOCATION #12 : VIEW SHOWING AREA WITH NEW DEVELOPMENT 71 • as � Yam. � �`' •�' s . s �, � psi � '` � z CAMERA LOCATION #12 Simulation at 5 Years CAMERA LOCATION #13 : VIEW SHOWING AREA WITHOUT NEW DEVELOPMENT CAMERA LOCATION #13 : VIEW SHOWING AREA WITH NEW DEVELOPMENT .,�x � ;• t �`, x � t� by +s f ,� . c r 4` fi r} f f CAMERA LOCATION #13 Simulation at Initial Planting 11 N Q U �3 ow Y Z Q = 5 F U W0= 0�< ce LJJ Q N LJ J z Q QJO �Qz Qzr� r LU ce CO N M o Q w N z 0 O OQ a DRAWN ARICBIEC CHECKED MG DATE 05-1622 JOB NO 15-021 SHEET PS-9 OF 13 SHEETS Packet Pg. 57 CAMERA LOCATION #13 : VIEW SHOWING AREA WITHOUT NEW DEVELOPMENT CAMERA LOCATION #13 : VIEW SHOWING AREA WITH NEW DEVELOPMENT LAFsiloz - r Y�,• of w -•�v` VA > 9C�,•N1 i�"�f+ S ^'pY• y CAMERA LOCATION #13 Simulation at 5 Years c— n O Z Q3 � U w O = 0 S < Q Z J QJ0 co Q Z QZN of00 w N Q w N Z O0 OQ a_ 73 G DNAWN ARJCBIEC CHECKED YO DATE 05-16-22 JOB NO 15-021 SHEET PS-13 EE.s Packet Pg. 58 HELI-PAD 4 1% X ,0 A STAIRWAY TO LOWER 14 LEVEL ADA PARKING XIL, `ACCESSIBLE PROPOSED 14 GRAND VIEW PATH MAUSOLEUM 41 Nk- 7 cl 06 05 0403OE 'j 0, 4 4 1—p Or o— Z9, Ole �V I r s EXISTING CEMETERY ROAD a. OUR LADY OF LO URDES GARDEN V- 00 A ETERNAL VALLEY PARK 23287 N. SIERRA H;= NEMALL CA 91321 iisioN DATE By 8-25-21 as E 5-3-2021 ILE AS INDICATED km By 0 :CKED By TL )jECTNO i0lI1 ET NO Al OF 4 t.f All' RE I L MISSION TILE MANSARD ROOF . PRE -CAST .�SYNTHETICPLASTERFINISHMISSIONTILEMANSARD MFG. REG. (((( LL .� \.\\\.\)Y/.)YYt.\.\\/\/t).)))YY)))r)tYY)))))rYYtt/t)Ytr)r..:.................t...))/YYrrYYYY))Y..•.)Y)Ytr YY)))tr......./!�,\r,)r)/rr„)r, r,Yrt r... t................Y,)/Yr•r\t\tY.\.................\.r\.......\\..11......■......... /)rtY\Err/trr\)\t•//r.\t.•..■..........� .Yr//rr)\\)i),rr/•,r,/)N),•\YY...t.YY.YY)tY))Y/)))YY)))/Y/)/)\•)//tr)r •................................................•rYYYY)))rtY/..YY)).tt)tr.Yt................rr\Y\Y.).r,)„i ,.•........:..,...........................t.....r.....................................................,..r...........j...•................ .. ...Y............: '.i R�±ai«�e;;' usw'.�:�ir',°r�".:',n'6.. a�n ."s,:e`..�„s:; ;�....i.............. ..... ................ ��. . .. . � .�..�.... �....�..� ........... ... ,..._ • n nu/uu)ru,nuu,nuouY am all■■ ■■ ■■ , M■MMENEN■ NE ■■■■■■■■■ME■ M■MMEMEMEMMEM ...... E■ EMM■MEM■M■ ■■■■ ■■■_■ ■■��■ ■ ■■■■■ ...... �0-6� �s�■ ���� a m�wr HE Mom NOE MMMM ■■■■�■ ■■■�■�� ■■■■ ■MME ■■■■■ MENEM Ms -ME ME■■� ■■■■■®MEMO■ ■■ MENOMONEE MEMEMMEMEMEMM ON■MEMMEN■M NONE ME MENEM MEMM■N a- (�a1 REAR ELEVATION 2 SCALE 1/811=1.-01. 127 -7" GRANITE SHUTTERS GRANITE TRIM SYNTHETIC MISSION TILE Q », LASS FRONT NICHES (POLISHED FINISH) (POLISHED FINISH) PLASTER FINISH MANSARD ROOF Z BY OWNER cc SINGLES '" Q G A TANDEMS TANDEMS Y _ � � _...� �V�cMF Fes• \ j, ; , i, � � t �NlbiEAIIIU < , NICHE WALL O P PROJECT TITLE ° , e ETERNAL VALLEY a ' a L = - a v RED RED IVORY MEMORIAL PARK o * 23287 N. SIERRA HW7. NEWHALL CA 91321 PRODUCT INVENTORY DESCRIPTION CASKET SPACES SINGLES 168 168 (1 FLOOR PLAN TERRA COTTATILE PAVERS TANDEMS 306 612 NOR 2 SCALE 118" = 1 A _ ` TOTAL 780 PRE -CAST _ CONCRETE CAP 17-1" MISSION TILE MA NSARD ROOF CAT -FACE SYNTHETIC PLASTER FINISH RUSTICATION STRIPS . '.. • GRANITE TRIM — r n SIDE ELEVATIONS 2 SCALE 1/4"=1.-0. r_J r_J r-J EXISTING ` r---------J �FINISH.RAIDE r-J r-J J NICHES 634 TOTAL 1,414 ELEVATIONS REVISION NO. DATE BY DATE CHECKED BY TL fi-41 20F4 Packet I,. 61 EXTERIOR VIEW OF EXISTING ALTERNATE EXTERIOR VIEW OF EXISTING EXTERIOR VIEW OF EXISTING FUNERAL HOME - PLASTER FINISH, MISSION TILE ROOF, FUNERAL HOME - PLASTER FINISH, MISSION TILE ROOF, FUNERAL CHAPEL AND OFFICES AT CEMETERY TERRA COTTA PAVER TILES TERRA COTTA PAVER TILES ENTRANCE Nit A I♦ „ i w t • - r ,�a n k ' "_ � _x{• -", s fir. �": ��. '3 ,-.{.,. ':�. snr 3 "' 1'i�:; •tlr r i e .... .,,y..,�.;r#,. ., t. _ � „ ,... ". .,a ... - •.r. ,:, Vie... tr*�3 � _ ,>��,., :s } 3D RENDERING OF MAUSOLEUM c.. f r i „ t r � i ■ Y5 ter% _ww t } CZ G w PROJECT TITLE ETERNAL VALLEY AS INDICATED I BY BS ED BY TL :T NO. 1641 NO 40F4 Packet Pg. 62 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION [] Proposed [X] Final MASTER CASE: Master Case 20-231 PERMIT/PROJECT: Eternal Valley Memorial Park Expansion Project Ridgeline Alteration Permit 20-001, Hillside Development Review 420-005, Development Review 21-015, Architectural Design Review 21-022, Oak Tree Permit 221-011, and Initial Study 20-007 APPLICANT: SCI California Funeral Services, Inc. 511 South Central Avenue Glendale, CA 91204 PROJECT LOCATION: Eternal Valley Memorial Park, 23287 Sierra Highway, Santa Clarita, CA 91321 Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN): 2827-008-057 and 2827-008-059 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: Ridgeline Alteration Permit, Hillside Development Review Permit, Development Review Permit, Architectural Design Review Permit, Oak Tree Permit, and Initial Study to improve and expand the existing Eternal Valley Memorial Park. The project site is bounded on the north by undeveloped land, on the east by the existing Eternal Valley cemetery grounds, on the south by the Needham Ranch fire station pad and helipad, and on the west by Needham Ranch Parkway. The project site is currently vacant and previously approved as cemetery use by the County of Los Angeles. This project proposes to grade a 13.6-acre area and develop it as cemetery grounds, including a new loop road, landscaping, as well as burial plots. Additionally, the project would construct a new 3,665 square -foot mausoleum, with a capacity of 780 caskets, and would include a 260 square -foot room, with niches for urns, at the top of the existing cemetery. The project would cut and fill 92,600 cubic yards of earth, to be balanced on site, and would also remove and recompact 100,300 cubic yards of earth for remedial grading. The site is in the Open Space (OS) zone. 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 [ ] 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: Andy Olson, Associate Planner (Signature) (Name/Title) Approved by: Patrick Leclair, Senior Planner (Signature) (Name/Title) Public Review Period From May 17, 2022 To June 7, 2021 Public Notice Given On May 17, 2022 [X] Legal Advertisement [X] Posting of Properties [X] Written Notice CERTIFICATION DATE: Final Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Eternal Valley Memorial Park Expansion Project (Master Case 20-231) PREPARED FOR: City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department 23920 W. Valencia Blvd. Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Contact: Mr. Andy Olson, Associate Planner (661) 255-4330 PREPARED BY: ■ 4165 E. Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Suite 290 Westlake Village, California 91362 Contact: Mr. Daniel Kaufman, Environmental Planner (818) 879-4700 JUIIC LULL ETERNAL VALLEY MEMORIAL PARK EXPANSION PROJECT (MASTER CASE 20-231) FINAL INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Prepared for: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 23920 W. Valencia Blvd. Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Contact: Mr. Andy Olson, Associate Planner (661) 255-4330 Prepared by: ENVICOM CORPORATION 4165 E. Thousand Oaks Boulevard., Suite 290 Westlake Village, California 91362 Contact: Mr. Daniel Kaufman, Environmental Planner (818) 879-4700 June 2022 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE NUMBER 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 FINDINGS OF THIS INITIAL STUDY 2 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3 4.0 INITIAL STUDY / NEGATIVE DECLARATION 8 L Aesthetics 10 IL Agriculture and Forestry Resources 13 III. Air Quality 14 IV. Biological Resources 21 V. Cultural Resources 28 VL Energy 32 VII. Geology and Soils 35 VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 41 IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 48 X. Hydrology and Water Quality 51 XI. Land Use and Planning 55 XII. Mineral Resources 60 XIIL Noise 61 XIV. Population and Housing 65 XV. Public Services 67 XVL Recreation 70 XVIL Transportation 71 XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources 73 XIX. Utilities and Service Systems 75 XX. Wildfire 78 XXl. Mandatory Findings of Significance 81 5.0 REFERENCES 83 6.0 PREPARERS 87 7.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 88 8.0 CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS 96 9.0 MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM 97 FIGURES Figure 1 Regional Location Map 5 Figure 2 Vicinity Map 6 Figure 3 Site Plan 7 Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita i June 2022 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLES Table III-1 Criteria Pollutants Summary of Common Sources and Effects 15 Table III-2 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards 16 Table III-3 Air Monitoring Station Ambient Pollutant Concentrations 16 Table 111-4 Maximum Daily Emissions (Construction) 18 Table III-5 Project -Related Operational Emissions 19 Table 111-6 Local Significance Thresholds and Peak Daily Onsite Emissions (pounds/day) 19 Table VI-1 Total Fuel Consumption During Construction 33 Table VIII-1 Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions 42 Table VIII-2 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions 43 Table VIII-3 Project Consistency with SCAG's RTP/SCS 44 Table XI-1 Consistency Analysis with General Plan Goals and Policies 56 Table XIII-1 Construction Noise Impacts at Off -Site Sensitive Receptors 62 Table XIII-2 Vibration Levels at Off -Site Sensitive Uses from Project Construction 63 Table XIV-1 Population and Employment Growth Forecast 65 APPENDICES Appendix A Site Plan Appendix B Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report Appendix C-1 Biological Resources Assessment Appendix C-2 Biological Inventory for Extended Grading Area Appendix D Oak Tree Report Appendix E Phase I Archeological Resources Assessment Appendix F Fuel Consumption by Construction Phase Worksheet Appendix G Geotechnical & Geological Investigation Appendix H Soils Investigation Appendix I Drainage Plans Appendix J Noise and Vibration Technical Report Appendix K Traffic Memorandum Appendix L Tribal Consultation Eternal Valley Expansion Project City of Santa Clarita Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 11 June 2022 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is to disclose and evaluate the environmental impacts of Master Case 20-231, the Eternal Valley Memorial Park Expansion Project, to be located to the west of the existing Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary, in Santa Clarita, California, as described further in Section 3.0 Project Description, below. LEGAL AUTHORITY As lead agency, the City of Santa Clarita has prepared this Initial Study in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (Public Resources Code 21000-21189) and relevant provisions of the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387), as amended. Initial Study. Section 15063(c) of the CEQA Guidelines defines an Initial Study as the proper preliminary method of analyzing the potential environmental consequences of a project. To paraphrase from this Section, the relevant purposes of an Initial Study are: (1) To provide the Lead Agency with the necessary information to decide whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative Declaration (ND); (2) To enable the Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby, enabling the project to qualify for an ND; and (3) To provide sufficient technical analysis of the environmental effects of a project to permit a judgment based on the record as a whole, that the environmental effects of a project will not have a significant effect on the environment that would necessitate an EIR. Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration. CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 states a public agency shall prepare a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration for a project subject to CEQA when: (a) The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, or (b) The initial study identifies potentially significant effects, but: Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and 2. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. An ND or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) may be used to satisfy the requirements of CEQA when a project would have no significant immitigable effects on the environment. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 1 June 2022 2.0 FINDINGS OF THIS INITIAL STUDY 2.0 FINDINGS OF THIS INITIAL STUDY The impact analysis in this Initial Study demonstrates that with the incorporation of mitigation measures, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on the environment with regard to all CEQA Environmental Checklist topics. For each topic addressed in Section 4.0, the impacts associated with development of this project have been determined to be "Less than Significant," or "No Impact" with regulatory compliance. Thus, an MND may be issued. Eternal Valley Expansion Project City of Santa Clarita Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Eternal Valley Memorial Park Expansion project (project) is proposed for a site located within the County of Los Angeles in the City of Santa Clarita (City), as shown on Figure 1, Regional Location Map. The Eternal Valley Memorial Park was founded in 1958, and the site is currently approximately 54.12 acres in size. The project site, including the existing Memorial Park and proposed expansion area, has a general plan land use designation of Open Space (OS) and is zoned OS. The existing Memorial park is accessed from Sierra Highway. The project is located west of the existing memorial park (or cemetery) grounds which are located along Sierra Highway between Newhall Avenue and the Needham Ranch Parkway in a setting planned for near -future development, as shown on Figure 2, Vicinity Map. The project would require development approvals from the City to grade a portion of an 18.5-acre parcel (known as "Area 6" of the memorial park) and a portion (the mausoleum site) of the 54.12-acre parcel containing the existing memorial park. Area 6 is bounded on the north by undeveloped land, on the east by the existing Eternal Valley Memorial Park grounds, on the south by the future site of a Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACoFD) fire station and helipad, and on the west by Needham Ranch Parkway and industrial uses. The project is adjacent to, but not part of, the Center at Needham Ranch business park, for which an EIR was certified by the City Council under Master Case 99-264 on June 24, 2003. The proposed project would expand the existing Eternal Valley Memorial Park into the project site, resulting in grading of the existing hillside, within a Ridgeline Protection Overlay Zone (100 feet from a significant ridgeline) to construct a new loop road, burial plots, and landscaping. The conceptual plan is shown on Figure 3, Site Plan. The project would establish approximately 15 new acres of memorial park inventory area within an approximately 17-acre project site, providing approximately 15,000 casketed burial spaces and 6,000 cremation inurement spaces. The project would also construct a new 27.5-foot tall, 3,665 square -foot mausoleum at the top of the existing memorial park, with capacity for 780 caskets and 560 urn niches. The project grading consists of cut and fill of a total of 192,900 cubic yards of earth, including mass excavation and fill, over- excavation, and shrinkage, which would be balanced on site within the 17-acre area of grading. Installation of turf for burial grounds will occur over three (3) phases, with incremental installations every two to three years, and completion by 2040. The project also includes installation of a wall or fence along Needham Ranch Parkway, along with landscaping to create a buffer between the memorial park use and the industrial and fire station uses. The project site would be mainly accessed through internal memorial park roadways leading to Sierra Highway and construct a connection to an existing restricted access service road leading to Needham Ranch Parkway, for restricted existing and emergency access. Following circulation of the draft NOI/MND, a written comment was received, as discussed in Section 7.0, Response to Comments. Corrections and additions are summarized in Section 8.0, Corrections and Additions. The Mitigation Monitoring Program is provided in Section 9.0, Mitigation Monitoring Program. REQUIRED ENTITLEMENTS The project is requesting the following approvals from the City under Master Case 20-231: Ridgeline Alteration Permit (RAP): A RAP is required because the project would grade within the Ridgeline Protection Overlay Zone of the existing, mapped Significant Ridgeline. Hillside Development Review (Class IV) Permit (HDR): An HDR is required because the project site has an average cross -slope of greater than fifteen percent and because the project would cut and fill more than 1,500 cubic yards of earth on a natural slope greater than ten percent average. Development Review Permit (DR): A DR is required to review the proposed development and site plan. Eternal Valley Expansion Project City of Santa Clarita Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Architectural Design Review Permit (ADR): An ADR is required to review the proposed architecture of a new building. Oak Tree Permit (Class II) (OTP): An OTP is required to remove or otherwise impact three (3) protected oak trees on site. Initial Study: An IS will be required, pursuant to CEQA. Eternal Valley Expansion Project City of Santa Clarita Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 V�� s� •� 9� Townd Pla O Vak Groh and Rd R;acky livi Peak Park %Y1,-T,ar jam, Turin Lakes Grarjr�tl��Fiirla San Fernando Q ra Chatsworth Northndga Panorama Ciby Canoga Park Reseda :r has Van Nuys e tia>rce. W671e MB. s. 2722. } c nee d 4 0 —A d v PraCentose H 9�N prd cer ra Canyon Rd sally rx'4 Oe Nandii 'o4ty JakeO �a! c � a = e°1, d / G Q ry, O ° �QerO !Q DoChwer/er pr 7a b C° err Oak\wr C .. 3rae p any= a ca o nA I Project Site " `'r" -V.. P.,k ossM 0 I O F,,e Rd � Ew_rnal valley r i � �°'� Va � rvR i,<ral F'a rk n G °anal A rn � 14 q F tY o` 4y F� G3 �Ra o 5 ° o 4 3 Pe �sn i 0 m� Weldon C y Canyon K`� Source ESPI wod a Street Backgrarnd Imagery, 2i22, ETERNAL VALLEY MEMORIAL PARK EXPANSION PROJECT - MND Ianicom Regional Location Maps �� .000 12,000 ,11 '1 a 1 q m.:CD CD r � 1 {• 1 s � 1 � r" Aerial Source: Ulus "ery 5eryiees: Ile. w OQyerp Pro!),am iFW. NI0. EfERNALVMM WMURIAL PARK EXPANSPON PROJEGT — MND Legend Project Site a Im ./ IN' W, � � �I Vicinity Map l7 1 �10 m 2 W q o l — ❑� 1,..:rm'%,.'"\. I:i \ �I l �' `� ❑ 4 i. _ 7 - PHASE 1 COMPLETED BY 203 2 - PHASE 2 COMPLETED BY 2036 3 -PHASE 3 COMPLETED BY 40 AONS (PHASES DDITOFINCLUDE INCREMENTAL TURF AND IRRIGATION EVERY 2 TO 3 YEARS Y f///fi�tt AV 1E �� &-IRI.IB EUFFER OP110�G .{ a \ -`� • - INTErd'IEDWTE'6LOPE ARE46 GPTIONS..aa uu `�1'-*r 0 25�oo' c Source: Clark & Green Associates, Sept. 30, 2021 ETERNAL VALLEY MEMORIAL PARK EXPANSION PROJECT — MIND Site Plan envicom 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT INITIAL STUDY AND CHECKLIST 1. Project title: Eternal Valley Memorial Park Expansion Project (Master Case 20-231) 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department 23920 W. Valencia Blvd. Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 3. Contact person and phone number: Mr. Andy Olson, Associate Planner Email: AOLSON@santa-clarita.com Tel: (661) 255-4330 4. Project location: The project is located to the west of the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary, at 23287 North Sierra Highway, Newhall, CA 91321(Assessor's Parcel Numbers 2827-008-057 and 2827-008-059). 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary 23287 North Sierra Highway Newhall, CA 91321 6. General Plan Land Use designation: Open Space (OS) 7. Zoning designation: Open Space (OS) 8. Project Description: The project would create approximately 15 net new acres of memorial park burial grounds and a mausoleum on an approximately 17-acre project site, as an expansion of the existing 54.12-acre memorial park. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: The project site is located to the west of the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary and east of The Center at Needham Ranch business park. The project site is surrounded by the existing memorial park to the east, the site of a future fire station to the south, the Needham Ranch Industrial Park to the west, and OS to the north. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.): The City of Santa Clarita is the only approval agency at this time. Eternal Valley Expansion Project City of Santa Clarita Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture and Forestry ❑ Air Quality Resources ® Biological Resources ® Cultural Resources ❑ Energy ® Geology /Soils ❑ Greenhouse Gas ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Emissions Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation ® Tribal Cultural Resources ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Wildfire ® Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, an EIR Addendum will be prepared. Name: Andy Olson Title: Associate Planner, Planning Division, City of Santa Clarita Signature: Date: Eternal Valley Expansion Project City of Santa Clarita 9 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION I. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings, or other locally recognized desirable aesthetic natural feature within a city -designated scenic highway? c. In non -urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? e. Per the City of Santa Clarita Local Guidelines, would the project result in changes to the topography of a Primary or Secondary Ridgeline? Impact Analysis Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ a. Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a proposed project would introduce incompatible visual elements within a field of view containing a scenic vista or substantially blocks views of a scenic vista. The project site is currently partially graded and sloping, with an area of hillsides. The site is located adjacent to the west of the existing Eternal Valley Memorial Park, east of the Needham Ranch Industrial Park, a future fire station, and undeveloped OS, in the urban visual setting of Newhall. The site is not near an eligible or State -designated scenic highway,' and the City does not locally -designate scenic highways. The project site is not visible from the nearest eligible scenic highway, Interstate 5 (I-5), from Interstate 210 (1-210) near Tunnel Station to State Route 126 near Castaic,2 which is approximately 1.4 miles to the south with an intervening ridgeline completely blocking views of the project site. The City of Santa Clarita Conservation and OS Element designates a significant ridgeline a scenic resource within the project vicinity.' The project would grade within a Ridgeline Protection Overlay Zone, the area Caltrans, List of Eligible and Officially Designated State Scenic Highways, Accessed on January 25, 2022 at https://dot.ca. gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/desig-and-eligible-aug20l 9_aI 1 y.xlsx. 2 Caltrans, List of Eligible and Officially Designated State Scenic Highways, Accessed on January 25, 2022 at https://dot.ca. gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/desig-and-eligible-aug20l 9_aI 1 y.xlsx. s City of Santa Clarita, City of Santa Clarita General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, June 2011. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 10 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION within one hundred (100) feet vertical and one hundred (100) feet horizontal distance from a City -designated ridgeline.4 Thus a RAP would be required. Approval of the RAP would require that the project would minimize the effects of grading to the extent practical to ensure that the character of the ridgeline is preserved and that not cause depreciation of the appearance of the ridgeline in the vicinity. The project would minimize the effects of grading to the extent practical to ensure that the character of the ridgeline is preserved and that not cause depreciation of the appearance of the ridgeline in the vicinity. With approval of the RAP, the City will assure that no significant impact would occur with regard to ridgelines. In addition, the project site is not visible from a scenic highway. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact to scenic vistas. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b. No Impact. A significant impact would occur if scenic resources within a City -designated scenic highway would be damaged or removed by development of the proposed project. The City does not designate scenic highways. The project site is located approximately 1.4 miles away from I-5, the nearest State eligible highways and not visible from that scenic corridor. The project is not located in a designated historic district and does not contain rock outcroppings. As detailed in the Section IV., Biological Resources, there are three (3) City -protected trees to the north of the project, but these are outside the limits of project grading and therefore they would not be impacted or encroached upon. Further, the less than significant impact to the resources would not be discernable from the scenic highway. Therefore, the project would result in no impact to scenic resources within a scenic highway. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. C. Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur if a proposed project introduced incompatible visual elements on the site or visual elements incompatible with the character of the area surroundings. Projects in urbanized/developed areas could have a significant impact if they conflicted with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The project is located in an area developed with memorial park, industrial, and residential land uses and would develop memorial park burial grounds and a mausoleum building. Views in the vicinity of the project site are largely constrained by the existing memorial park in the urban setting and would be compatible with the character of the area surroundings. The project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations affecting scenic quality (such as those related to height and size) and would therefore have a less than significant impact. Mitimation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. d. Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur if a proposed project introduced a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. The project would not add lighting in the vicinity of residential land uses. Substantial is typically caused by building facades with large expanses of glass. The only proposed building is a mausoleum, which would not include large glass areas capable of producing substantial glare and would be distant from off -site land uses with intervening topography. Therefore, impacts related to light or glare would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 4 City of Santa Clarita, City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code, Title 17: Zoning, Section 17.38.070, Accessed on April 11, 2022 at https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaClarita/html/SantaClaritaI7/SantaClarital738.html# 17.38.070 s Caltrans, List of Eligible and Officially Designated State Scenic Highways, Accessed on January 25, 2022 at https://dot.ca. gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/desig-and-eligible-aug20l9 ally.xlsx. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 11 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION e. Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur if the project would result in changes to the topography of a Significant Ridgeline. As discussed under Checklist Item La, the project would grade within the protected zone of a City -designated significant ridgeline, and thus an RAP would be required. Approval of the RAP would require that the project minimize the effects of grading to the extent practical to ensure that the character of the ridgeline is preserved and that not cause depreciation of the appearance of the ridgeline in the vicinity. In addition, this area would not be visible form a scenic highway, as discussed previously. Therefore, impacts to significant ridgelines would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 12 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, ❑ ❑ ❑ Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Would the project conflict with existing ❑ ❑ ❑ zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? C. Would the project conflict with existing ❑ ❑ ❑ zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d. Would the project result in the loss of forest ❑ ❑ ❑ land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? e. Would the project involve other changes in the ❑ ❑ ❑ existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? Impact Analysis a-e. No Impact. The subject property is located in an area identified as "grazing land" on the Los Angeles County Important Farmland 2018 map prepared by the California Department of Conservation for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), but it is not mapped as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The site is not used for agricultural purposes, has no agricultural zoning, and is not in conflict with a Williamson Act contract. The subject property is not located within a national forest or on forest land. As such, the project would have no impact on agricultural or forestry resources. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 6 California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Los Angeles County Important Farmland 2018, Sheet 1 of 2, Accessed on January 20, 2022 at https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/LosAngeles.aspx. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 13 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the applicable air quality plan? b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net ❑ ❑ ® ❑ increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ❑ ® ❑ pollutant concentrations? d. Result in other emissions (such as those ❑ ❑ ® ❑ leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? e. Per the City of Santa Clarita Local Guidelines, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ would the project exceed the most recent air quality thresholds as determined by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, as published in its "Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook"? Impact Analysis This analysis is based upon the project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Report' (Appendix B). The project site is located in the South Central Coast Air Basin (the Basin) and is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Air quality in the Basin is affected by the emission sources located in the region, as well as by a natural terrain barrier to emission dispersion north and east of the metropolitan Los Angeles area, a dominant on -shore flow, and atmospheric inversion. Sources and health effects of various pollutants regulated by the SCAQMD are shown in Table III-1, Criteria Pollutants Summary of Common Sources and Effects. Impact Sciences, Eternal Valley Project, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report, March 2022. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 14 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pollutants Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Ozone (Os) Particulate Matter (PM-2.5 & PM-10) Sulfur Dioxide (S02) Table III-1 Criteria Pollutants Summary of Common Sources and Effects r Man -Made Sources An odorless, colorless gas formed when carbon in fuel is not burned completely; a component of motor vehicle exhaust. A reddish -brown gas formed during fuel combustion for motor vehicles and industrial sources. Sources include motor vehicles, electric utilities, and other sources that burn fuel. Formed by a chemical reaction between volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrous oxides (NOx) in the presence of sunlight. VOCs are also commonly referred to as reactive organic gases (ROGs). Common sources of these precursor pollutants** include motor vehicle exhaust, industrial emissions, gasoline storage and transport, solvents, paints, and landfills. Produced by power plants, steel mills, chemical plants, unpaved roads and parking lots, wood - burning stoves and fireplaces, automobiles, and others. A colorless, nonflammable gas formed when fuel containing sulfur is burned; when gasoline is extracted from ore. Examples are petroleum refineries, cement manufacturing, metal processing facilities, locomotives, and ships. Human Health & Welfare Effects Reduces the ability of blood to deliver oxygen to vital tissues, effecting the cardiovascular and nervous system. Impairs vision, causes dizziness, and can lead to unconsciousness or death.* Respiratory irritant; aggravates lung and heart problems. Precursor to ozone and acid rain. Contributes to global warming and nutrient overloading which deteriorates water quality. Causes brown discoloration of the atmosphere. Irritates and causes inflammation of the mucous membranes and lung airways; causes wheezing, coughing, and pain when inhaling deeply; decreases lung capacity; aggravates lung and heart problems. Damages plants; reduces crop yield. Damages rubber, some textiles, and dyes. Increased respiratory symptoms, such as irritation of the airways, coughing or difficulty breathing; aggravated asthma; development of chronic bronchitis; irregular heartbeat; nonfatal heart attacks; and premature death in people with heart or lung disease. Impairs visibility (haze). Respiratory irritant; aggravates lung and heart problems.*** In the presence of moisture and oxygen, sulfur dioxide (S02) converts to sulfuric acid which can damage marble, iron, and steel. Damages crops and natural vegetation. Impairs visibility. Precursor to acid rain. Source: California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, Health Effects. Accessed at: http://www.capcoa.org/health- effects/ on March 29, 2022, quoted in Impact Sciences, Eternal Valley Project, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report, March 2022. * Health effects from CO exposures occur at levels considerably higher than ambient. * * Ozone is not generated directly by these sources. Rather, chemicals emitted by these precursor sources react with sunlight to form ozone in the atmosphere. *** The elderly and people with cardiovascular disease or chronic lung disease (such as bronchitis or emphysema) are most likely to experience these adverse effects. Baseline Air Quality The United States Environmental Protection Agency has set primary national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), S02, PM-10, PM-2.5, and lead (Pb). Primary standards are those levels of air quality deemed necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health. In addition, the State of California has established health -based ambient air quality standards for these and other pollutants, some of which are more stringent than the federal standards (California ambient air quality standards, or CAAQS). Table III-2, Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards, lists the current federal and State standards for regulated pollutants. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 15 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Table III-2 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time Federal Standards California Standards Ozone (03) 1 Hour - 0.09 ppm 8 Hour 0.07 ppm 0.07 ppm Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8 Hour 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm 1 Hour 35 ppm 20 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Annual 0.053 ppm 0.030 ppm 1 Hour 0.10 ppm 0.18 ppm Sulfur Dioxide (S02) Annual - - 24 Hour 0.14 ppm 0.04 ppm 1 Hour 0.075 ppm 0.25 ppm Particulate Matter (PM-10) Annual - 20 /m3 24 Hour 150 /m3 50 /m Fine Particulate Matter (PM-2.5) Annual 12 /m3 12 /m3 24 Hour 35 /m — Lead 30-Da average — 1.5 /m3 3-Month Average 0.15 µg/m3 — ppm = parts per million gg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter Source: Source: California Air Resources Board, Ambient Air Quality Standards, May 2016. Accessed at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aags2.pdf, on September 20, 2021. Data on existing air quality in the Los Angeles County portion of the South Coast Air Basin are available from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) as measured at monitoring locations throughout Los Angeles County. The monitoring station located closest to and most representative of air quality at the project site is the Santa Clarita-Placenta Monitoring Station at 22224 Placenta Canyon Road, approximately 1.52 miles to the northwest. The Santa Clarita-Placenta station monitors 03, NO2, CO, and PM1o. Table III-3, Air Monitoring Station Ambient Pollutant Concentrations, summarizes the annual air quality data from 2018 — 2020 in the local airshed for the criteria pollutants of greatest concern in Los Angeles County. As the Santa Clarita-Placenta Monitoring Station does not report measurements of PM2.5, Table III-3 reports measurements for those pollutants measured at the nearest monitoring station reporting such measurements, which is located in Reseda at 18330 Gault Street in Los Angeles, approximately 11.24 miles south of the project site. As shown in Table III-3, ozone concentrations in Santa Clarita exceeded the 8-hour State standard 52 days, 56 days, and 73 days in 2018, 2019, and 2020, respectively, and exceeded the 1-hour State standard on 21 days, 34 days, and 44 days in 2018, 2019, and 2020, respectively. The PM-2.5 levels (measured at the Reseda Monitoring Station) did not exceed the federal standard from 2016 through 2018. The PM-10 concentrations did not exceed the federal standard and exceeded State standards for one day in 2019. Measurements of NO2 and CO from Santa Clarita did not exceed standards from 2018 through 2020. Table III-3 Air Monitoring Station Ambient Pollutant Concentrations Pollutant 2018 2019 2020 Ozone (03) Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.132 0.128 0.148 Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 0.106 0.106 0.122 Number of days exceeding State 1-hour standard (0.09 ppm) 21 34 44 Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 16 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pollutant 2018 2019 2020 Number of days exceeding federal/State 8-hour Standard (0.07 ppm) 52 56 73 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.059 0.046 0.046 Annual average concentration (ppm) 0.011 0.009 0.009 Number of days exceeding State 1-hour Standard (0.18 m) 0 0 0 Carbon Monoxide (CO) Maximum 1-hour concentration m) 1.0 1.5 1.2 Maximum 8-hour concentration m) 0.8 1.2 0.8 Number of days exceeding State 1-hour standard (20 m) 0 0 0 Number of days exceeding federal 1-hour standard (35 m) 0 0 0 Respirable Particulate Matter (PM-10) Maximum 24-hour concentration ( /m) 49.0 62.0 48.0 Annual average concentration ( m) 23.4 18.4 22.5 Number of samples exceeding State standard (50 m) 0 1 0 Number of samples exceeding federal standard (150 /m3) 0 0 0 Fine Particulate Matter (PM-2.5) Maximum 24-hour concentration /m3 31.0 30.0 27.6 Annual average concentration /m3 10.32 9.16 10.1 Number of samples exceeding federal standard 35 /m3 0 0 0 Source: California Air Resources Board, "Air Quality Data Statistics," http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/. 2020. South Coast Air Quality Management District, https://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/air- quality/historical-data-by- year/ag2020card final.pdf?sfvrsn=4. 1 Parts by volume per million of air (ppm), micrograms per cubic meter of air (gg/m3), or annual arithmetic mean (aam). Project Emissions Modeling Air quality impacts were evaluated in accordance with the methodologies recommended by CARB and the SCAQMD. Where criteria air pollutant quantification was required, emissions were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2020.4.0 (CalEEMod). Ca1EEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to quantify potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. The output reports produced using CaIEEMod are included within Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report. a. Less than Significant Impact. SCAQMD drafted the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).' The 2016 AQMP was developed in effort with CARB, SCAG, and the U.S. EPA to establish a program of rules and regulations to reduce air pollutant emissions to achieves CAAQS and NAAQS. The plan's pollutant control strategies are based on SCAG's 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). While SCAG adopted the updated 2020-2045 RTP/SCS in September 2020, it has not been incorporated into an applicable air quality plan. The proposed project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of an existing air quality violation, or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP, as discussed in Section III, b. below. The proposed project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the years of the project build - out phase, as the project would not increase the local population based on proposed land uses and is consistent with the land use designation in the City of Santa Clarita General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed the population or job growth projections used by the SCAMQD to develop the 2016 AQMP. Impacts would be less than significant. s South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2016. Air Quality Management Plan. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 17 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION b. Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project adds a cumulative considerable net increase for a criteria pollutant for which the region is in federal or State nonattainment. The following evaluation is based on the estimated project emissions output reports produced using CalEEMod, included in Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report. Construction Emissions Estimates Construction activities would generate temporary air pollutant emissions associated with fugitive dust from soil disturbance, exhaust emissions from heavy-duty construction vehicles, and material delivery trucks, and emissions from application of materials such as asphalt and paints. The project's maximum daily pollutant emissions from construction activities as estimated by CalEEMod are shown in Table III-4, Maximum Daily Emissions (Construction). During construction, the contractors are required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance) and Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), and Tule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) among others, which assist in reducing short-term construction -related air pollutant emissions. Rule 402 prohibits emissions that would cause a public nuisance, Rule 403 requires fugitive dust sources to implement best available control measures for all sources, and all forms of visible particulate matter are prohibited from crossing any property line, and Rule 1113 limits ROG content of architectural coatings. As shown in Table II-4, the project's temporary construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD numerical thresholds. Construction emissions impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. Table III-4 Maximum Daily Emissions (Construction) Construction Year Maximum Daily Emissions lbs/da ROG NOx CO S02 PM-10 PM-2.5 2022 3.70 38.90 29.77 0.06 21.47 11.64 2023 3.14 15.08 17.74 0.03 1.23 0.80 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Source: Impact Sciences, Eternal Valley Project: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report, March 2022. Operational Emissions CalEEMod was also used to estimate the project's operational emissions. As the proposed infill project would expand an existing memorial park use, there would be no net increase in vehicle trips,9 and therefore the project would result in zero net new mobile source emissions, as shown in the CalEEMod output sheets provided as an attachment to the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report included as Appendix B of this IS/MND. Table III-5, Project -Related Operational Emissions, shows the estimated total emissions for the proposed project from energy sources such as offsite electricity generation, and area sources, such as use of landscaping equipment. The estimated emissions from mobile sources shown in Table III-5 are conservative, given that no net difference in vehicle trips would occur from the project. To determine whether a regional air quality impact would occur, the operational emissions were compared to the SCAQMD's recommended regional thresholds for operational emissions. As shown in Table III-5, the project's total emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance, and impacts would be less than significant, without the need for mitigation measures. 9 Clark & Green Associates, Eternal Valley Memorial Park Traffic Review, August 23, 2021. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 18 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Table III-5 Project -Related Operational Emissions Emissions Sources Emissions (lbs/day) ROG NOx CO S02 PM-10 PM-2.5 Area 0.12 <0.01 <0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mobile Sources 0.25 0.25 2.20 <0.01 0.46 0.12 Total 0.37 0.26 2.22 <0.01 0.46 0.12 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Source: Impact Sciences, Eternal Valley Project: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report, March 2022. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. C. Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project could have a significant impact if it would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Sensitive receptors are those most susceptible to respiratory distress, such as children, elderly, persons with existing respiratory problems. The nearest sensitive receptors are residents of the neighboring multifamily apartment complex located approximately 800(approximately 244 meters) north of the project site. To identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing LSTs for construction for the site receptor area (SRA) applicable to the project, in this case SRA 13 for the Santa Clarita Valley area. The SCAQMD's methodology states that "off -site mobile emissions from the project should not be included in the emissions compared to LSTs." Therefore, for purposes of the construction LST analysis, only emissions included in the CalEEMod "on -site" emissions outputs were considered. The nearest sensitive receptor to the project site is a multi -family apartment complex approximately 244 meters north. LST screening thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. Therefore, LSTs for receptors located at 200 meters were conservatively utilized in this analysis. As detailed above, the SRA for the LST is the Santa Clarita Valley area (SRA 13). LSTs apply to NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The SCAMQD produced look -up tables for projects that disturb areas less than or equal to 5 acres in size. The project area to be graded is approximately 17-acres, but as approximately 4 acres would be graded on a given day, an LST threshold for 4 acres was calculated using the SCAQMD Linear Regression Methodology used for the construction LST analysis. Table III-6, Local Significance Thresholds and Peak Daily Onsite Emissions (pounds/day) shows that the project would not exceed the applicable LST. Table III-6 Local Significance Thresholds and Peak Daily Onsite Emissions (pounds/day) LST 4 ac/200 m NOx CO PM-10 PM-2.5 Santa Clarita Valle On -Site Construction Emissions Grading and Site Preparation 1 38.90 29.77 21.47 11.64 Building Construction 25.87 32.62 1.28 1.20 LST Thresholds 250.77 4,099.69 72.23 24.00 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No Source: Impact Sciences, Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report, March 2022. ' Grading and Site Preparation would not overlap and the higher emissions levels of the two phases were used in the LST analysis. 2 Building Construction, Paving, and Architectural Coating phases would all overlap in 2023, and therefore the on -site maximum daily emissions during each phase were added together to provide the most conservative assessment of possible emissions on the proposed project site. s LST thresholds for 4-acres were calculated per SCAQMD Linear Regression Methodology. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 19 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Exhaust particulates emitted from diesel powered equipment contains carcinogenic compounds, or toxic air contaminants (TACs). As proposed memorial park expansion would not generate 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 onsite use of heavy-duty equipment. Health risk analyses are typically assessed over a 9-, 30-, or 70-year timeframe rather than a relatively brief construction period, due to the lack of health risk associated with such a brief exposure. As such, potential impacts of the project due to emissions of TACs would be less than significant. Areas with high vehicle density, such as congested intersections, have the potential to create high concentrations of CO, known as CO hotspots. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, a potential CO hotspot may occur at any location where the background CO concentration already exceeds 9.0 ppm, the CAAQS for 8-hour for CO. Within the most recent three years for which measurements are available, the highest CO concentration at the Santa Clarita-Placerita station was measured at 1.2 ppm in 2019 and thus a CO hotspot would not occur. Based on the analysis above, the project's potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. d. Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project could have a significant impact if it would create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) identifies certain land uses as sources of odors. These land uses include agriculture (farming and livestock), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting facilities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed project would not include any of the land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources. Construction activities associated with the proposed project may generate detectable odors from heavy- duty equipment exhaust and architectural coatings. However, the nearest sensitive receptor is 700 feet away and construction -related odors would be short- term in nature and cease upon project completion The proposed project would be required to comply with the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485, which minimizes the idling time of construction equipment either by shutting it off when not in use or by reducing the time of idling to no more than five minutes. This would reduce the detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust. The proposed project would also be required to comply with the SCAQMD Rule 1113 — Architectural Coating, which would minimize odor impacts from ROG emissions during architectural coating. Any odor impacts to existing adjacent land uses would be short-term and not substantial. As such, the project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. e. Less than Significant Impact. As discussed under Threshold 3.3(b), the project would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for construction and operational emissions of criteria pollutants and therefore impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 20 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either ❑ ® ❑ ❑ directly or through habitat modification, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any ❑ ® ❑ ❑ riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in the City or regional plans, policies, regulations by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or ❑ ❑ ❑ federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑ ❑ ® ❑ protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f Conflict with the provisions of an adopted ❑ ❑ ❑ Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? g. Per the City of Santa Clarita Local Guidelines, ❑ ❑ ❑ would the project result in removal of any heritage oak tree, as defined in Unified Development Code § 17.17.090, removal of more than five (5) oak trees for a project on a site that has an existing single-family residence, or the removal of more than three (3) oak trees, proposed as part of any other project? Eternal Valley Expansion Project City of Santa Clarita Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 21 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION h. Per the City of Santa Clarita Local Guidelines, ❑ ❑ ❑ would the project result in disturbance of, or encroachment into, any river, river tributary, riparian habitat, stream or similar waterway identified on a United States Geologic Survey map as a "blue -line" watercourse, or any waterway otherwise identified as a significant resource by the City of Santa Clarita? i. Per the City of Santa Clarita Local Guidelines, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ would the project result in disturbance of any habitat known or suspected to contain a plant or animal species listed as endangered on such Federal and/or State lists? j. Per the City of Santa Clarita Local Guidelines, ❑ ❑ ❑ would the project result in disturbance to any Significant Ecological Area (SEA) as identified by the City of Santa Clarita? Impact Analysis This analysis is based upon the project Biological Resources Assessment Report10 (Appendix C-1) and Updated Biological Inventory for Extended Grading Area Report" (Appendix C-2). An Oak Tree report (Appendix D) was also utilized in this analysis.' a. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact may occur if the project would result in a substantial adverse effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special -status species in local or regional plans. The partially -graded project site consists of undeveloped land. Records of documented occurrences of State or federal endangered species identified in the Endangered Species Acts, as well as certain species of special concern designated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), have been inventoried in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), which is maintained by the CDFW. The CNDDB was queried for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Oat Mountain quadrangle region containing the project site and five surrounding quadrangles and around the project site. The CNDDB, as well as California Native Plant Society (CNPS), literature search results are provided in Appendix C-1. No species listed as Endangered, Threatened, California Fully -Protected, or as a California Species of Special Concern have been observed at the project site. The site provides a small area suitable habitat for the California Gnatcatcher (Pohoptila californica) CDFW Species of Special Concern, Federally Endangered and mitigation measure (MM) 13I0-1 through MM 13I04 would be implemented to reduce adverse effects on this species and other special status species to be less than significant. The site also provides some limited suitable habitat for other species identified in the query results, and with mitigation, a less than significant adverse effect on these species is anticipated. The project would result in no impact on candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by the CDFW or USFWS. Ground and vegetation disturbing activities, if conducted during the nesting bird season (February 1 to August 31), would have the potential to result in removal or disturbance to vegetation that could contain ° CJ Biomonitoring, Eternal Valley Cemetery Biological Assessment Report, May 9, 2022. CJ Biomonitoring, Eternal Valley Cemetery Biological Inventory for Extended Grading Area, June 23, 2021 z Arborgate Consulting Inc., Eternal Valley Memorial Park Expansion Oaks Revised Report, April 1, 2022. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 22 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION active bird nests. Nesting birds may be disturbed by project -related noise, lighting, dust, and human activities, which could result in nesting failure and the loss of eggs or nestlings. Project activities resulting in the loss of bird nests, eggs, and young, could violate California Fish and Game Code sections 3503 (any bird nest), 3503.5 (birds -of -prey), or 3511 (Fully Protected birds). In addition, removal or destruction of one or more active nests of any other birds listed 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 violation of the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code Section 3511. The loss of protected bird nests, eggs, or young due to project activities would be a potentially significant impact. Therefore, implementation of MM 13I0-1, requiring nesting bird surveys if project activities cannot feasibly avoid the breeding bird season, would reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measures: MM BI0-1 Pre -Project Surveys for Special -Status Wildlife Species For each grading phase or vegetation clearance phase, prior to the commencement of ground or vegetation disturbing activities, including but not limited to grading and fuel modification, two (2) pre -project surveys for special -status wildlife species, including the California gnatcatcher (Pohoptila californica), and species considered locally sensitive by the City of Santa Clarita shall be conducted by qualified biologist(s) to determine the presence/absence of these species at the site. The biologist(s) shall have the necessary handling permits to capture, temporarily possess, and relocate wildlife. The first survey shall be conducted within fourteen (14) days and the second survey shall be conducted within three (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 concealed in 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 shall be prepared and submitted to the City and CDFW for review and approval. The species shall then be captured and transferred to appropriate habitat and location where they would not be harmed by project activities, preferably to OS 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, shall be submitted to the City and CDFW prior to commencement of project activities. MM BI0-2 Pre -Construction Nesting Bird Surveys During Nesting Bird Season For each grading phase or vegetation clearance phase, 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 City -approved qualified biologist shall perform two (2) field surveys to determine if active nests of any bird species protected by the State or federal Endangered Species Acts, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and/or the California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, or 3511 are present in the disturbance zone or within 200 feet of the disturbance zone for songbirds or within 500 feet of the disturbance zone for raptors and special -status bird species. The second nesting bird survey shall be conducted within three days of the start of ground or vegetation disturbing activities. A letter report summarizing the methods and results of the surveys shall be submitted to the City 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 Eternal Valley Expansion Project City of Santa Clarita Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 23 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION stop until consultation with the City, and when applicable CDFW and USFWS, is conducted and an appropriate setback buffer can be established. The buffer shall be demarcated and project activities within the buffer shall be postponed or halted, at the discretion of the biologist, until the nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged, as determined by the biologist, and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting. MM BI0-3 Marking of Work Area For each grading phase or vegetation clearance phase, prior to all ground disturbing and construction activities, the Applicant shall demarcate the northern and northeastern project limits of disturbance with exclusionary fencing to prevent encroachment of project activities into adjacent native habitats and to dissuade wildlife from entering the construction area. The fencing shall be marked with highly visible flagging. Project personnel should stay within the designated work areas to the extent feasible. Work areas shall be marked for the duration of the rough grading of the project. Silt fencing shall be installed to ensure that no debris or dirt enters areas outside of the project area. MM BI0-4 Retainer of a Biological Monitor For each vegetation clearance phase or prior to the issuance of a grading permit for each grading phase, a qualified biologist shall be retained by the Applicant as the lead biological monitor subject to the approval of the City. That person shall ensure that impacts to all biological resources are minimized or avoided and shall conduct (or supervise) pre -project field surveys and routine monitoring for species that may be avoided, affected, or eliminated as a result of grading or any other site preparation activities. The lead biological monitor shall ensure that all surveys and monitoring activities are performed by qualified personnel (e.g. avian biologists for nesting bird surveys, bat specialists for bat surveys, etc.) and that they possess all necessary permits and memoranda of understanding with the appropriate agencies for the handling of potentially -occurring special -status species. The lead biological monitor shall also conduct a pre -project environmental education program for all personnel working at the site, which shall be focused on conditions and protocols necessary to avoid and minimize potential impacts to biological resources. The lead biological monitor shall also ensure that daily monitoring reports (e.g., survey results, protective actions, results of protective actions, adaptive measures, etc.) are prepared, and shall make these monitoring reports available to the City and CDFW at their request. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact may occur if the project would have a significant adverse effect on any sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by CDFW or USFWS. Part of the project site has been previously graded, and the site is also surrounded on three sides by existing and planned development. As reported in the Biological Assessment Report, the project site does not include any natural communities such as riparian habitat, oak woodlands, or wetlands, but does contain sage scrub,13 and is therefore designated as gnatcatcher habitat by the City.14 Mitigation measures MM BI0- 1 through MM BI04 would mitigate potential impacts to gnatcatchers to a less than significant impact with mitigation. " CJ Biomonitoring, Eternal Valley Cemetery Biological Assessment Report, May 9, 2022. 14 City of Santa Clarita, Mapping Your City, Accessed on February 2, 2021 at https://www.santa-clarita.com/myc. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 24 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mitigation Measures: MM BI0-1 through MM BI04, discussed above in Section IV.a., which address pre -construction surveys, marking of work areas, and construction monitoring, shall apply and no further mitigation measures are required. C. No Impact. A significant impact may occur if the project has a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands or waters of the U.S. The site does not contain known waters or wetlands; and none are located nearby. No wetlands or jurisdictional features were identified within the property and no special status wetland species were observed onsite by the Biological Assessment Report.15 As the project site is not located within any natural wetlands marshes, vernal pools, or waters of the U.S., the project would not remove or otherwise impair such areas and would therefore result in no impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. d. Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the project would substantially interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. A wildlife corridor contains physical connections that allow wildlife to move between areas of suitable habitat in both undisturbed landscapes and landscapes fragmented by urban development. The project is not within an area identified as important to wildlife movement, such as a regional -scale habitat linkage or a wildlife movement corridor, as discussed in the project Biological Assessment Report. Although the study area provides vegetative cover and native habitats suitable for the movement of a diversity of species, the proposed development will not have a negative effect on wildlife movement. There is OS to the east and north of the project site that would allow wildlife movement, as discussed in the project Biological Assessment Report. As the site is not located within a wildlife corridor and the project would not substantially interfere with migratory corridors or impede wildlife movement and the project would have a less than significant impact on native resident wildlife movement. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. e. Less than Significant Impact. A significant adverse effect could occur if a project were to cause an impact that is inconsistent with local regulations pertaining to biological resources, such as the City Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance.16 The Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance regulates tree protections, removal permitting, and replacements as applicable. The Tree Ordinance protects all species of oak (Quercus spp.) exceeding six (6) inches in circumference when measured at a point four and one-half (4 1/2) feet above the tree's natural grade or, for those trees on properties occupied by a single-family residence, exceeding twelve and one-half (12 1/2) inches in circumference when measured at a point four and one-half (4 1/2) feet above the tree's natural grade. The protected zone of protected trees is defined as an area within 5 feet of the dripline (the outermost edge of the canopy) of a tree and no less than 15 feet of the trunk, where work activates are strictly controlled. No trees would be removed by the project. There are three oak trees to the north of the project site, two (2) scrub oaks (Quercus dumosa or Quercus berberidifolia) and one (1) coast live oak tree (Quercus agrifolia). Of the three trees north of the project, the coast live oak tree (Quercus agrifolia) and one of the scrub oaks (Quercus dumosa or Quercus berberidifolia) are protected trees. The canopies of the trees are outside of the project's limits of grading and disturbance." The oak tree report states that the oaks appear to be over 20 feet from the limit of grading, which would meet the City's minimum clearance requirement of 15 feet. The report recommends chain link fencing at the limit of grading to protect a 20-foot radius from the trunk, s USFWS National Wetlands Mapper —Accessed on February 18, 2020 at https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.HTML 6 City of Santa Clarita, Municipal Code, Title 17, Chapter 51, Article 40, Oak Tree Preservation. 17 Arborgate Consulting Inc., Eternal Valley Memorial Park Expansion Oaks Revised Report, April 1, 2022. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 25 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION as standard regulatory compliance. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. In addition, the project landscaping would include the planting of approximately 37 new coast live oak trees (Quercus agrifolia) and approximately 45 new holly oaks (Quercus ilex).18 Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. L No Impact. A significant impact would occur if the project would be inconsistent with mapping or policies of an adopted or approved conservation plan. The site is not located within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan; therefore, the project would have no impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. g. No impact. As discussed in Threshold IV.e, there are three oak trees north of the project site. As shown on the project Grading Plan,19 the project would not be expected to encroach within 20 feet of any protected trees.20 Therefore, the project would not result in the removal of a heritage oak tree or the removal of more than three oak trees and would have no impact. In addition, the oak trees would be protected by the protective fencing recommended in the oak tree report as a standard regulatory compliance measure, and the smaller scrub oak is not in good health or condition. Furthermore, the project landscaping would include the planting of approximately 37 new coast live oak trees (Quercus agrifolia) and approximately 45 new holly oaks (Quercus ilex).21 Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required h. No Impact. The project site would not result in disturbance of, or encroachment into, any river, river tributary, riparian habitat, stream or similar waterway identified on a United States Geologic Survey map as a "blue -line" watercourse, or any waterway otherwise identified as a significant resource by the City of Santa Clarita. As discussed under Threshold IV-b., the project site does not include any waterway - associated natural communities such as riparian habitat, oak woodlands, or wetlands. Therefore, the project would have no impact to waterways or associated habitat. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. i. Less than Significant Impact. As discussed under Threshold IV-b., the project site contains sage scrub, which is designated as gnatcatcher habitat by the City, and contains approximately 3 acres of USFWS Critical Habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher. However, the Critical Habitat designation does not affect purely private or State actions on private or State lands, nor require private or other non-federal lands to be managed for conservation. USFWS classifies the coastal California gnatcatcher as Threatened, the CDFW classifies it as a California Species of Special Concern, and it is federally endangered. Mitigation measure MM 13I0-2 includes pre -construction surveys that would ensure that no gnatcatchers are present during project construction. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures: No additional mitigation measures are required. 8 Clark & Green Associates, Preliminary Landscape Plan, September 30, 2021. 9 Hunsaker & Associates Los Angeles, Inc. Eternal Valley Memorial Park Area 6/Mausoleum Site and Grading Plan. 2° Arborgate Consulting Inc., Eternal Valley Memorial Park Expansion Oaks Revised Report, April 1, 2022. 21 Clark & Green Associates, Preliminary Landscape Plan, September 30, 2021. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 26 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION j. No Impact. The nearest SEA are the Santa Clara River SEA, approximately 2,100 feet east of the project site, and the Santa Susana Mountains/Simi Hill SEA, approximately 1,700 feet south of the proposed area of disturbance.22 Therefore, the project does not contain SEA and would thus have no impact related to the disturbance of a City -identified SEA. 22 City of Santa Clarita, City of Santa Clarity Mapping Portal. Accessed May 10, 2022, at https://maps. santa- clarita. com/portal/apps/webappviewer/index. html?id=4b3cth271314475 db6518999b4747876 Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 27 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in ❑ ❑ ❑ significance of a historical resource pursuant in CEQA Section 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Section 15064.5? c. Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ® ❑ ❑ interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Impact Analysis This analysis is based on a Phase I Archeological Resources Assessment23 of the project site prepared by ArcheoPaleo Resource Management, Inc., March 2022, (Appendix E) that included a record search from the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), a review of historic maps and aerial images, and a pedestrian survey of the subject property. a. No Impact. A project would have a significant impact if it would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Section 15064.5, which defines criteria for historical resources. The Cultural Resources Phase I Assessment involved a SCCIC record search of the subject property plus a 0.25-mile radius surrounding the subject property (combined, the "study area"). The results of the SCCIC record search found no previously identified cultural resources within the boundaries of the subject property. The results of the SCCIC record search found a previously identified historic structure (P-19- 186861) and two cultural resource reports (LA-02317 and LA-03829) within the study area. The historic structure is outside the project site and would not be affected by the project, and the cultural resources are not within the project site. Examination of these cultural resources reports, entitled "A Class I Cultural Resources Investigation for the Proposed Elsmere Canyon Solid Waste Management Facility, Newhall, Los Angeles County, California" by Jeanette A. McKenna and "Archaeological Reconnaissance Report: Tanbark Fuelbark, LA County" by Neil Metcalf, did not document cultural resources that would be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed project. No additional cultural resource reports dealt with either the development footprint or the 0.25-mile portion of the project study area. On October 18, 2020 and June 15, 2021, ArchaeoPaleo Resource Management, Inc. performed pedestrian surveys of the partially graded, undeveloped site. Some areas of the site were covered in dense sagebrush scrub which prevented access. The findings were negative for cultural resources, but there exists a potential for uncovering unknown subsurface deposits during the project's ground disturbance. No known historically significant buildings and properties have been identified within or adjacent to the project site. Therefore, the project would result in no impact on a historical resource as defined in CEQA Section 15064.5. 23 ArcheoPaleo Resource Management, Inc., Phase I Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary, City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California, March 2022. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 28 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required b. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact would occur if a known or unknown archaeological resource would be removed, altered, or destroyed as a result of the proposed development. A significant impact may occur if grading or excavation activities associated with a project would disturb archaeological resources that presently exist within the project site. Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines defines criteria for determining the significance of cultural resources. The pedestrian surveys of the site on October 18, 2020 and June 15, 2021, were negative for archaeological resources on the ground surface. The results of the SCCIC record search found no previously identified cultural resources within the boundaries of the subject property. A request for a sacred lands file search and Native American contacts list was sent to the NAHC. The NAHC results were negative for Native American sites within the direct project area, but four responses were received from the contact list and the project site is near the approximate locations of two previously existing Native American villages. While there are no known prehistoric archaeological resources on the project site, unknown prehistoric archaeological resources may be unexpectedly encountered during ground disturbing activities considering the potential proximity to previously existing Native American villages. In accordance with the federal, State, and local guidelines, including those set forth in the California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21083.2, if archaeological resources are discovered during excavation, grading, or construction activities, work shall cease in the area of the find until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the find. These regulatory requirements prohibit personnel from collecting or moving any archaeological materials and associated materials discovered during excavation, grading, or construction activities. Construction activity may continue unimpeded on other portions of the project site. PRC Section 21083.2 requires found deposits to be treated in accordance with federal, State, and local regulations. Mitigation Measure (MM) CUL-1 establishes a discovery protocol if potentially significant intact deposits are encountered during excavation. Implementation of MM CUL-1, which requires protective protocols be enacted if significant archaeological materials are recovered in native original context, would assure impacts to potentially present archaeological resources would remain less than significant. Mitigation Measures: MM CUL-1 Archaeological Monitoring Prior to the commencement of construction, a qualified archaeologist shall create a separate Worker's Environmental Awareness Program pamphlet that will be provided as training to construction personnel to understand regulatory requirements for the protection of cultural resources. This training shall include examples of cultural resources to look for and protocols to follow if discoveries are made. The archaeologist shall develop the training and any supplemental materials necessary to execute said training. Archaeological resources monitoring shall be conducted by an archaeological resource monitor, during project related earth -disturbing activities, per the California -Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) standards, under the supervision of a qualified Lead Archaeologist. Monitoring will entail visual inspection of project related earth -disturbing activities (,e.g., grading, excavation, trenching, shoring, etc.) The project proponent shall retain a professional Native American Monitor procured by the Femandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians or consulting Tribes under AB52 to observe all ground -disturbing that involve excavation of previously undisturbed soil. Monitoring will entail visual inspection project related earth -disturbing activities. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 29 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION If an archaeological resource is encountered during construction when a monitor is not on site, all construction shall cease within at least 50 feet of the discovery and the Principal Investigator and Lead Archaeologist must be notified. Work cannot resume in the direct area of the discovery until the it is assessed by the Principal Investigator and/or Lead Archaeologist and indicates that construction can resume. If an archaeological discovery cannot be preserved in situ and requires an excavation team or requires additional time to collect cultural resources, a Discovery and Treatment Plan (DTP) will be developed and the area will be cordoned off and secured so that an archaeological resources excavation team, led by the Principal Investigator and Lead Archaeologist, may recover the cultural resources out of that contained area. Once the Principal Investigator has determined that the collection process is complete for a given area or locality, construction activity will resume in that localized area. If human remains are encountered at any point during project construction, the local Native American most likely descendent (MLD) must be notified if not already on site and the procedures dictated by law must be implemented. The Lead Agency and project proponent shall, in good faith, consult with the Femandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians on the disposition and treatment of Tribal Cultural Resources encountered during Project implementation. All significant cultural resources collected will be prepared in a properly equipped laboratory to a point ready for curation. Following laboratory work, all cultural resources will be identified, catalogued, analyzed, and delivered to an accredited museum repository for permanent curation and storage. Any cultural resources collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. Accompanying notes, maps, and photographs shall also be filed at the repository. The cost of curation is assessed by the repository and is the responsibility of the project proponent. At the conclusion of laboratory work and museum curation, a final report will be prepared describing the results of the cultural mitigation monitoring efforts associated with the project. The report will include a summary of the field and laboratory methods, an overview of the cultural background within the project vicinity, a list of cultural resources recovered (if any), an analysis of cultural resources recovered (if any) and their scientific significance, and recommendations. A copy of the report will also be submitted to the designated museum repository (if applicable). C. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact would occur if previously interred human remains would be disturbed during excavation of the project site. The results of the SCCIC, and NAHC record searches were negative for cultural resources within the project property, but positive within the study area. While the existing memorial park is adjacent to the east, the project site has not been used as part of the formal memorial park, or a place of human internment, burial grounds, or burial site. However, there is a possibility that human remains can be unexpectedly encountered during ground disturbing activities. In addition, in the vicinity of a memorial park, there is a possibility of historical interment of human remains outside the perimeter of the memorial park grounds, and therefore there is an increased likelihood of encountering unexpected human remains within 50 feet of the existing memorial park grounds. If human remains are encountered unexpectedly during ground disturbing activities, regulatory requirements specified in State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 require that no further disturbance occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If human remains of Native American origin are discovered during construction, compliance with State laws, which fall within the jurisdiction of the NAHC (PRC Section 5097) relating to the disposition of Native American burials must be adhered to. MM CUL-2 establishes a discovery protocol for inadvertent discovery of human remains. With implementation of MM CUL-2, no impacts with regard to the inadvertent discovery of human remains would be less than significant. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 30 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mitization Measures: MM CUL-2 Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains In the event of Native American human remains being inadvertently uncovered during project construction, the project proponent would immediately cease activity in the vicinity of the discovery and notify the local Native American MLD if not already on site and the procedures dictated by law must be implemented. The inadvertent discovery of human remains is always a possibility during ground disturbances; State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 addresses these findings. This code section states that in the event human remains are uncovered, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination as to the origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to California PRC Section 5097.98. The Coroner must be notified of the find immediately, together with the City and the property owner. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify a MLD. The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials and an appropriate re -internment site. The City, as Lead Agency, and a qualified archaeologist shall also establish additional appropriate mitigation measures for further site development, which may include additional archaeological and Native American monitoring or subsurface testing. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 31 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact VL ENERGY Would the project: a. Result in potentially significant environmental ❑ ❑ ® ❑ impact due to 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 energy or energy efficiency? Impact Analysis The following analysis is based on the CalEEMod output sheets included as an attachment to the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report ,24 provided in Appendix B and the Fuel Consumption by Construction Phase Worksheet,25 provided by Appendix F, Fuel Consumption by Construction Phase Worksheet. a. Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur if a project would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during construction or operation. Construction During construction, the project would use heavy-duty equipment for demolition, grading, paving, architectural coating, and building. Construction also involves trucks for material and supplies delivery, as well as powered hand tools. The majority of the equipment would likely be diesel -fueled. Smaller equipment, such as welders and pumps, may be electric-, gasoline-, or natural gas -fueled. The California Code of Regulations (CCR), requires drivers of diesel -fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings greater than 10,000 pounds not to idle the vehicle's primary diesel engine longer than five minutes at any location.26 Compliance with this regulation would also result in efficient use of construction - related energy and prevent unnecessary consumption of energy from diesel fuel. According to carbon dioxide (CO2) emission factors for transportation fuels published by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, burning one gallon of diesel fuel generates approximately 22.4 pounds of CO2 and burning one gallon of petroleum -based gasoline produces approximately 19.6 pounds of CO2.27 Based on these emission factors, Table VI -I, Total Fuel Consumption During Construction, provides estimated CO2 emissions from the project consumption phase. 24 Impact Sciences, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report, March 2022. 25 Envicom Corporation, Fuel Consumption by Construction Phase Worksheet, April 2022. 26 California Code of Regulations, Section 2485, Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel -Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling. 27 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Environment Carbon Dioxide Emissions Coefficients, February 2, 2016. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 32 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Table VI-1 Total Fuel Consumption During Construction Energy Type Total MT CO2 Total CO2 pounds a CO2 emission Total Gallons factors Consumed Total Diesel 515.5 1,136,389 22.4 50,732 Total Gasoline 57.0 125,677 19.6 6,412 Source: CalEEMod, Eternal Valley Memorial Park Expansion Project Fuel Consumption by Construction Phase Worksheet (based on Impact Sciences, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report, March 2022, Appendix A of this IS/MND). 'I MT = 2,204.62 lbs. (approx.) As shown in Table VI-1, based on U.S. Energy Information Administration fuel consumption factors and the estimated "total CO2" emissions from the CalEEMod output sheets, project construction would consume a total of approximately 50,732 gallons of diesel fuel and approximately 6,412 gallons of gasoline. In 2018, 14.2 billion gallons of gasoline were sold in California28 and in 2018, 4.2 billion gallons of diesel, including off -road diesel, was sold in California.29 Assuming similar (or likely higher) gasoline and diesel fuel usage as in those years, the project construction fuel usage would be a small percentage of the State-wide usage. Adherence to CCR Section 2485 and CARB anti -idling regulations for off -road diesel -fueled fleets would reduce the potential for wasteful or inefficient use of energy by construction equipment. Due to the temporary duration of construction and the necessity of fuel consumption inherent in construction, fuel consumption would not be excessive or substantial with respect to fuel supplies. The energy demands associated with fuel consumption during construction is typical for developments of similar size and would not necessitate the construction of additional energy facilities or distribution infrastructure. Therefore, project construction would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, and construction impacts would be less than significant. Operations — Electricity Project energy usage during operations would be minimal and associated with the mausoleum building, lighting, and landscaping. The project would not construct inhabited buildings and the only structure would be a mausoleum. As CalEEMod does not include a mausoleum land use, this portion of the project was modeled as a place of worship land use, resulting in conservatively high estimates for operational emissions. The project would generate additional demand for electricity from the Southern California Edison (SCE). As conservatively estimated by CalEEMOd, the proposed project's increase in electricity demand would be approximately 39,942 kilowatt-hours a year (kWh/year). According to the California Energy Commission, Los Angeles County (including the City of Santa Clarita) consumed 65,649,878,013 kWh of electricity in 2020.30 The increase in demand would represent approximately 0.00006 percent (less than one millionth) of the yearly electricity demand, a negligible increase in relation to the entire County's electricity demand. Therefore, the project would not result in a significant environmental impact due to the project -related increase in electricity demand. In addition, the project would be required to comply with applicable portions of the California Energy Code and California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations) in effect at the time of building permit issuance, which establish standards for sustainable site development, energy 28 California Energy Commission, California Gasoline Data, Facts, and Statistics, Accessed March 7, 2021 at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/transportation-energy/califomia-gasoline-data-facts-and-statistics. 29 California Energy Commission, Diesel Fuel Data, Facts, and Statistics, Accessed March 7, 2020 at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/transportation-energy/diesel-fuel-data-facts-and- statistics#::text=Diesel%20fue1%20is%20the%20second,including%20offroad%20diesel%2C%20was%20sold. so California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by County, Los Angeles County in 2020, Accessed on March 25, 2022 at: https:Hecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 33 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION efficiency, water conservation, and material conservation. SCE has increased renewable energy through active procurement of renewable resources included in the Renewable Portfolio Standard and Pathway 204 specifies a pathway for providing reliable and sustainable electricity use to customers through 2045.31 The project would be designed to meet or exceed all City Building Code and Title 24 requirements which require energy efficient design materials. By compliance with applicable regulations and continued energy efficient programs implemented by SCE, the project would not result in wasteful or inefficient use of electricity energy supplies and impacts would be less than significant. Operations - Natural Gas The project would generate additional demand for natural gas from the Southern California Gas Company. The project's increase in natural gas demand would be approximately 180.3 kilo British -thermal unit per year (KBTU/year) as conservatively estimated by the above -referenced CalEEMod results. The CalEEMod results are conservative, as the project would not construct inhabited buildings and is unlikely to use any natural gas. According to the California Energy Commission, Los Angeles County (including the City of Santa Clarita) consumed 2,936.7 million therms or 293,598,229,310 KBTU/year of natural gas in 2020.32 The project's net increase in demand represents approximately 0.00000006 percent (less than one billionth) of the natural gas consumption in Los Angeles County in 2020, a negligible amount relative to Countywide consumption. Therefore, the project would not result in wasteful or inefficient use of natural gas energy supplies, and impacts would be less than significant. Mitization Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b. Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project would conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. As a regulatory requirement of the City Department of Building and Safety review process, the project would be reviewed for consistency with applicable State and local plans for renewable energy and efficiency. The applicable State standard is the CALGreen Code Title 24 standards, which requires projects to provide energy saving features, establish minimum standards for energy efficient construction practices, and increased energy efficiency. The project would be built to the code standards in effect at the time of permit issuance, which are generally more energy conserving over time. Project energy usage would be minimal, associated with the mausoleum building, lighting, and landscaping. As the project would comply with regulatory requirements and include energy efficient design features, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, impacts would be less than significant. Mitization Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 31 Southern California Edison, Pathway 2045: Update to the Clean Power and Electrification Pathway, November 2045. 32 California Energy Commission, Gas Consumption by County, Los Angeles County in 2020, Accessed on March 25, 2022 at: https://ecchns.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 34 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact VIL GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ iii. Seismic -related ground failure, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss ❑ ❑ ® ❑ of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ❑ ❑ ® ❑ unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect 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. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ ® ❑ ❑ paleontological resource or site or unique geological features? g. Per the City of Santa Clarita Local ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Guidelines, would the project result in the movement or grading of earth exceeding 100,000 cubic yards? Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 35 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Impact Analysis This analysis is based largely on a Geotechnical & Geological Investigation33 report dated July 26, 2021 and prepared by Geotechnical Soilutions, Inc., (provided in Appendix G) and a Soils Investigation 14 report dated October 14, 2019 prepared by John R. Byerly Incorporated (provided in Appendix H). a. i. Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the project would directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. According to the California Department of Conservation's California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application ("EQ Zapp"), there are no State -designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones or active faults within the project site.35 However, the project site is within the seismically active southern California region and could experience ground shaking in the event of a nearby earthquake. According to the Soils Investigation, the project is located approximately 1.1 miles from the Sierra Madre fault zone.36 As the potential for surface rupture of a known earthquake fault is low, and the City will require the construction of the project mausoleum to meet the latest building codes, the project would have a less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. a. ii. Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the project would directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving strong seismic ground shaking. As noted in response to Checklist Question VILa, with all of southern California, the site is in a seismically active area. The site and area have experienced historic earthquakes from various regional faults. Also as noted above, there are no State -designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones or active faults within the project site.37 According to the Soils Investigation, the project is located approximately 1.1 miles from the Sierra Madre fault zone.38 Because the project site does not contain known active or potentially active faults and is not within an earthquake fault zone, the potential for fault rupture throughout the site is considered very low; however, the site may be subject to strong ground shaking during potential seismic activity from nearby faults. Given the proposed memorial park use, which is a largely outdoor use, potential impacts of strong seismic ground shaking are not expected to be substantial. Hazards associated with ground shaking can be reduced if the proposed mausoleum structure is designed and constructed in conformance with current building codes and engineering practices. Design and code compliance to be confirmed by the City Department of Building and Safety at plan check would ensure the project implements the recommendations provided in the Geotechnical & Geological Investigation and Soils Investigation, reducing potential seismic ground shaking impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measure: No mitigation measures are required. 33 Geotechnical Soilutions, Inc., Geology, Geotechnical & Geological Investigation for Proposed Lawn Burial Areas, West and Southeast Of Memorial Park (Known as Areas 6 W/ Loop Road & 7) Eternal Valley Memorial Park Santa Clarita California, July 26, 2001. 3a John R. Byerly Incorporated, Soils Investigation, October 14, 2019. 35 Ibid. 36 California Department of Conservation, Earthquake Hazards Zone Application (EQ Zapp), Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, Accessed January 25, 2022 at https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geohazards/eq-zapp. 37 California Department of Conservation, Earthquake Hazards Zone Application (EQ Zapp), Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, Accessed January 25, 2022 at https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geohazards/eq-zapp. 38 John R. Byerly Incorporated, Soils Investigation, October 14, 2019. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 36 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION a. iii. Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the project would directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction. Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose, saturated, relatively cohesionless soil deposits lose shear strength during strong ground motions. Liquefaction factors include intensity and duration of ground motion, gradation characteristics of the subsurface soils, in -situ stress conditions, and the depth to groundwater. Liquefaction is typified by a loss of shear strength in the liquefied soil layers due to rapid increases in pore water pressure generated by earthquake accelerations. As shown on EQ Zapp, the project site is not located within a liquefaction zone.39 According to the Geotechnical Investigation for the project, the soils on the project site included undocumented fill soil from the construction of existing areas of the memorial park.40 The fill deposits are up to 69 feet thick and generally consist of silty sand with varying amounts of fine to coarse gravel and cobbles.41 The fills were generally placed over native residual soil and colluvium and subsurface investigation encountered sandstone and conglomeratic sandstone generally consistent with the published geologic maps.42 Based on these sources, due to the lack of liquefaction potential at the site, liquefaction impacts would not be anticipated at the site. Due to the project's location in a seismically active area, like all of southern California, the project would require review through the plan check process to ensure project compliance with applicable building code requirements. Therefore, with regulatory compliance, impacts to seismic -related ground failure would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required a. iv. Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the project would directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving landslides. The Geotechnical & Geological Investigation states that the project site is not within a zone requiring an evaluation of earthquake induced landslides.43 The Geotechnical & Geological Investigation provides recommendations for the grading of the proposed lawn burial sites and mausoleum building. With the incorporation of the recommendations of the Geotechnical & Geological Investigation into the project as a part of the regulatory review process and a project feature. Therefore, impacts related to landslides would be less than significant and mitigation measures would not be required. Mitimation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b. Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the project would result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. After proposed grading, the proposed lawn burial areas would be hydroseeded and stabilized until turf is installed. The proposed lawn burial areas would be covered in grass and the project would implement the Geotechnical & Geological Investigation recommendation (as a part of the regulatory review process and 39 California Department of Conservation, Earthquake Hazards Zone Application (EQ Zapp), Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, Accessed January 25, 2022 at https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geohazards/eq-zapp. 41 Geotechnical Soilutions, Inc., Geology, Geotechnical & Geological Investigation for Proposed Lawn Burial Areas, West and Southeast of Memorial Park (Known as Areas 6 W/ Loop Road & 7) Eternal Valley Memorial Park Santa Clarita California, July 26, 2001. 41 Ibid. 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 37 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION project feature) that drainage be designed to prevent sheet flow over the slope surfaces using non -erodible drainage devices. Therefore, erosion impacts during operations would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. C. Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the project is built on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. As discussed previously the project is not within a liquefaction zone, or within a zone requiring an evaluation of earthquake induced landslides. Lateral spreading on the ground surface during a seismic activity usually occurs along the weak shear zones within a liquefiable soil layer and has been observed to generally take place towards a free face (i.e. retaining wall, slope or channel) and to less extent on ground surfaces with a very gently slope. Due to the lack of liquefiable soil, lateral spreading is not likely to occur. Subsidence occurs when a large portion of the land is displaced vertically, usually due to the withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or natural gas. The site is not located within an area of known ground subsidence and there is no extraction of groundwater, gas, oil, or geothermal energy is proposed. The Geotechnical & Geological Investigation found that because the existing memorial park fill is undocumented, slight settlement of lawn burial areas may occur, however the settlement would not be detrimental. In addition, settled graves would be repaired in compliance with CCR Title 16, Division 12: Funeral Regulations, Section 2333.b.7, which would require that settled graves and markers be refilled or reset annually or within 120 days of the memorial park becoming aware.44Therefore, there is little to no potential for significantly unstable soil at the project site, and with regulatory compliance to be confirmed during plan check, project impacts related to site stability would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. d. Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the project is located on expansive soil, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. Expansive soils contain high amounts of clay particles that swell when wet and shrink when dry. Foundations constructed on these soils are subject to uplifting forces caused by the swelling. The Soils Investigation conveys the results of laboratory testing, which showed that on -site soils have a very low expansion index.45 The Geotechnical & Geological Investigation states that existing on -site soils are suitable for use as compacted engineered fill after removal of debris and approval of the geotechnical engineer. With implementation of the recommendations of the Geotechnical & Geological Investigation, to be confirmed by the City during plan check, the project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation regarding expansive soils. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. e. No Impact. A significant impact may occur if the project site contains 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. The Los Angeles County Sanitation District currently serves the wastewater needs of the existing memorial park and would continue to do so. The project would not include inhabited buildings with fixtures that would generate wastewater, and the number of employees and visitors is not anticipated to change with the project. Employees and visitors would use the same existing facilities, if needed, elsewhere on the memorial park property. Wastewater would continue to be conveyed to the 44 California, Cemetery and Funeral Bureau, California Code of Regulations Title 26, Division 23: Funeral Regulations, March 1, 2016, Accessed on April 13 at https://www.cth.ca.gov/laws regs/ ccr_funeral regs.pdf 41 John R. Byerly Incorporated, Soils Investigation, October 14, 2019. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 38 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Valencia Water Company for treatment. No septic tanks or alternative onsite wastewater disposal systems are proposed for the project area. Therefore, the project would have no impact regarding this issue. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. L Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Paleontological resources are fossilized remains of organisms from the geologic past and the accompanying geologic strata. The potential for fossils depends on the rock type exposed at the surface. Sedimentary rocks contain the bulk of fossils in the City, although metamorphic rocks may also contain fossils. Some of the project site has been previously disturbed, but the project would require new grading. ArchaeoPaleo Resource Management, Inc.'s Phase I Archaeological Resources Assessment addressed the project's potential to impact paleontological resources.46 Field reconnaissance of the project area yielded negative results for paleontological resources, but there still is the potential to uncover subsurface sites or features.47 The predominant rock and soil type underlying the surface of the project site is part of the 1.8- million-year-old marine deposit of Pliocene -Pleistocene age named the Saugus Formation, which is composed mostly of sandstone, conglomerate deposits, with rare occurrences of limestone and laminated mudstone. Sandstone layers within this formation are very rich in invertebrate fossils especially producing shallow -marine snails and clams. Vertebrate fossilized specimens of bison, mastodon, horse, deer, and a rare species of tapir have been uncovered within this formation at various depths. Although the field reconnaissance yielded negative results for paleontological resources, this does not preclude the possibility to uncover paleontological sites or fossil remains within the project area of disturbance, as there is potential for older alluvium and sediments from the fossiliferous Saugus Formation to be present at greater depths, which may yield significant fossil remains. The Phase I Archaeological Resources Assessment recommended paleontological resources mitigation during project development. MM PAL-1, which establishes a discovery protocol in the event paleontological resources are encountered and requires paleontological monitoring where substantial project excavation occurs. Implementation of MM PAL-1 would ensure that the project's potential paleontological resources impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: MM PAL-1 Paleontological Discovery Protocol If potentially significant intact deposits are encountered that are within an undisturbed context, then a fossil "discovery" protocol will be followed, which will be developed prior to project grading. If project excavation is in native soil or bedrock, then a paleontological monitor should be on site to watch for fossil resources. Such monitoring will be outlined in the "discovery" protocol, developed prior to grading. If significant prehistoric or larger fossil materials are recovered in native original context, then all work in that area shall be halted or diverted away from the discovery to a distance of 50-feet until a qualified senior archaeologist or paleontologist can evaluate the nature and/or significance of the find(s). If a senior archaeologist or paleontologist (not the field 46 ArchaeoPaleo Resource Management, Inc., Phase I Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary, City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California, February 2020, updated June 2021. 47 ArchaeoPaleo Resource Management, Inc., Phase I Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary, City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California, February 2020, updated June 2021. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 39 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION monitor) confirms that the discovery is potentially significant, then the Lead Agency will be contacted and informed of the discovery. Construction will not resume in the locality of the discovery until consultation between the senior archaeologist or paleontologist, the owner's project manager, the City, and all other concerned parties, takes place and reaches a conclusion approved by the City. If a significant resource is discovered during earth -moving, complete avoidance of the find is preferred. However, if the discovery cannot be avoided, further survey work, evaluation tasks, or data recovery of the significant resource may be required by the City. The City may also require changes to the Monitoring Plan, based on the discovery, if fossil material is encountered. All costs for the additional monitoring, discovery assessment, discovery evaluation, or data recovery of will be the responsibility of the applicant, within the cost parameters outlined under CEQA. All individual reports, including the final project Monitoring Report, will be submitted to the NHM at the conclusion of the project. g. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact may occur if the project result in the movement or grading of earth exceeding 100,000 cubic yards. The project grading would consist of 192,900 cubic yards of earth, including mass excavation and fill, over- excavation, and shrinkage to be balanced on site. While there would be more than 100,000 cubic yards of grading, no soil import or export would be required, resulting in no truck hauling trips. As discussed under Threshold IILa., project construction -related impacts to air quality would be less than significant, and as discussed in Thresholds V.b., V.c., and V.f, the project construction -related impacts to cultural resources and paleontological resources would be less than significant with MM PAL-1. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact related to movement or grading of earth exceeding 100,000 cubic yards with mitigation. Mitigation Measures: MM PAL-1, Paleontological Discovery Protocol, discussed in Section VILf., is required. No further mitigation measures are required. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 40 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either ❑ ❑ ® ❑ directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Impact Analysis This analysis is based upon the project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Report (Appendix A). Greenhouse gases (GHGs) can contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere by absorbing infrared radiation transmitted by the sun, thereby trapping and retaining heat within the atmosphere. Climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans over an extended period of time, as well as other associated changes in climate, such as substantial variations in wind patterns, precipitation, and the frequency and/or strength of storms. The principal GHGs are: CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Each GHG differs in its mass and ability to trap heat within the atmosphere based on factors such as capacity to directly absorb radiation, length of time in the atmosphere, and chemical transformations that create new GHGs. Because the warming potential of each GHG differs, GHG emissions are typically expressed in terms of CO2 equivalents (CO2e), providing a common expression for the combined volume and warming potential of the GHGs generated by an emitter. Total GHG emissions from individual sources are generally reported in metric tons (MT) and expressed as metric tons of CO2 equivalents (MTCO2e). State Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, established mandatory provisions and GHG reduction targets within specified time frames, including a requirement that California's GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. Senate Bill (SB) 32 requires the State to further reduce GHGs to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Executive Order S-3-05 aims to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The CARB in collaboration with over twenty State agencies issued a Final Scoping Plan in 2017 in order to set a framework for the State to meet the overall reduction goals set in SB 32. The 2017 Scoping Plan identified key sectors of the implementation strategy, which includes improvements in low carbon energy, industry, transportation sustainability, natural and working lands, waste management, and water. Through a combination of data synthesis and modeling, CARB determined that the target statewide 2030 emissions limit is 260 million MTCO2e, and that further commitments will need to be made to achieve an additional reduction of 50 million MTCO2e beyond current policies and programs. Key elements of the 2017 Update include a proposed 20% reduction in GHG emissions from refineries and an expansion of the Cap -and - Trade program to meet the aggressive 2030 GHG emissions goal. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 41 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION SCAQMD released draft guidance regarding interim CEQA GHG significance thresholds. In its October 2008 document, the SCAQMD proposed a 30% emission reduction target to determine significance for commercial/residential projects that emit greater than 3,000 metric tons per year. On December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted the staff proposal for an interim GHG significance threshold for stationary source/industrial projects where the SCAQMD is lead agency. However, SCAQMD has yet to adopt a GHG significance threshold for land use development projects (e.g., residential/commercial projects) and formed a GHG Significance Threshold Working Group to further evaluate potential GHG significance thresholds. The draft tier thresholds recommended by the SCAQMD Working Group were never authorized as guidance for GHG analyses. These recommended thresholds are over a decade old; as a result, these thresholds were not utilized in this analysis. On September 3, 2020, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Council unanimously voted to approve and fully adopt Connect SoCal (which is the official 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy [RTP/SCS]). Connect SoCal is a long-range visioning plan that includes a combination of transportation and land use strategies that outline how the region can achieve California's GHG emission reduction goals and federal Clean Air Act requirements. The locally adopted Climate Action Plan for GHG reduction is the August 2012 City of Santa Clarita Climate Action Plan, which is certified through 2020. a. Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur if the project would generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. The project's annual GHG emissions from construction and operations were estimated using CalEEMOd. The CalEEMod output sheets can be found in the Attachment to the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Report in Appendix B. Construction During construction, GHG emissions would be generated by use of heavy equipment, application of construction materials (e.g., asphalt, paints), and transportation of personnel and materials. Project construction activities emissions would be temporary and of short duration. The SCAQMD guidance document for GHG emissions analysis for construction recommends amortization of emissions over a 30- year project lifetime to evaluate significance on an annual basis. The project's estimated generation of construction -related GHG emissions are shown in Table VIII-1, Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Table VIII-1 Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions Construction GHG emissions MTCO2e 2022 303.89 2023 268.57 Total 572.46 Amortized over 30- ears an 19.08 Source: Impact Sciences, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report, March 2022, Appendix B of this IS/MND. Note: Numbers may include rounding. As shown in Table VIII-1, the total emissions resulting from construction would be 572.46 MTCO2e and the 30-year amortized emissions would be 19.08 MTCO2e. This amortized amount is added to the annual operational period emissions, evaluated below. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 42 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Operations Operation of the proposed project would result in GHG emissions from onsite use of heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment, and offsite sources such as electricity generation, water distribution and treatment, disposal of solid waste, and wastewater treatment. The project would not result in an increase in vehicle use during operations, and thus would have no net increase in mobile source GHG emissions from operations. The total operational emissions plus the annualized construction emissions from the project as estimated by CalEEMod are shown in Table VIII-2, Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Table VIII-2 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Source MTCO2e Amortized Construction 19.08 Area Sources <0.01 Energy Utilization 10.65 Mobile Source a 26.74 Solid Waste Generation 10.52 Water Consumption 0.78 Total 67.77 Source: Impact Sciences, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report, March 2022, Appendix B of this IS/MND. a Net mobile source emissions are zero as the project would have no change in visitors or employment. As shown in Table VIII-2, with the addition of amortized construction emissions, the project's total annual GHG emissions were estimated to be approximately 67.77 MTCO2e. The estimated annual operational GHG emissions from mobile sources shown in Table VIII-2 are conservative, given that the CalEEMod default trip generation rates were used, while no net difference in vehicle trips would occur from the project. As such, the project's total operational emissions of GHGs would be less than 67.77 MTCO2e. While these conservatively quantified emissions are far below the SCAQMD staff s proposed numerical threshold of 3,000 MT of CO2e per year for evaluating GHG impacts of non -industrial projects. As discussed above, no applicable quantitative threshold has been adopted for evaluating the significance of the project's impacts. Therefore, this analysis will use a qualitative discussion of plan consistency to determine the potential significance of the Project's contribution to global GHG emissions and resulting environmental effects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a). The analysis of significance under CEQA is based on the project's consistency with statewide and regional policies and plans to meet the State reduction goals set in SB 32, including CARB's 2017 Scoping Plan and SCAG's 2020 Connect SoCal RTP/SCS and the Santa Clarita General Plan. As discussed below under the response to Checklist Question VIILb., the project would be consistent with these plans, and therefore, project GHG emission impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b. Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur if the project conflicted with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions for GHGs. As discussed in the Appendix A, the proposed project is consistent with and would not result in the generation of GHG emissions in the environment or conflict with the applicable plans, policies and regulation including AB 32, SB 32, the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan, SCAG's RTP/SCS, and the Santa Clarita General Plan. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 43 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Consistency with AB 32 & SB 32 The proposed project would not conflict with applicable statewide regulatory programs designed to reduce GHG emissions consistent with AB 32 and SB 32. During construction, the project will utilize equipment in compliance with CARB requirements. Mobile sources during construction and operation would be subject to the requirements of California Assembly Bill 1493 (Pavley Standards), the Advanced Clean Cars Program, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard Regulation. Additionally, the project would be designed, constructed, and operated consistent with California Title 24 and CALGreen (2019). These regulations require projects to comply with specific standards related to building energy efficiency and green building. Consistency with the Final 2017 Scoping Plan Update The project would not conflict with CARB's Scoping Plan. The Scoping Plan (approved by CARB in 2008 and updated in 2014 and 2017) provides a framework for actions to reduce California's GHG emissions and requires CARB and other state agencies to adopt regulations and other strategies to reduce GHGs. The Scoping Plan is not directly applicable to specific projects, nor is it intended to be used for project -level evaluations. However, under the Scoping Plan, there are several regulatory measures aimed at the identification and reduction of GHG emissions. CARB and other state agencies have adopted many of the measures identified in the Scoping Plan. Most of these measures focus on area source emissions (e.g., energy production, distribution and usage, and high -global warming potential GHGs in consumer products) and changes to the vehicle fleet (i.e., hybrid, electric, and more fuel -efficient vehicles) and associated fuels (e.g., Low Carbon Fuel Standard), among others. The 2008 Scoping Plan recommends strategies for implementation at the statewide level to meet the goals of AB 32 and establishes an overall framework for the measures that will be adopted to reduce California's GHG emissions. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update reflects the 2030 target of a 40% reduction below 1990 levels codified by SB 32. The project would comply with all regulations adopted in furtherance of the Scoping Plan to the extent required by law and to the extent that they are applicable to the proposed project. Consistency with SCAG's Connect SoCal Plan At the regional level, SCAG's Connect SoCal RTP/SCS represents the region's Climate Action Plan that defines strategies for reducing GHGs. In order to assess the project's potential to conflict with the RTP/SCS, this section analyzes the project's consistency with the policies of the RTP/SCS. Generally, projects are considered consistent with the provisions and general policies of applicable City and regional land use plans and regulations, such as SCAG's current RTP/SCS, Connect SoCal, if they are compatible with the general intent of the plans and would not preclude the attainment of their primary goals. As shown in Table VIII-3, Project Consistency with SCAG's RTP/SCS, the Project would not conflict with the applicable strategies set forth in the RTP/SCS's "A Path to Greater Access, Mobility, & Sustainability" chapter. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the applicable GHG reduction related actions and strategies contained in Connect SoCal. Table VIII-3 Project Consistency with SCAG's RTP/SCS Actions and Strategies Consistency Analysis Focus Growth Near Destinations & Mobility Options Emphasize land use patterns that facilitate multimodal Consistent: The proposed project would be an expansion access to work, educational and other destinations. of the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary into a currently unused area. The proposed project would not add new residents to the area and would not change the existing zoning, which informs the Connect SoCal Plan. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 44 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Actions and Strategies Focus on job/housing balance to reduce commute times and distances and expand job opportunities near transit and along center -focused main streets. Plan for growth near transit investments and support implementation of first/last mile strategies. Promote the redevelopment of underperforming retail developments and other outmoded nonresidential use. Prioritize infill and redevelopment of underutilized land to accommodate new growth, increase amenities and connectivity in existing neighborhoods. Encourage design and transportation options that reduce the reliance on and number of solo car trips (this could include mixed uses or locating and orienting close to existing destinations). Promote Diverse Housing Preserve and rehabilitate affordable housing and prevent displacement. Identify opportunities for new workforce and affordable housing development. Leverage Technology Innovations Promote low emission technologies such as neighborhood electric vehicles, shared rides hailing, car sharing, bike sharing and scooters by providing supportive and safe infrastructure such as dedicated lanes, charging and parking/drop-off space. Identify ways to incorporate "micro -power grids" in communities, for example solar energy, hydrogen fuel cell power storage and power generation. Support Implementation of Sustainahility Policies Pursue funding opportunities to support local sustainable development implementation projects that reduce GHG emissions. Not Applicable: The proposed project would be an expansion of the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary into a currently unused area. The proposed Project does not include any housing and as an expansion of an existing commercial cemetery with usage not to increase, does not add jobs. Not Applicable: The proposed project would be an expansion of the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary into a currently vacant area. The proposed project would not conflict with the implementation of such Not Applicable: The proposed project would be an expansion of the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary into a currently vacant area which does not currently include retail or other outmoded nonresidential uses. The proposed project does not include retail or applicable nonresidential uses. Consistent: The proposed project would be an expansion of the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary into a currently vacant area which is underutilized. Not Applicable: The proposed project would be an expansion of the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary into a currently vacant area of the ownership, but would not result in an increase of operational use or trips. Not Applicable: The proposed project would be an expansion of the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary into a currently vacant area, which does not include housing. The proposed project would not include housing. There are not currently any housing units within the site and the project would not displace affordable housing residents. Not Applicable: The proposed project would be an expansion of the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary into a currently vacant area. The proposed project would not include housing. Not Applicable: The proposed project would be an expansion of the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary into a currently vacant area. The proposed project would not conflict with policymaking for low emission technologies. Not Applicable: This strategy is aimed at local government to identify ways to incorporate "micro -power grids" in communities. The proposed project does not require substantial additional energy usage and would not conflict with such bolicvmaking. Not Applicable: While this strategy calls on local governments to adopt policies for sustainable infrastructure and development projects, the proposed project is not the type of project addressed by this policy, and also would not conflict with such policymaking. Eternal Valley Expansion Project City of Santa Clarita Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 45 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Actions and Strategies Support statewide legislation that reduces barriers to new construction and that incentivizes development near transit corridors and stations. Support cities in the establishment of Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs), Community Revitalization and Investment Authorities (CRIAs), or other tax increment or value capture tools to finance sustainable infrastructure and development projects. Work with local jurisdictions/communities to identify opportunities and assess barriers to implement sustainability strategies. Enhance partnerships with other planning organizations to promote resources and best practices in the SCAG region. Continue to support long range planning efforts by local jurisdictions. Provide educational opportunities to local decisions makers and staff on new tools, best practices and policies related to implementing the Sustainable Communities Strategy. Promote a Green Support development of local climate adaptation and hazard mitigation plans, as well as Project implementation that improves community resiliency to climate change and natural hazards. Support local policies for renewable energy production, reduction of urban heat islands and carbon sequestration. Integrate local food production into the regional landscape. Promote more resource efficient development focused on conservation, recycling and reclamation. Not Applicable: While this strategy calls on the state to adopt policies to new construction near transit corridors and stations, the proposed Project does not create barriers related to transit and would not conflict with such Not Applicable: While this strategy calls on cities to establish tax incentive or other value capture tools to finance sustainable infrastructure, the proposed project does not involve substantial new infrastructure and would not conflict with such policymaking. Not Applicable: While this strategy calls on SCAG to work with local jurisdictions to identify ways to implement sustainable strategies, the proposed project would not prevent the identification of opportunities or create barriers to sustainability strategies and therefore would not conflict with such policymaking. Not Applicable: While this strategy calls on planning organizations to promote resources and best practices in SCAG, the proposed project would not affect planning organization partnerships and therefore would not conflict with such policymaking. Not Applicable: While this strategy calls on local jurisdictions to support long range planning, the proposed Project would not affect jurisdictional planning efforts, and therefore would not conflict with such policymaking. Not Applicable: While this strategy calls on local jurisdictions to provide educational opportunities on new tools and practices to promote the Sustainable Communities Strategy, the proposed project would not affect educational opportunities and therefore would not conflict with such bolicvmakinp. Not Applicable: This strategy calls on local jurisdictions to develop climate adaptation and hazard mitigation plans. The proposed project would not affect development or implementation of local climate adaptation and hazard mitigation plans, and therefore would not conflict with such policymaking. Not Applicable: While this strategy calls on local governments to adopt policies for renewable energy production, the proposed project would not affect renewable energy production or carbon sequestration and would not create an urban heat island, as the project would by mostly unpaved and landscaped with turf. Therefore, the project would not conflict with such policymaking. Not Applicable: While this strategy calls on local governments to integrate local food into the regional landscape, the proposed project would not reduce or otherwise affect local food production, and therefore would not conflict with such policymaking. Consistent: The proposed project will be required to adhere to the latest CALGreen Building Codes and Title 24. Eternal Valley Expansion Project City of Santa Clarita Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 46 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Actions and Strategies Consistency Analysis Preserve, enhance and restore regional wildlife Consistent: The project would not impact natural lands connectivity. during construction or operation. The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. The proposed project will be constructed adjacent to the existing Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary and would not interfere with any known wildlife corridors, as indicated in Section IV, Biological Resources. Reduce consumption of resource areas, including Consistent. The proposed project will not consume any agricultural land. resource areas or agricultural land. Identify ways to improve access to public park space. Not Applicable. This strategy calls on local governments to improve access to public park space. The proposed project would not affect improvements to access to public arks ace and therefore would not conflict with this goal. Source: Impact Sciences, Eternal Valley Project, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report, March 2022. Consistency with Santa Clarita General Plan Because goals, objectives and policies approved under the General Plan are forecast to meet the GHG emission reduction targets mandated by AB 32, development projects that are able to demonstrate consistency with the General Plan and zoning ordinance will by association demonstrate consistency with the CAP. The Project site is zoned OS and has a General Plan designation of OS. The proposed Project would be an expansion of the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary into a currently vacant area. The proposed Project would include construction of a 3,665 square foot mausoleum, traditional lawn burial gardens, and a private cemetery loop road for access by cemetery visitors. As such, the Project would be consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning designation for the site. Furthermore, the Project is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's General Plan. Conclusion As demonstrated above, the proposed Project is consistent and would not result in the generation of GHG emissions in the environment or conflict with the applicable plans, policies and regulation including the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan, SCAG's RTP/SCS, and the Santa Clarita General Plan. As such, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact in regard to GHG emissions. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 47 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 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 that is included on a list of ❑ ❑ ❑ hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use ❑ ❑ ❑ plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere ❑ ❑ ® ❑ with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? g. Expose people or structures, either directly or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Impact Analysis a. Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of types of hazardous materials or quantities. The memorial park uses associated with the proposed project would not involve any routine transport, use, or disposal of substantial amounts of hazardous materials. Occasional use of small amounts of hazardous materials would occur for landscaping, such as fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and for cleaning and maintaining the mausoleum building, such as household cleaners and paint. In addition, some of the interred human remains would contain formaldehyde or other substances used in embalming. These materials would be similar to those used for the other landscaped burial areas and buildings that currently exist in the memorial park. The project would comply with CCR Title 16, Division 12: Funeral Regulations, Section Eternal Valley Expansion Project City of Santa Clarita Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 48 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1222: Embalming Fluids, which prohibits the use of embalming fluid containing "heavy minerals or metallic substances which have a poisonous effect, such as arsenic, lead and mercury.,,48 Accordingly, the project would have a less than significant impact with regard to creating a significant hazard through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b. Less than Significant Impact. A project may have a significant impact if the project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Construction of the project would involve the use of hazardous materials necessary to construct a mausoleum and associated paved surfaces such as paint, but they will be properly stored in sufficiently small quantities to prevent a significant hazard to the public if they were released. During operation, as discussed above (in part "a") in response to Checklist Question IX.a, the project would occasionally use small amounts of hazardous materials, but these would be used in insignificant amounts. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact with regard to a hazard involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required C. No Impact. A significant impact may occur if the project would emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The proposed project would expand an existing memorial park and would be adjacent to the Needham Ranch Industrial Park and a new Los Angeles County Fire Station. The project site is not within one -quarter mile of a school; the nearest is the Dr. J. Michael McGrath Elementary School, which is approximately 0.7 miles away. Further, the amounts of hazardous materials to be used during construction and occasionally used during operations would be considered small. Therefore, the project would have no impact in regard to emitting hazardous emissions or substances within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. d. No Impact. A significant impact may occur if the project is located on materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and as a result would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Based on a review of the State Water Resources Control Board's GeoTracker database, related to Government Code Section 65962.5, the site is not associated with a cleanup site and is not within 1,000 feet of a cleanup site.49 The site is not associated with or located within 1,000 feet of a site listed on the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database.so Therefore, the project would not result in the creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment as a result of previous uses being included in lists of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required 48 California, Cemetery and Funeral Bureau, California Code of Regulations Title 26, Division 23: Funeral Regulations, March 1, 2016, Accessed on April 13 at https://www.cth.ca.gov/laws regs/ccr funeral regs.pdf 49 State Water Resources Control Board, GeoTracker. Accessed on January 24, 2022, at https:Hgeotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. " California Department of Substances Control, Envirostor. Accessed on January 24, 2022, https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 49 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION e. No Impact. The nearest airport to the project site is Whiteman Airport in the community of Pacoima located approximately 8.56 linear miles southeast. The project site is not located within the Airport Influence Area of Whiteman Airport." There are no airport -related building height restrictions on the site, the project would not place structures within a designated flight path. and the project would not result in a safety hazard to people working or residing within the project area regarding aircraft operations in the vicinity. Therefore, no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required f. Less than Significant Impact. A project would normally have a significant impact if the project would interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The project site is accessed by Sierra Highway, which is a public roadway that has two lanes in each direction and a median. The project would not increase the number of employees or visitors and therefore would not generate additional vehicle trips beyond existing conditions. As for the project itself, it would not inhibit any emergency access routes, as it would be fully contained on the project parcel. The project would require an internal loop road, which would connect in two places to the existing memorial park grounds internal driveway system, and a new connection to an existing access road connecting to Needham Ranch Parkway, but would not build new parking lots or affect connections to the existing external street network. The project would be subject to requirements and approval by the LACoFD. Therefore, neither the project construction nor operations would physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant. g. Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project is located in proximity to wildland areas and would pose a potential fire hazard, which could affect persons or structures in the area in the event of a fire. The project is located in an urbanizing area where recent development of the Needham Ranch industrial park has reduced wildland areas. The project would be surrounded on three sides by existing and planned development: the existing portion of the memorial park to the east, the Needham Ranch industrial park to the west, and the future LACoFD station to the south. However, the land immediately to the north would remain undeveloped open space. The project site is located within land classified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ).SZ The proposed project site would predominantly be a landscaped, irrigated memorial park area, and the proposed mausoleum structure would meet all the latest fire code requirements as discussed in response to Section XX., Wildfire. Therefore, impacts related to fire hazards would be less than significant. Miti,qation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. si County of Los Angeles, Airport Land Use Commission, Airports and Airport Influence Areas, August 18, 2018. sz California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA as Recommended by CAL FIRE: Santa Clarita, September 2011. Accessed on January 21, 2022 at https:Hosfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5842/santa_ clarita.pdf. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 50 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ ® ❑ discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ interfere with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: I. Result in substantial on- or offsite erosion ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or siltation; ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount ❑ ❑ ® ❑ of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offside; iii. Create or contribute runoff water which ❑ ❑ ® ❑ would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk ❑ ❑ ❑ release of pollutants due to project inundation? e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a ❑ ❑ ® ❑ water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Impact Analysis This analysis is based largely on the Drainage Plans for the project dated February 7, 2022, and prepared by Hunsaker & Associates, Inc. (provided in Appendix I).ss a. Less than Significant Impact. The project may have a significant impact if it would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. ss Hunsaker & Associates, Inc., Eternal Valley Memorial Park: Existing Drainage Exhibit and Proposed Drainage Exhibit, September 7, 2021. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 51 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION The project site currently consists of partially graded, undeveloped land. The project site currently has no impervious surfaces. The project would add some impervious surfaces for the proposed loop road and the mausoleum structure. However, the project would follow existing drainage patterns as shown on the Drainage Plans.54 During construction, the project would be subject to compliance with the existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and follow guidelines within the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Low Impact Development (LID) Standards Manual. The project complies with Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works LID Standards Manual, the project would maintain water quality standards during construction. The project LID BMPs such as vegetated filter strip, turf, and/or planter vegetation discussed in the Project Drainage Plans, to be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department, would assure water is contained and slowed to infiltrate the groundwater as much as possible, which reduces pollutants (total dissolved solids) entering the water stream and assures the volume of runoff leaving the site complies with the LID manual. With the vast majority of the site remaining as landscaped memorial area, substantial area will remain for stormwater infiltration. As such, the project would have a less than significant impact with regard to violating any State or federal water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b. Less than Significant Impact. The project may have a significant impact if it would substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. The project would add some impervious surface area to a site without impervious surface. The project would follow guidelines within the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works LID Standards Manual, as discussed above. Runoff from the western portion of the project site would flow (as surface flow or through a swale) west into 24-inch storm drain inlets along Needham Ranch Parkway or debris basins that are planned as part of The Center at Needham Ranch industrial park and runoff from the eastern portion of the project would flow downhill, across the existing memorial park to the east, into the existing 24-inch storm drain inlet. At completion of the project, the project would follow existing drainage patterns within the site, consistent with the Drainage Plans, and would assure that stormwater is contained and slowed to infiltrate the groundwater, avoiding excessive offsite stormwater runoff, compliant with LID requirements. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact to groundwater supplies or recharge. Mitimation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. c.i. Less than Significant Impact. A project would have a significant impact on surface water hydrology if it would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial or erosion or siltation on site. The project site is located in an urbanizing area of the City and no streams or river courses are located on the subject property. The project would follow existing drainage patterns. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. c.ii. Less than Significant Impact. A project could have a significant impact if it would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The project would somewhat increase 54 Ibid. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 52 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION impervious surfaces and would decrease the amount of vegetation on site that would slow surface water runoff. However, as stated above, the project would retain existing drainage patterns and the LID regulations, to be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department, would assure no increase in runoff Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact with regard to increasing the rate of surface water runoff. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. c.iii. Less than Significant Impact. A project would have a significant impact on surface water hydrology if it would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would create or contribute runoff which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. As discussed above, the proposed project would not result in a significant increase in site runoff as it would not alter existing drainage patterns or substantially increase the volume or velocity of runoff from impervious surfaces on the site. Runoff from the western portion of the project site would flow west into 24-inch storm drain inlets along Needham Ranch Parkway or debris basins that are planned as part of The Center at Needham Ranch industrial park. Runoff from the eastern portion of the project the majority of runoff from the existing site would be picked up by an existing storm drain inlet along Sierra Highway to the east of the project site and the existing memorial park as under existing conditions. The project would not substantively increase runoff volumes that could affect the existing capacity of the stormwater drainage system or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff to the existing drainage system, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. This impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. c.iv. Less than Significant Impact. A project would have a significant impact on surface water hydrology if it would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would impede or redirect flood flows. The project is not located in a designated 100-year flood zone." Stormwater runoff generated by the proposed building would follow existing drainage patterns and the majority of runoff would flow into existing storm drain inlet to the east, on Sierra Highway. City of Santa Clarita Public Works review will assure project drainage features meet City LID and other stormwater drainage requirements. As such, the project would have a less than significant impact on impeding or redirecting flood flows. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. d. No Impact. A significant impact would potentially occur if the project would risk the release of pollutants from project inundation due to location in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone. The project is not located within a 100-year flood zone56 or dam inundation area. A seiche, a standing wave created within a large, enclosed body of water due to disturbance, is a concern at water storage facilities because inundation can occur if the wave overflows a containment wall. No major water retaining structures are located immediately upgradient from the project site. Therefore, flooding from seiche is not ss City of Santa Clarita, City of Santa Clarita General Plan Safety Element, Figure S-4: Surface Water, accessed on February 8, 2022 at: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaClarita/html/SantaClaritaGP/7%20%2OSafety%2OElement.pdf. 56 Ibid. 57 City of Santa Clarita, City of Santa Clarita General Plan Safety Element Figure S-3: Seismic Hazards, accessed on February 8, 2022 at: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaClarita/html/SantaClaritaGP/7%20%2OSafety%2OElement.pdf. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 53 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION a concern for the project. The project is approximately 22 miles from the ocean and is approximately 1,600 feet above sea level at its lowest point. Therefore, there would be no potential for tsunami inundation on the project site. As such, the project would have no impact pertaining to the risk of release of pollutants due to location in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. e. Less than Significant Impact. A project would have a significant impact if it conflicted with or obstructed implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. The project site was previously disturbed by grading, is located in a partially developed urban infill site, and does not propose groundwater extraction. The project is required to comply with the Los Angeles Region Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit (R4-2012-0175), which also serves as a NPDES permit under the Federal Clean Water Act (NPDES No. CAS004001).58 The project would capture and convey stormwater consistent with applicable LID regulations. Public Works will review the project Drainage Plans for conformance and provide project conditions to assure compliance. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan, and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 58 City of Santa Clarita, Municipal Code, Chapter 17.95: Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan Implementation, accessed on February 8, 2022 at: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaClarita/html/SantaClarital7/SantaClarital795.html. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 54 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ b. Cause a significant environmental impact due ❑ ❑ ® ❑ to a conflict with any land use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Impact Analysis a. No Impact. A significant impact may occur if the proposed project would be sufficiently large or otherwise configured in such a way as to create a physical barrier within an established community. The project site is adjacent to the existing memorial park, an industrial park, and a future fire station. The project site is currently zoned as OS59 and designated OS on the land use map,60 and the City has determined the use is an allowable use within those designations. As infill, the project would not physically divide an established community. The project would thus have no impact regarding physical division of an established community. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b. Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project causes a significant environmental impact due to inconsistency with the applicable land use plan, policy or regulation, including the zoning designations of the project site. The project site is located within the City and subject to the land use designations and zoning regulations of local land use plans and zoning ordinance. Regional Plans Regionally, the project is located within the SCAG planning area, the federally -designated Metropolitan Planning Organization for the region. SCAG is responsible for reviewing regionally significant local plans, projects, and programs for consistency with SCAG's adopted regional plans. As the proposed project is 1) consistent with the General Plan land use designation of OS for the subject property, and 2) impacts would be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation incorporated, and the project would have no regionally -significant impacts, additional analysis of SCAG Plan consistency is not warranted. The project is located within the planning area of the SCAQMD which implements the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP. As evaluated in Section III., Air Quality, the project is consistent with the AQMP, and no additional analysis is required. City of Santa Clarita General Plan The General Plan is a comprehensive, long-range declaration of purposes, policies, and programs to guide development of the City. The General Plan contains goals and policies for the development of the City and 59 City of Santa Clarita, Mapping Your City, Accessed on January 25, 2021 at https://www.santa-clarita.com/myc. 60 City of Santa Clarita, City of Santa Clarita General Plan Land Use Map, last updated December 2018. Accessed on January 26, 2022 at https://www. santa-clarita.com/home/showpublisheddocument/16338/636803150023030000. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 55 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION a Land Use Map .61 A consistency analysis with applicable provisions of the General Plan is presented in Table XI-1, Consistency Analysis with General Plan Goals and Policies. Table XI-1 Consistency Analysis with General Plan Goals and Policies General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Policy LU 1.1.1: Where appropriate, protect mountains Consistent: The project site is designated as OS by and foothills surrounding the Valley floor from urban the City's Land Use Map. The project would grade development by designating these areas as OS or Non- within the protected zone of a significant ridgeline but Urban uses on the Land Use Map would be subject to the requirements of a RAP from the City. Policy LU 1.1.2: On the Land Use Map, concentrate urban development within flatter portions of the Santa Clarita Valley floor in areas with limited environmental constraints and served with infrastructure. Policy LU 1.1.3: Discourage urban sprawl into rural areas Consistent: The project is an expansion of an existing by limiting non- contiguous, "leap -frog" development adjacent land use and is surrounded on three sides by outside of areas designated for urban use. existing andplanned development. Policy LU 1.1.4: Preserve community character by Consistent: The project site does not contain rivers, maintaining natural features that act as natural boundaries drainage courses or riparian areas. The project would between developed areas, including significant ridgelines, alter topography and grade within the protected zone canyons, rivers and drainage courses, riparian areas, of a significant ridgeline but would be subject to the topographical features, habitat preserves, or other similar requirements of a Class IV HDR and RAP from the features, where appropriate. city. Policy LU 1.1.5: Increase infill development and re -use of Consistent: The project is an expansion of an existing underutilized sites within and adjacent to developed urban adjacent land use and is surrounded on three sides by areas to achieve maximum benefit from existing existing and planned development. infrastructure and minimize loss of open space, through redesignation of vacant sites for higher density and mixed use, where appropriate. Policy LU 1.1.6: Preserve the rural lifestyle in canyons Consistent: The project site is designated as OS by and low -density, outlying areas of the Santa Clarita the City's Land Use Map and the proposed memorial Valley, through designating these areas as Non -Urban on park use is consistent with this designation the Land Use Map, where a ro riate. Policy LU 1.2.1: In Newhall, provide opportunities for Consistent: While the project is located in Newhall, new business and housing by implementing the the project is not located in North Newhall or within Downtown Newhall Specific Plan, provide incentives to the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan. promote infill development and re -use of underutilized sites, and continue to plan for the future development of North Newhall. Policy LU 1.3.1: Encourage subdivision design Consistent: The project would require some grading techniques that reflect underlying physical topography or to level out portions of the site for memorial park use. other unique physical features of the natural terrain. Compliance with the requirements of a Class IV HDR and RAP from the City will assure consistency. Policy LU 1.3.2: Substantially retain the integrity and natural grade elevations of significant natural ridgelines and prominent landforms that form the Valley's skyline backdrop. Policy LU 1.3.3: Discourage development on ridgelines Consistent: The project site contains hillsides and and lands containing 50% slopes so that these areas are would grade within the protected zone of a significant maintained as natural open space. ridgeline, but would only affect a small portion of the ridgeline. The project would be subject to the requirements of a Class IV HDR and RAP from the city. 61 City of Santa Clarity, City of Santa Clarity General Plan Land Use Element, adopted June 2011. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 56 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION General Plan Goal or Policy Policy LU 1.3.5: Encourage flexible siting and design techniques within hillside areas in order to preserve steep slopes or other unique physical features, including clustering of residential units provided all residential lots meet the applicable minimum lot size requirements of the Land Use Element and the Zoning Ordinance, including the Community Special Standards District Policy LU 1.3.6: Encourage retention of natural drainage patterns and the preservation of significant riparian areas, both of which are commonly located in hillside areas. Policy LU 6.1.1: Designate ridgelines throughout the planning area, and preserve these ridgelines from development by encouraging a minimum distance for grading and development from these ridgelines of 50 feet. Policy LU 6.1.3: Ensure that new development in hillside areas is designed to protect the scenic backdrop of foothills and canyons enjoyed by Santa Clarita Valley communities, through requiring compatible hillside management techniques that may include but are not limited to clustering of development; contouring and landform grading; revegetation with native plants; limited site disturbance; avoidance of tall retaining and build-up walls; use of stepped pads; and other techniques as deemed appropriate. Policy LU 6.5.1: Require use of high quality, durable, and natural -appearing building materials pursuant to applicable ordinances. Policy LU 6.5.2: Encourage the use of designs and architectural styles that incorporate classic and timeless architectural features. Policy LU 6.5.3: Require architectural enhancement and articulation on all sides of buildings (360 degree architecture), with special consideration at building entrances and corners, and along facades adjacent to major arterial streets. Policy LU 6.5.4: Evaluate new development in consideration of its context, to ensure that buildings create a coherent living environment, a cohesive urban fabric, and contribute to a sense of place consistent with the Policy LU 7.1.1: Require shade trees within parking lots and adjacent to buildings to reduce the heat island effect, in consideration of Fire Department fuel modification restrictions. Consistent: The project would be subject to the requirements of a Class IV HDR and RAP from the City. Consistent: As indicated in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality and shown on the drainage plans, the project would retain existing drainage patterns. The project site does not contain riparian areas. While the site does contain hillsides, compliance with the requirements of a Class IV HDR and RAP from the City will assure consistency. Consistent: The project would alter topography and grade within the protected zone of a significant ridgeline, but would be subject to the requirements of a Class IV HDR and RAP from the City. Consistent: The project would alter topography and grade within the protected zone of a significant ridgeline but would be subject to the requirements of a Class IV HDR and RAP from the City. The only proposed building is the 3,665 square -foot mausoleum and most of the project area would be covered in turf grass, and other landscaping, with some interior paved roads and no tall retaining walls. Consistent: The project would expand an existing memorial park on an adjacent site. The proposed 3,665 square -foot mausoleum building would comply with all City architectural requirements. The mausoleum would be consistent with existing off -site memorial park structures to the east. Consistent: The project would not create additional parking lot areas, but parking would occur along the proposed loop road. The project would plant trees on the site, including along the proposed loop road. Eternal Valley Expansion Project City of Santa Clarita Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 57 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Policy LU 7.1.2: Promote the use of solar panels and Consistent: Project energy usage during operations renewable energy sources in all projects. would be minimal and associated with the mausoleum building, lighting, and landscaping. The proposed 3,665 square -foot mausoleum building would not be inhabited and would therefore not require substantial energy usage, such as from Heating, Ventilation, and Cooling (HVAC) or major appliances. Policy LU 7.1.3: Encourage development of energy- efficient buildings, and discourage construction of new buildings for which energy efficiency cannot be demonstrated. Policy LU 7.2.3: Require that all new development Consistent: As demonstrated in Section XIX, proposals demonstrate a sufficient and sustainable water Utilities and Public Service Systems, the project supply prior to approval. would have a sufficient and sustainable water supply. Policy LU 7.3.1: Promote the use of permeable paving Consistent: While the project would include materials to allow infiltration of surface water into the impermeable paving materials, most of the site would water table. have permeable surfaces. Policy LU 7.3.2: Maintain stormwater runoff onsite by Consistent: As discussed in Section X, Hydrology directing drainage into rain gardens, natural landscaped and Water Quality and shown on the drainage plane swales, rain barrels, permeable areas, and use of drainage project runoff would flow over the permeable surfaces areas as design elements, where feasible and reasonable. which make up most of the project site and a potential swale, along existing drainage patterns. Policy LU 7.3.3: Seek methods to decrease impermeable site area where reasonable and feasible, in order to reduce stormwater runoff and increase groundwater infiltration, including use of shared parking and other means as appropriate. Policy LU 7.3.4: Implement BMPs for erosion control Consistent: As indicated in Section X, Hydrology throughout the construction and development process. and Water Quality, the project would incorporate BMPs from the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works LID Standards Manual. Policy LU 7.3.5: Limit development within flood -prone Consistent: As discussed in Section X, Hydrology areas to minimize down- stream impacts. and Water Quality, the project is not in a 100-year flood zone. Policy LU 7.4.1: Require the use of drought tolerant Consistent: On most of the project site, the project landscaping, native California plant materials, and would place turf grass in the memorial park line areas. evapotranspiration (smart) irrigation systems. However, landscaping would include native plants such as coast live oak trees (Quercus agrifolia) and project trees would be low water use (Water Use Classification of Landscape Species), as shown on the relimina landscape plan. Policy LU 7.4.2: Require the use of low -flow fixtures in Consistent: The proposed 3,665 square -foot all non-residential development and residential mausoleum building would not be inhabited and development with five or more dwelling units, which may would therefore not contain plumbing fixtures. None include but are not limited to water conserving shower of the landscape -related project features would have heads, toilets, waterless urinals and motion -sensor faucets, plumbing fixtures of the type regulated. and encourage use of such fixtures in building retrofits as appropriate. Policy LU 7.5.1: Ensure that all new development Consistent: There would be adequate space on the provides adequate space for recycling receptacles and bins 17-acre project site (or on the large, existing memorial on site. ark roe for recycling receptacles and bins. Policy LU 7.5.2: Promote the use of recycled building Consistent: The project would comply withthe Green materials. Building Code which sets standards for sustainable site develo ment, and material conservation. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 58 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Policy LU 7.6.1: Limit outdoor lighting levels to the Consistent: The expanded memorial park area would minimum needed for safety and security, and encourage not require substantial outdoor lighting, and there are lower lighting levels when businesses are closed. no adjacent residential land uses. Policy LU 7.6.2: Preserve habitat connectivity in site Consistent: The site would mostly consist of planning where feasible, and discourage the creation of landscaped grass areas and would not be surrounding open space islands surrounded by paving. by paving. Policy LU 7.6.3: Protect wildlife corridors through site Consistent: As indicated in Section IV, Biological design and appropriate land use designations, including Resources, the site is not located within a wildlife mapped corridors and other corridors that may be corridor and the project would not substantially identified through biological surveys. interfere with migratory corridors or impede wildlife movement. Policy LU 7.6.4: Encourage site designs that protect oak Consistent: As discussed in Section, VII, Geology trees, hillsides, and biological resources through creative and Soils, the project contains hillsides and would solutions. grade within the protected zone of a significant ridgeline but would be subject to the requirements of a Class IV HDR and RAP from the City. As discussed in Section IV, Biological Resources, the project would have less than significant impacts to oak trees and biological resources. Policy LU 7.8.1: Adopt and implement consistent policies Consistent: As indicated in Section IV, Biological for protection of oak woodlands and oak trees throughout Resources the project would have less than significant the planning area. impacts to oak trees. The project site does not contain oak woodlands Policy LU 7.8.2: Protect all designated Significant Consistent: As indicated in Section IV, Biological Ecological Areas (SEA's) from incompatible Resources, the project site does not contain SEA. development. Source: City of Santa Clarita, Santa Clarita General Plan Land Use Element, June, 2011. As shown in Table XI-1, the project would be consistent with the applicable land use policies of the General Plan regarding OS development. The proposed memorial park expansion project would be consistent with the project site's OS zoning and General Plan Land Use Map designation. City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code and Zoning The City General Plan (Land Use Map) designation for the site and adjacent existing memorial park is OS,62 and the City zoning for the site and adjacent existing memorial park is OS.63 A zone change would not be required for the project which proposes an expansion of a memorial park land use and use consistent with OS zoning, according to SCMC Section 17.36.010.64 Considering the analysis above, the proposed project can be found consistent. Therefore, the project would not conflict with applicable land use plans, policy or regulations of agencies with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The project would result in a less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 62 City of Santa Clarita, City of Santa Clarita General Plan Land Use Map, last updated December 2018. Accessed on January 26, 2022 at https://www. santa-clarita.com/home/showpublisheddocument/16338/636803150023030000. 63 City of Santa Clarita, Mapping Your City, Accessed on January 25, 2021 at https://www.santa-clarita.com/myc. 64 City of Santa Clarita, Santa Clarita Municipal Code, Title 17: Zoning Information, Chapter 17.36: Open Space Zones, Section 17.36.010 Open Space (OS) Zone, code last amended June 22, 2021, accessed on January 27, 2022 at https:// www. codepublishing.com/CA/SantaClarita/html/SantaClarital7/SantaClarital736.html# 17.36 Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 59 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XIL MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project a. Would the project result in the loss of ❑ ❑ ❑ availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? b. Would the project result in the loss of availability ❑ ❑ ❑ of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Impact Analysis a-b. No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project site is located in an area used or available for extraction of a regionally important mineral resource, or if the project would convert an existing or future regionally important mineral extraction use to another use or would affect access to a site used or available for regionally important mineral resource extraction. The project proposes to expand an existing memorial park, in an urbanized area on a site surrounded on three sides by existing and planned development. The project site is not on an estimated oil and gas field according to the City of Santa Clarita Conservation and Open Space Element.65 According to the California Department of Conservation Mineral Land Classification Map, the project site is located within a Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ)-3, meaning an area containing mineral deposits the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data, thus significant resources are not known to exist on the project site.66 The site is not designated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site as delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. No mineral resources are known to exist within the project site and additional infill development would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources or a locally important mineral resource recovery site. As such, no impact associated with the loss of availability of a known mineral resource would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 65 City of Santa Clarita, City of Santa Clarita General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element Conservation Element, June 2011. 66 California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 143, Part V, Plate 5-7, Mineral Land Classification Map: Aggregate Resource Only, 1984. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 60 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION XIII. NOISE. Would the project result in: a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two 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? Impact Analysis Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ El E ® ❑ This analysis is based upon the project Noise and Vibration Technical Report67 (Appendix J). a. Less than Significant Impact. A project may result in a significant noise impact by generating a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance. The following analysis distinguishes between short-term increases in ambient noise resulting from the use of construction equipment and long- term increases in ambient noise resulting from operation of the proposed memorial park expansion components and vehicular trips generated once the project is in use. Temporary Noise — Construction Temporary On -Site Construction Equipment Activity Noise Construction activities are anticipated to include rough grading, with 92,600 cubic yards of cut and fill to be balanced on site. An additional 100,300 cubic yards of dirt will be removed and recompacted onsite. The primary construction equipment noise sources used during construction would be during earthwork activities (use of graders, excavators, dozers), and building construction (use of forklifts, tractors/loaders/backhoes, and a crane). Pile driving would not be required forthis project. Of the equipment to be used on site, graders typically generate the highest noise levels, emitting approximately 85 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet. During all construction phases, noise -generating activities could occur at the project site between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M. Monday through Friday, and 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. on Saturday in accordance with Section 11.44.080 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code (SCMC). The projected noise impact from construction activity is shown in Table XIII-1, Construction Noise Impacts at Off -Site Sensitive Receptors and summarized below. 67 Impact Sciences, Eternal Valley Project, Noise and Vibration Technical Report, March 2022. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 61 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Table XIII-1 Construction Noise Impacts at Off -Site Sensitive Receptors Receptor Distance to Sensitive Receptor feet Maximum Construction Noise Level dBA Le Faith Community Church 700 62.1 LA North Studios (movie studio) 950 59.4 Source: Impact Sciences, Inc., Eternal Valley Noise and Vibration Technical Report, March 2022. The City has established noise standards for construction activity which requires a building permit and takes place within 300 feet of a residentially zoned property in SCMC Section 11.44.080 Special Noise Sources — Construction and Building. Pursuant to SCMC Section 11.44.080, noise from such construction is prohibited between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on Saturday, and/or any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. However, as the nearest residences to the project site are approximately 800 feet away, the project lies further than 300 feet from any residentially zoned property or residential land use and therefore would comply with the SCMC and not expose any residential uses to temporary excessive noises associated with construction activity from the project site. As such, the project would comply with applicable regulations of the SCMC and impacts from construction activities on the nearest sensitive receptors would be less than significant. Temporary Off -Site Construction Traffic Noise Construction haul trucks would generate noise off -site during construction activities at the project site. This would include removal of materials from the project site, base materials, and demolished materials. While this vehicle activity would increase ambient noise levels along the haul route, ambient noise levels would not be expected to significantly increase ambient noise levels by 3 dBA or greater at any noise sensitive land use. Studies have shown that a 3 dBA increase in sound level pressure is barely detectable by the human ear. A 3 dBA increase in roadway noise levels requires an approximate doubling of roadway traffic volume, assuming that travel speeds and fleet mix remain constant.68 While this vehicle activity would marginally increase ambient noise levels along the haul route, it would not be expected to significantly increase ambient noise levels by 5 dBA or greater at any noise sensitive land uses. Though the addition of haul trucks would alter the fleet mix of the project haul route, the addition of these trucks to local roadways would be de-minimis. Specifically, construction related traffic would not be doubled on the local roads; thus, traffic volumes and would not produce 5 dBA or more ambient noise increases. As a result, off -site construction noise impacts related to haul trips would be considered less than significant. Permanent Noise - Operations Potential long-term noise impacts from the proposed project would result from traffic noise and stationary noise from HVAC and parking. Permanent Operational Traffic Noise As discussed above, a 3 dBA increase in roadway noise levels requires an approximate doubling of roadway traffic volume, assuming that travel speeds and fleet mix remain constant. A 3 dBA noise level increase is the minimum noise level increase required for a human to perceive a change in ambient noise. The project is not anticipated to significantly increase the amount of overall traffic going to and from the project site. Therefore, it is unlikely that there would be an increase in traffic volumes significant enough to cause an audible increase in traffic noise. As such, any noise increase would be imperceptible, and impacts would be less than significant. 68 California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Protocol. September 2013. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 62 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Permanent Operational Stationary Noise Regulatory compliance with SCMC Sec. 11.44.070 would ultimately ensure that noises from sources such as HVAC systems not increase ambient noise levels at neighboring occupied properties by more than 5 dBA. Given this regulation, ambient noise levels, and the relatively quiet operation of modern HVAC systems, these on -site noise sources would not be capable of causing the ambient noise levels of nearby uses to increase above the noise limits set forth in SCMC Sec. 11.44.040 and impacts would be less than significant. Parking noise typically generates noise levels of approximately 60 dBA at 50 feet. The isolated parking areas from parking at the Eternal Valley Memorial Park would ensure that parking noise would be virtually imperceptible to nearby sensitive land uses. Also, the project would not result in a change in employees or visitors, so the number of parked vehicles throughout the memorial park would not increase. Therefore, parking noise would result in a less than significant impact. Mitization Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b. Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the proposed project would expose people to or generate excessive ground -borne vibration or ground -borne noise levels. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides ground -borne vibration impact criteria with respect to building damage during construction activities, measured in PPV, expressed in inches per second (in/sec). Construction vibration damage criteria are assessed based on structural category (e.g., reinforced -concrete, steel, or timber). FTA guidelines consider 0.2 inch/sec PPV to be the significant impact level for non - engineered timber and masonry buildings.69 The vibration velocities at nearby sensitive receptors are shown below in Table XIII-2, Vibration Levels at Off -Site Sensitive Uses from Project Construction. Table XIII-2 Vibration Levels at Off -Site Sensitive Uses from Project Construction Sensitive Uses (Off -site) Distance to Project Site feet Receptor Significance Threshold PPV in/sec Estimated PPV in/sec Faith Community Church 700 0.2 0.001 LA North Studios movie studio 950 0.2 0.000 Source: Impact Sciences, Inc., Eternal Valley Noise and Vibration Technical Report, March 2022. As shown in Table XIII-2 above, the distances from the project site to the nearest sensitive receptors would ensure that any vibration impact would be virtually non-existent. These nearby structures are considered to be a non -engineered timber or masonry buildings and would not experience a PPV groundbome vibration level that exceed the 0.2 in/sec PPV threshold. Therefore, vibration impacts associated with building damage due to project construction activities would result in a less than significant impact. Mitization Measures: No mitigation measures are required. C. No Impact. A project located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport may result in a significant impact if a project would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. The project site is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip or airport land use plan, but is located near a future helipad at the planned adjacent LACoFD Fire Station. However, the helipad would only be used incidentally, when needed, and the project would not exacerbate the environmental condition of helipad-related noise. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. Whiteman Airport in the community of Pacoima is 69 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September 2018. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 63 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION located approximately 8.56 miles southeast of the project site. As such, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive airport -related noise levels. No impact would occur from the proposed project and no further analysis is required. Mitization Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 64 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth ❑ ❑ ❑ in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or ❑ ❑ ❑ housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Impact Analysis a. No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project would induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. The project would expand an existing memorial park on undeveloped land. The SCAG 2016-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) forecasts for population and employment growth from 2016 through 2045 for the City of Santa Clarita70 are shown in Table XIV-1, Population and Employment Growth Forecast. Table XIV-1 Population and Employment Growth Forecast Year City Population City Employment 2016 218,200 91,200 2045 258,800 105,200 Net Growth 40,600 14,000 Source: SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS, Current Context: Demographics & Growth Forecast Appendix, Table 14, Jurisdictional -Level Growth Forecast, September 3, 2020. As shown in Table XIV-1, SCAG forecasts City population and employment to increase from 2016 to 2045 by 40,600 people and 14,000 jobs. As the project would expand an existing memorial park, and would not add visitors or employees beyond those currently associated with the memorial park, the project would not introduce population growth. The project would not substantially increase employment. As such, the project would not cause a population increase beyond local and regional projections and would not cause substantial growth that could exceed projected levels for the year of occupancy. As the proposed population would not generate a residential population, cause a substantial increase in employment, or extend existing or new infrastructure that would indirectly induce population growth, the project would have no impact associated with population growth. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 70 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September 2018. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 65 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION b. No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project would result in the displacement of existing housing units or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. As the project site is undeveloped, the project would not displace persons or residential units or necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, the project would have no impact related to displacement. Mitization Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 66 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION XV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks? e. Other public facilities? Impact Analysis Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a. Less than Significant Impact. A project would normally have a significant impact on fire protection if it requires the addition of a new fire station or the expansion, consolidation, or relocation of an existing facility to maintain service, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. LACoFD Fire Station No. 73, located at 24875 North Railroad Avenue is the nearest existing fire station the project site, " approximately 2.4 driving miles to the northwest. In addition, a new fire station is planned adjacent to the project site. The proposed project would not increase population, the number of employees, or visitors. The LACoFD currently serves the project site. Construction of the project would not create substantially more area to cover nor add more population for the LACoFD to serve. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact to fire protection services. The LACoFD participates in the City plan check process, providing review and approval of fire prevention and safety features, including design features such as adequate street widths and access to the building, fire flow pressure, and fire hydrant placement. The project would be served by existing fire hydrants. Given the availability of existing LACoFD stations, the project would not require new or physically expanded fire stations and potential impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b. Less than Significant Impact. A project would normally have a significant impact if it requires new or expanded police station facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection. 71 Los Angeles County Fire Department, Search Results. Accessed on January 20, 2022 at: https://Iocator.lacounty.gov/fire/Search?find=&neat=23287+Sierra+Hwy%2C+Newhall%2C+CA%2C+91321&cat=&tag=&lo c=&lat=34.361375037355934&lon=-1. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 67 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION The site is located within the City of Santa Clarita, which contracts police services from the Los Angeles County Sherriff's Department (LASD). The nearest Santa Clarita Valley Sherriff's station is located at 26201 Golden Valley Road approximately five driving miles north of the project site.'Z The LASD prioritizes emergency calls for police assistance based on the nature of the call. Unlike fire protection services, police units are most often in a mobile state; hence, the distance between a headquarters facility and the location of a particular emergency generally does not determine response times. Instead, the number of police officers on the street is more directly related to the realized response time. Construction Construction sites can attract vandalism. Due to the temporary nature of project construction and the visible location within the existing Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary, such potential impacts would not require the construction or expansion of police facilities to serve the site or maintain service response times. Also, given the same ownership and proximity to the remainder of the memorial park which has onsite staff, vandalism is not considered likely. Further, as with all of the City, the site would be monitored during routine LASD patrols. Impacts would be less than significant. Operation The project would expand an existing memorial park. As the project would not introduce new residents, the project would not result in a substantial increase in the LASD service area population such that new or physically altered police facilities would be needed to maintain performance objectives. Therefore, potential operational impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. C. No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project includes substantial employment or population growth, which could generate a demand for school facilities. As the project would not generate residents, the project would not generate a demand for school facilities that would exceed the capacity of Newhall School District schools, and therefore would not result in a need for new or improved facilities that would create in a physical impact on the environment. The project would have no impact pertaining to schools. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. d. No Impact. A significant impact would occur if the recreation and park services available could not accommodate a project -related population increase and the proposed project resulted in the construction of new recreation and park facilities that create significant environmental impacts. As the project would not introduce a new residential population, the project would not result in an increase in park usage, and no new or physically expanded park facilities would be needed. Therefore, the project would have no impact pertaining to park and recreation facilities. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. e. No Impact. A significant impact could occur if the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with other physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities that would create significant environmental impacts. As the project consists of an expansion of an existing memorial park and would not increase visitors or staff, the project would not 72 Tracey Jue, Director, Facilities Planning Bureau, Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department, Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration: Eternal Valley Memorial Park Expansion Project Review Comments (Master Case 20-231), June 2022. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 68 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION generate a volume of demand on existing library services or other public services that would necessitate the construction of new or physically expanded facilities. No project impact would occur. Mitization Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 69 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XVL RECREATION. a. Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or ❑ ❑ ❑ require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Impact Analysis a. No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project includes substantial employment or population growth, which would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. The City provides numerous recreational facilities within the area for a variety of recreation opportunities. The proposed project would not add any residential units and expand an existing memorial park. No change in population would occur. Therefore, the project would not result in a substantial increase in park usage such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Therefore, the project would have no impact pertaining to park and recreation facilities. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b. No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project includes the construction or expansion of park facilities and such construction would have a significant adverse effect on the environment. As discussed in Section XVI.a., the project would not introduce a new residential population, the project would not result in an increase in park usage or recreational facilities usage. The project would not require the construction or physical expansion of existing recreational facilities and therefore, the project would have no impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Eternal Valley Expansion Project City of Santa Clarita Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 70 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XVIL TRANSPORTATION. Would the project: a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or ❑ ❑ ❑ policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent ❑ ❑ ® ❑ with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? c. Substantially increase hazards to a geometric ❑ ❑ ❑ design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d. Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ Impact Analysis The City Local Guidelines and Procedures for Implementation of the Provisions of CEQA contain thresholds related to Level of Service (LOS), however subsequent legislation has removed LOS and similar measurements of vehicular roadway capacity and traffic congestion as the basis for determining significant traffic impacts under CEQA, as discussed below, under threshold XVILb. The following incorporates information from Traffic Memorandum for the project, prepared by Clark and Green Associates, included as Appendix K, Traffic Memorandum.7' As discussed in the memo, memorial parks or cemeteries are very low traffic generators in general. The expansion of a memorial park does not increase traffic, but visitations shift from older areas to newer areas over time. The project related trips would be less than the 250 daily project trips, the City screening threshold for required analysis of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts, and therefore a VMT study would not be required. a. No Impact. A significant impact may occur if the project would conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The project construction would be temporary and would not affect overall pedestrian and roadway area access. Project operations would not increase the number of employees or visitors and would therefore not generate substantial additional vehicle trips. No conflicts would occur with regard to a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system; and no project impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b. Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Section 15064.3 subdivision (b). Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) was enacted in September 2013 changing the way transportation impact analysis is conducted under CEQA. These changes include the elimination of auto delay, LOS, and similar measurements of vehicular roadway capacity and traffic congestion as the basis for determining significant traffic impacts under CEQA. In accordance with the Governor's Office of Planning and Research revisions to the CEQA statute and Guidelines, a lead agency must comply by July 1, 2020, but may elect to be governed by the VMT guidelines immediately. 73 Clark & Green Associates, Eternal Valley Memorial Park Traffic Review, August 23, 2021. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 71 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION While the use of VMT to determine impacts would replace the analysis of LOS for CEQA purposes (including the determination of significance), agencies may continue to use LOS for other purposes. Construction Vehicle Trips The phases of the construction process —grading, trenching, vertical construction, paving, and architectural coating — are expected to last approximately a year and a quarter. During this process, work crew vehicles, and delivery trucks would enter and exit the site from public roadways. The project site and adjacent areas within the memorial park have sufficient space for temporary construction crew parking and equipment staging to take place during all phases of construction, thereby minimizing the interference of construction vehicles with existing vehicle circulation. The project would comply with applicable construction traffic control requirements, thereby reducing temporary construction -related traffic impacts to less than significant. Operational Vehicle Trips The project would not increase the number of employees or visitors and therefore would not generate substantial additional trips or VMT. As such, operational traffic impacts would be less than significant with respect to VMT. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. C. No Impact. A significant impact may occur if the project would substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). The project would not modify access to the memorial park and would not increase hazards or introduce incompatible uses. The project would not affect design of any public roadways or introduce incompatible uses. The project's private internal loop road would not have hazardous design features. In addition, the project would not create or alter any driveways to the offsite street network. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. d. No Impact. A significant impact may occur if the project would result in inadequate emergency access Sierra Highway, which is a public roadway that has two lanes in each direction and a median, provides access to the existing memorial park and the project site. The project would not increase the number of employees or visitors and would not generate substantial additional vehicle trips. The project would not inhibit any emergency access routes as it would be fully contained on the existing parcel. The project would construct an internal loop road for the project site within the overall memorial park, would not require or build or alter any new public roads, access roads, or parking lots. The project design would be subject to requirements and approval of the City. Therefore, the project would have no impact with regard to emergency access. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 72 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XVIIL TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California ❑ ❑ ❑ Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in ❑ ® ❑ ❑ its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision "c" of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision "c" of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Impact Analysis The following analysis is based on the Phase I Archaeological Resources Assessment of the project site prepared by ArcheoPaleo Resource Management, Inc. that included a record search from the California NAHC (Appendix E). The City has received a request from the Femandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians for Tribal Consultation under AB-52. a. No Impact. A significant impact would occur if a project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in PRC Section 21074 listed, or eligible for listing, in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources. As discussed in Section V.a, in Cultural Resources, the site is improved and does not contain historical resources. The Phase I Archaeological Resources Assessment involved a SCCIC record search of the subject property plus a 0.25-mile radius surrounding the subject property (combined, the "study area"). The results of the SCCIC record search found a previously identified historic structure (P-19-186861) and two cultural resource reports (LA-02317 and LA-03829) within the study area. The historic structure is outside the project site and would not be affected by the project, did not find any cultural resources within the project site. No additional cultural resource reports dealt with the development footprint. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in PRC section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 73 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION tribe, and that listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in the PRC, and no impact would occur. A total of four (4) responses were received from the tribes, individuals, and organizations contacted by ArchaeoPaleo Resource Management, Inc. from the Native American Contact List that was provided by the NAHC, due to the proximate nature of two Native American villages nearby. The City has received a request for tribal consultation from the Femandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact would occur if a project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in PRC Section 21074 determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant, with the agency taking into consideration the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. As described above in Section V., Cultural Resources, a less than significant impact would occur to a tribal cultural resource defined in the PRC has been proposed or would occur. Section V. includes mitigation measures for archaeological monitoring, which includes Native American monitoring, and the inadvertent discovery of human remains, which would include Native American human remains. With mitigation, project impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: MM CUL-1, which includes Native American monitoring MM CUL-2, which addresses the inadvertent discovery of human remains, shall apply (see Section V). No additional mitigation measures are required. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 74 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a. Require or result in the relocation or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? c. 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? d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local ❑ ❑ ® ❑ standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e. Comply with federal, State, and local ❑ ❑ ® ❑ management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Impact Analysis a. Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. The project would generate water, wastewater, and stormwater typical of turf landscaped areas in compliance with applicable federal, State, and local laws, statutes, and ordinances. As infill development on a site currently served with existing public utilities infrastructure, the project would not result in the relocation or substantial expansion of that infrastructure. See Section XIX.b. for an analysis of water supply and XIX.c. for an analysis of wastewater capacity. The project would not require addition of offsite water lines (only minor onsite extensions from the existing memorial park for landscape irrigation) or any additional wastewater infrastructure. The project would generate a marginal increase in demand for electric power facilities and no increase in natural gas or telecommunications facilities, and as such the project would have a less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Eternal Valley Expansion Project City of Santa Clarita Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 75 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION b. Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur if the project did not have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. The Newhall Water Division of the Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency (SCV Water) currently serves as the potable water purveyor to the project vicinity and would provide potable water to the project. SCV Water was created in 2018 through a merger of the Castaic Lake Water Agency, Newhall County Water Districts, and Valencia Water Company. According to its 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), SCV Water has sufficient water supplies available for normal year water demands, as well as for dry and multiple dry years through the Year 2050 with existing supply, conjunctive use (coordinated use of surface water and groundwater), water conservation, water transfers, recycled water, and water banking.74 Water supplies for 2050 for multiple dry years are projected by the UWMP to be 128,715 acre-feet per year (AFY) and demand with passive and active conservation is estimated at 102,870 AFY. The project would construct and operate approximately 15 acres of memorial park space. The project would require irrigation, which would use 19,091,257 gallons per year or 70.4 AFY, according to the project Irrigation Water Use Plan.75 This amount of water use would equal 0.3% of projected surplus supply in 2050, assuming multiple dry years. There would not be an increase in inhabited building square footage and there would be no increase in the number of employees or net number of visitors and therefore no increase in water demand from plumbing fixtures. The proposed project would not construct inhabited buildings and would therefore not install water fixtures such as toilets, sinks, and showers. Based on the availability of water supplies indicated in the UWMP, SCV Water would have sufficient water supply to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development accounted for in the UWMP. The project would have a less than significant impact. Mitization Measures: No mitigation measures are required. C. Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur if a project would result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it does not have adequate capacity to serve a project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. The Los Angeles County Sanitation District currently serves the wastewater needs of project site and would serve the project. Wastewater generated from the project site would be conveyed to the Valencia Water Reclamation Plant.76 Currently, the Valencia Water Reclamation Plant treats an average of 15.7 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater with the capacity to treat 21.6 mgd, and therefore has excess capacity of approximately 5.9 mgd.77 Existing sewer infrastructure would serve the project site. As the project would not increase inhabited building square footage, there would be no increase in the number of plumbing fixtures. There would also be no increase in employees or visitors. There would therefore be no substantial increase in water demand. Impacts would be less than significant. 74 SCV Water, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan for Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency — Volume 1 Final, June 2021. 75 Clark & Green Associates, Irrigation Water Use Plan, February 11, 2022. 76 Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, Facilities, Valencia Water Reclamation Plant, Accessed January 24, 2022, at https:// www.app.lacsd.org/facilities/?tab=2&number=9. 77 City of Santa Clarita, One Valley One Vision Draft Program EIR: City of Santa Clarita, Section 3.17: Utilities and Infrastructure, September 2010, Accessed on January 27, 2022, at: https:Hfilecenter.santa-clarita.com/EIR/OVOV/Draft/3-17— UtilitiesInfra091410.pdf Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 76 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. d. Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to increase solid waste generation to such a degree that the existing and projected landfill capacity would be insufficient to accommodate the additional solid waste. Solid waste generated within the City is recycled, reused, and transformed at waste -to -energy facilities or disposed of at landfills. The Chiquita Canyon Landfill would serve the proposed project site and is managed by Waste Connections. The landfill has a remaining capacity of 56,864,241 tons or 53,645,510 cubic yards as of December 31, 2019 and is scheduled to operate until July 25, 2047, unless its capacity is reached earlier. The Chiquita Canyon Landfill accepts municipal solid waste, green waste, construction and demolition debris, clean dirt, and e-waste (for recycling).71 Construction The project would not demolish any buildings or paved surfaces as there are none on the site, and therefore would not generate demolition waste. The project would require construction waste diversion of at least 65 percent, in accordance with the California Green Building Standards Code (Section 5.408). Total construction waste disposal from the project, 5.14 tons, would be disposed over 302 days total79 or approximately 0.02 tons per day (tpd) of waste, which represents less than one percent (0.0003 percent) of the 5,525 tpd of permitted capacity for waste daily disposal capacity at Chiquita Canyon Landfill,80 and the impact would be short-term. Construction waste generation would be short-term and would not exceed the daily permitted capacity of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill resulting in a less than significant impact. Operations Future employees of the proposed memorial park expansion would generate solid waste typical of memorial park uses. Collection of solid waste would be provided by Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc., which is the existing provider for the memorial park. As the project would not increase inhabited building square footage, there would be no increase in the number of employees or visitors and no increase in landfill capacity demand. Therefore, operational solid waste impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. e. Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project would generate solid waste not disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. The project would generate solid waste typical of memorial park uses and would comply with applicable federal, State, and local laws, statutes, and ordinances regarding the proper disposal of solid waste. Appropriate disposal of potentially hazardous materials from construction is required, as discussed in Section IX, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 78 Waste Connections, Chiquita Canyon, Using Chiquita, Accessed on January 24, 2022 at: https:Hchiquitacanyon.com/using- chiquita/. 79 Roughly: 261 days building construction, 10 days paving, 31 days architectural coating. 80 Los Angeles County Public Works, Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan: 2019 Annual Report, September 2020. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 77 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XX. WILDFIRE. If located in or near State responsibility areas or land 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 factor, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c. Require the installation 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? Impact Analysis Wildfires are of particular concern in areas designated as a VHFHSZ. As shown on the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's map, the project site is located within land classified as a VHFHSZ.81 a. Less than Significant Impact. The project may have a significant impact if it would substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The project would expand an existing memorial park. While the project is within land classified as a VHFHSZ, the site project would be surrounded on three sides by existing and planned development: the existing portion of the memorial park to the east, the Needham Ranch industrial park to the west, and the future Los Angeles County Fire station to the south. The project site and surrounding vicinity would be served by existing vehicular ingress and egress routes to State Route 14 (the Antelope Valley Freeway) and Interstate 5 (the Golden State Freeway). The Safety Element of the City General Plan designates these roadways as evacuation routes.82 Similar to the existing memorial park, the proposed expansion of the memorial park would not permanently alter vehicular circulation routes or impair public access upon public rights -of -way, including access to and from the evacuation routes. The memorial park has sufficient space for temporary construction crew parking and equipment staging to take place in and around the project site within the memorial park during all phases of construction, thereby minimizing the interference of construction vehicles with existing vehicle 81 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA as Recommended by CAL FIRE: Santa Clarita, September 2011. Accessed on January 21, 2022 at https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5842/santa_ clarita.pdf 82 City of Santa Clarita, City of Santa Clarita General Plan Safety Element, June 2011. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 78 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION circulation. Therefore, neither project construction nor operations would physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b. Less than Significant Impact. The project may have a significant impact if, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, the project would exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. The project site has an average slope of greater than fifteen percent, is downslope of naturally vegetated hillsides, and is located in a VHFHSZ. The site is within the Wildland Urban Interface. The project is subject to a HDR (Class IV) Permit (HDR), which is required because the project site has an average slope of greater than fifteen percent and because the project would cut and fill more than 1,500 cubic yards of earth83 on a natural slope greater than ten percent average. The proposed expansion area would be irrigated, once developed, and all landscaping would be required to comply. The proposed mausoleum building would meet all the latest fire code requirements. In addition to meeting fire code requirements, existing LACoFD fire stations in the vicinity would serve the proposed project. LACoFD Fire Station No. 73, located at 24875 North Railroad Avenue is the nearest existing fire station the project site,84 approximately 2.4 driving miles to the northwest. In addition, a new fire station is planned adjacent to the project site. Although the project site is within a VHFHSZ, it would be compliant with the Fire Code and is proximate to multiple LACoFD Stations and the memorial park and nearby urban uses have existing water and fire hydrant infrastructure, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. C. No Impact. A project may have a significant impact if it would require the installation of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. The project is essentially infill development (given development on three sides) and would be surrounded on three sides by existing and planned development and would be an expansion of an existing land use served by existing roads, emergency water sources, power lines, and utilities. Therefore, the project would not result in the installation of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment, and the project would have no impact. Mitimation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. d. Less than Significant Impact. A project may have a significant impact if it would 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. The project site has an average cross -slope of greater than fifteen percent and is immediately downslope from naturally vegetated hillsides, but is not located in a designated flood risk zone.85 As indicated in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, stormwater runoff generated by the proposed project would adhere to LID requirements which reduce drainage across the site and would follow existing drainage patterns, with the majority of runoff flowing into the existing storm drain inlet on Sierra Highway. The urban project location and compliance with applicable regulatory requirements would not expose people or 83 As noted in the Project Description, project grading would cut and fill a total of 192,900 cubic yards of earth, including mass excavation and fill, over- excavation, and shrinkage, which would be balanced on site. 84 Los Angeles County Fire Department, Search Results. Accessed on January 20, 2022 at: https://locator.lacounty.gov/fire/ Search?find=&neat=23287+Sierra+Hwy%2C+Newhall%2C+CA%2C+91321 &cat=&tag=&loc=&lat=34.361375037355934& Ion=-L 85 City of Santa Clarita, City of Santa Clarita General Plan, Safety Element, Figure S-4: Surface Water. June, 2011. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 79 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION structures to significant downslope or downstream flooding or landslide risks resulting from runoff, post - fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 80 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a. Does the project have the potential to ❑ ® ❑ ❑ substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are ❑ ❑ ® ❑ individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). C. Does the project have environmental effects that ❑ ❑ ® ❑ cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Impact Analysis a. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact could occur if a project would significantly degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The project site is in an urbanized area surrounded by surrounded on three sides by existing and planned development, including streets and utilities and public service infrastructure. The project is an expansion of the existing cemetery land use and the site has existing or planned development on three sides. As discussed in Section IV., Biological Resources, the project's impacts to these resources would be reduced to than significant with mitigation (MM 13I0-1 through MM 13I0-4). Similarly, as discussed in Section V., Cultural Resources, project impacts to these resources would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation (MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-2). Therefore, the project would not significantly degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory and impacts would be less than significant. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 81 June 2022 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mitization Measures: MM 13I0-1 through MM 13I0-4, MM CUL-1, and MM CUL-2 are required, as discussed in Section IV and Section V. b. Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the impacts of the proposed project, in conjunction with the impacts of related projects, would result in impacts that are less than significant when viewed separately but significant when viewed together. As discussed throughout this document, with mitigation none of the project's impacts would be considered significant. However, none of the issues evaluated are at a currently known cumulative impact level high enough where even a small contribution from a project could result in a cumulatively significant impact. Therefore, the proposed project's contribution would not be cumulatively considerable and would not significantly add or create a significant cumulative impact. Mitization Measures: No mitigation measures are required. C. Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the proposed project has the potential to result in significant impacts to humans either directly or indirectly. As all impacts to humans would be less than significant with regulatory compliance, no substantial adverse impacts on human beings, either directly or indirectly, would occur and impacts would be less than significant. Mitization Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 82 June 2022 5.0 REFERENCES 5.0 REFERENCES Arborgate Consulting Inc., Eternal Valley Memorial Park Expansion Oaks Revised Report, April 1, 2022 ArcheoPaleo Resource Management, Inc., Phase I Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary, City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California, March 2022. County of Los Angeles, Airport Land Use Commission, Airports and Airport Influence Areas, August 18, 2018. California Air Resources Board, "Air Quality Data Statistics," http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/. 2020. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, Health Effects. Accessed at: http://www.capcoa. org/health-effects/, on March 29, 2022, quoted in Impact Sciences, Eternal Valley Project, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report, March 2022. California Air Resources Board. May 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available online at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aags2.pdf, accessed September 20, 2021. California Code of Regulations, Section 2485, Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel -Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling. California, Cemetery and Funeral Bureau, California Code of Regulations Title 26, Division 23: Funeral Regulations, March 1, 2016, Accessed on April 13 at https://www.cfb.ca.gov/laws_regs/ ccr funeral_regs.pdf California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Los Angeles County Important Farmland 2018, Sheet 1 of 2, Accessed on January 20, 2022 at https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/f nmp/Pages/LosAngeles.aspx. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 143, Part V, Plate 5-7, Mineral Land Classification Map: Aggregate Resource Only, 1984. California Department of Conservation, Earthquake Hazards Zone Application (EQ Zapp), Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, Accessed January 25, 2022 at https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geohazards/eq-zapp. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA as Recommended by CAL FIRE: Santa Clarita, September 2011. Accessed on January 21, 2022 at https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5 842/santa_clarita.pdf. California Department of Substances Control, Envirostor. Accessed on January 24, 2022, https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/. California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Protocol. September 2013. California Energy Commission, California Gasoline Data, Facts, and Statistics, Accessed March 7, 2021 at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/transportation-energy/califomia- gasoline-data-facts-and-statistics. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 83 June 2022 5.0 REFERENCES California Energy Commission, Diesel Fuel Data, Facts, and Statistics, Accessed March 7, 2020 at: https: //www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/transportation-energy/diesel-fuel-data- facts-and-statistics#: :text=Diesel%20fuel%20is%20the%20second,including%20offroad%20 diesel%2C%20was%20sold. California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by County, Los Angeles County in 2020, Accessed on March 25, 2022 at: https:Hecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx. California Energy Commission, Gas Consumption by County, Los Angeles County in 2020, Accessed on March 25, 2022 at: https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx. Caltrans, List of Eligible and Officially Designated State Scenic Highways, Accessed on January 25, 2022 at https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/desig-and-eligible- aug2019_al ly.xlsx. City of Santa Clarita, City of Santa Clarita General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, June 2011. City of Santa Clarita, City of Santa Clarita General Plan Land Use Element, adopted June 2011. City of Santa Clarita, City of Santa Clarita General Plan Land Use Map, last updated December 2018. Accessed on January 26, 2022 at https://www.santa- clarita.com/home/showpublisheddocument/ 16338/636803150023030000. City of Santa Clarita, City of Santa Clarita General Plan Safety Element Figure S-3: Seismic Hazards, accessed on February 8, 2022 at: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaClan*ta/html/ SantaClaritaGP/7 %20-%20 Safety%20Element.pdf. City of Santa Clarita, City of Santa Clarita General Plan Safety Element, Figure S-4: Surface Water, accessed on February 8, 2022 at: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaClan*ta/html/ SantaClaritaGP/7%20-%20 Safety%20Element.pdf. City of Santa Clarita, City of Santa Clarita General Plan Safety Element, June 2011. City of Santa Clarita, City of Santa Clarita Mapping Portal. Accessed May 10, 2022, at https://maps.santa- clarita.com/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4b3 cfb271314475 db6518999b4747876. City of Santa Clarita, Municipal Code, Chapter 17.95: Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan Implementation, accessed on February 8, 2022 at: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/ SantaClarita/html/SantaClan*tal7/SantaClan*tal795.html. City of Santa Clarita, Santa Clarita Municipal Code, Title 17: Zoning Information, Chapter 17.36: Open Space Zones, Section 17.36.010 Open Space (OS) Zone, code last amended June 22, 2021, accessed on January 27, 2022 at https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaClarita/html/SantaClan*tal7/ SantaClarita 173 6. html417. 3 6. City of Santa Clarita, Santa Clarita Municipal Code, Title 17, Chapter 51, Article 40, Oak Tree Preservation. City of Santa Clarita, One Valley One Vision Draft Program EIR: City of Santa Clarita, Section 3.17: Utilities and Infrastructure, September 2010, Accessed on January 27, 2022, at: https: //filecenter. santa-clan*ta.com/EIR/OV OV/Draft/3_ 17_UtilitiesInfra09 l4 l O.pdf. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 84 June 2022 5.0 REFERENCES City of Santa Clarita, Mapping Your City, Accessed on February 2, 2021 at https://www.santa- clarita.com/myc. CJ Biomonitoring, Eternal Valley Cemetery Biological Assessment Report, November 7, 2020. CJ Biomonitoring, Eternal Valley Cemetery Biological Assessment Biological Inventory for Extended Grading Area June 23, 2021. Clark & Green Associates, Eternal Valley Memorial Park Traffic Review, August 23, 2021. Clark & Green Associates, Irrigation Water Use Plan, February 11, 2022. Clark & Green Associates, Preliminary Landscape Plan, September 30, 2021. Envicom Corporation, Fuel Consumption by Construction Phase Worksheet, 2022. Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September 2018. Geotechnical Soilutions, Inc., Geology, Geotechnical & Geological Investigation for Proposed Lawn Burial Areas, West and Southeast Of Memorial Park (Known as Areas 6 W/ Loop Road & 7) Eternal Valley Memorial Park Santa Clarita California, July 26, 2001. Hunsaker & Associates, Inc., Eternal Valley Memorial Park: Existing Drainage Exhibit and Proposed Drainage Exhibit, September 7, 2021. Impact Sciences, Eternal Valley Project, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report, March 2022. Impact Sciences, Eternal Valley Project, Noise and Vibration Technical Report, March 2022. John R. Byerly Incorporated, Soils Investigation, October 14, 2019. Los Angeles County Fire Department, Search Results. Accessed on January 20, 2022 at: https: //Iocator.lacounty.gov/fire/Search?find=&near=23287+Sierra+Hwy%2C+Newhall%2C+CA %2C+91321 &cat=&tag=&loc=&lat=34.361375037355934&lon=-1. Los Angeles County Public Works, Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan: 2019 Annual Report, September 2020. Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, Facilities, Valencia Water Reclamation Plant, Accessed January 24, 2022, at https://www.app.lacsd.org/facilities/?tab=2&number--9. SCV Water, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan for Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency — Volume 1 Final, June 2021. South Coast Air Quality Management District, https://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/air- quality/historical-data-by-year/ag2020card_frnal.pdf? sfvrsn=4. South Coast Association of Governments, 2020 RTP/SCS, Current Context: Demographics & Growth Forecast Appendix, Table 14, Jurisdictional -Level Growth Forecast, September 3, 2020. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 85 June 2022 5.0 REFERENCES Southern California Edison, Pathway 2045: Update to the Clean Power and Electrification Pathway, November 2045. State Water Resources Control Board, GeoTracker. Accessed on January 24, 2022, at https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. Tracey Jue, Director, Facilities Planning Bureau, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration: Eternal Valley Memorial Park Expansion Project Review Comments (Master Case 20-231), June 2022. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Environment Carbon Dioxide Emissions Coefficients, February 2, 2016. USFWS National Wetlands Mapper — Accessed on February 18, 2020 at https://www.fivs.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.HTML. Waste Connections, Chiquita Canyon, Using Chiquita, Accessed on January 24, 2022 at: https:Hchiquitacanyon.com/using-chiquita/. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 86 June 2022 6.0 PREPARERS 6.0 PREPARERS Lead Azency City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department 23920 W. Valencia Blvd. Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Contact: Mr. Andy Olson, Associate Planner (661) 255-4330 Applicant Team Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary 23287 Sierra Hwy, Newhall, CA 91321 CEOA Consultants Envicom Corporation 4165 E. Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Suite 290 Westlake Village, CA 91362 Contact: Daniel Kaufman, Environmental Planner Tel: (818) 879-4700 Email: dkauffnan@envicomcorporation.com Contributing Staff: Mr. Daniel Kaufman, Project Manager for the IS/MND Ms. Laura Kaufman, Vice President, Environmental Services Dr. Wayne Bischoff, Director of Cultural Resources Mr. James Anderson, Senior Biologist Mr. Charles Cohn, Senior Project Manager Mr. Chris Boyte, Manager, Graphics/GIS Manager Ms. Renee Mauro, Office Manager Ms. Cathy Hook, Administrative Associate Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 87 June 2022 7.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 7.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Following distribution of the draft Notice of Intent and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the project, two comment letters were received on the IS/MND. The comment letters are shown on the following pages and the responses are provided below. COMMENT LETTER NO. 1— Tracey Jue, Director, Facilities Planning Bureau, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department Response to Letter No. 1 The comment letter states that "visitors and daytime population will increase contrary to what is stated in the NOUMND." However, as discussed in Chapter 4, Section XVII, Transportation of the IS/MND, expansions of memorial parks do not increase visitors, because visitation of older areas of a memorial park decreases over time, resulting in a net balance of visitors, as visitation shifts from older to newer areas. Nonetheless, the comment goes on to state that the project "may not substantially" affect service demand or response times and expresses agreement with the corresponding assessment in the IS/MND. The comment letter states that the location of the nearest police station should be updated to 26201 Golden Valley Road, which is five (5) driving miles from the project, as this station is now operational. Chapter 4, Section XV, Public Services of the Final MND will be updated accordingly. Recommendations that the project applicant and its contractors coordinate with the Sheriffs Department regarding road safety during construction of the project are included in the comment letter. Coordination with state and local agencies for haul routes and construction and demolition waste disposal is also recommended. The comment further recommends security measures such as fencing and security lighting where appropriate during construction. The project applicant and its contractors would coordinate with the appropriate agencies during construction of the project. Construction fencing would be in place during construction of the project and the construction contractor would implement appropriate nighttime security measures. The letter states the site should have a secondary emergency vehicle access, with a Knox box. A 36-foot minimum width for the proposed loop road is recommended by the letter to allow parking on both sides without obstructing vehicle flow. The project as proposed already includes a secondary emergency access from Needham Ranch Parkway that would be used by emergency vehicles and would have a Knox box. The proposed minimum loop road width is approximately 28 feet, which is similar to the existing memorial park roads. The City finds this width is sufficient, as the memorial park does not have a history of emergency issues with its existing facility, and accordingly these issues would not be anticipated in the expansion area. hi addition, the proposed project site plan will be reviewed by the Los Angeles County Fire Department, which will require sufficient emergency access for approval. Based on the above analysis, no changes to the IS/MND are required. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 88 June 2022 14 (O-F�-,C F THE ISHERIFF COUNTY OF Los t1�TGELES or J�vs K. CL "�F ALEXVILLANUEVi1, SIIERIFF June 7, 2022 Andrew Olson, Associate Planner City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, California 91355 Dear Mr. Olson: NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECr,ARa'i'TON ETERNAL VALLEY MEMORIAL PADS EXPANSION PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS (MASTER CASE 20-231) Thank you for inviting the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department (Department) to review and comment on the May 2022 Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (NOI/MND) for the Eternal Valley Memorial Park Expansion Project (Project). The proposed 13.6-acre memorial park expansion Project is located on an existing 54.12-acre Eternal. Valley Memorial Park (Park), at 23287 Sierra Highway in the City of Santa Clarita. The proposed Project involves the improvement and expansion of the cemetery grounds, including a new loop road, landscaping, as well as burial plots. In addition, the proposed Project would also construct a new 3,665 square -foot mausoleum, with a capacity of 780 caskets, including a 260 square -foot room, with niches for urns, at the top of the existing cemetery. The Project would cut and fill approximately 92,600 cubic yards of earth to be balanced on site and would also remove and recompact 100,300 cubic yards of earth for remedial grading. The proposed Project is located within the service area of the Department's Santa Clarita Valley Sheriffs Station (Station). Per XV Public Services Section (b) for Police Protection of the May 2022 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) on page 68 regarding the Station's location shall be updated. The new Station, located at 26201 Golden Valley Road in Santa 211'NYEST TEMPLE STREET, Los ANGIrLEs, CALITORNIA 90012 Jtaf-A&H 0/1, geiVke — .%flap mv — Mr. Olson - 2 - June 7, 2022 Clarita, is now fully operational. The proposed Project is now approximately five (5) driving miles from the Station. Although the proposed Project may not result in a significant impact related to population and housing, the proposed visitors and daytime population will increase contrary to what is stated in the NOI/MND. The various improvements included in the Park's proposed expansion may not substantially increase calls for law enforcement services or affect response times. The Station generally concurs with this assessment because the proposed Project would have uses consistent with the existing Park. The Department recommends the Project Applicant, and its contractors notify and coordinate with our Station for proposed closures, modifications, and detours to ensure public safety and safe passage of emergency services are maintained and/or Tninimied to avoid the potential delay in response times, which may occur. The Station also recommends the Project Applicant, and its contractors coordinate with state and local jurisdictional agencies for, but not limited to compliance and permitting regarding construction vehicle haul routes, truck trips and proper disposal of construction related materials. In addition, the Station recommends additional mitigation measures be implemented including installation of temporary construction fencing with screen attachments and low-level security lighting at areas where construction vehicles, trucks, and equipment are expected to be stored at the Project site to deter potential vandalism, misuse of vehicles, illegal activities, and theft, where appropriate. The Station is concerned that a secondary access for emergency vehicles is not included in this proposed Project. The Station recommends creating a secondary access to the Project site for emergency services, with access granted through an emergency Knox box. Moreover, the proposed new loop road within the Project should have a minimum width of at least 36'-0" wide to accommodate parked cars on both sides to permit the unobstructed flow of vehicles. Also, for future reference, the Department provides the following updated address and contact information for all requests for review comments, law enforcement service information, California Environmental Quality Act documents and other related correspondence: Mr. Olson - 3 - June 7, 2022 Tracey Jue, Director Facilities Planning Bureau Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department 211 West Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012 Attention: Planning Section Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me, at (323) 526-5657, or your staff may contact Ms. Rochelle Campomanes, of my staff, at (323) 526-5614. Sincerely, ALEX VILLANCTEVA, SHERIFF V U-- Tracey Jue, Director Facilities Planning Bureau 7.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS COMMENT LETTER NO. 2 — Ronald M. Durbin, Chief, Forestry Division, Prevention Services Bureau, Los Angeles County Fire Department Response to Letter No. 2 The letter states that the NOI/MND was reviewed by the Planning Division, Land Development Unit, Forestry Division, and Health Hazardous Materials Division of the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The Planning Division stated that they have no comments. The Land Development Unit stated that they have no additional comments, and their previous comments were addressed in the Conditions of Approval for MC 20-231. They also state that the project must "comply with all applicable code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows and fire hydrants." The letter goes on to state that construction fire and safety requirements will be addressed by the Fire Department during building plan check review, at which time they may have additional requirements. Based on the lack of mention of further environmental concerns, it is assumed the plan check requirements would be minor design requirements that do not rise to the level of comments or revisions to the IS/MND. Also discussed is the requirement that the project submit a Fuel Modification Plan to the Fuel Modification Unit before a building permit can be issued. The project will submit a Fuel Modification Plan before the proposed mausoleum can receive a building permit. No changes to the IS/MND are required. The Forestry Division notes that the subject property is within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone, and thus is subject to applicable code and ordinance requirements for fuel modification. As discussed previously within this response, the project will submit a Fuel Modification Plan before the proposed mausoleum can receive a building permit. The Forestry Division states that potential impacts in the areas of erosion control, watershed management, rare and endangered species, brush clearance, vegetation management, fuel modification for Fire Hazard Severity Zones, archeological and cultural resources, and the County Oak Tree Ordinance should be addressed. The IS/MND evaluated these issues and found the project would have less than significant impacts in the areas of erosion control and watershed management, as discussed in Chapter 4, Section VII, Geology and Soils and Chapter 4, Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality. The project would have less than significant impacts with mitigation in the area of rare and endangered species, as discussed in Chapter 4, Section IV, Biology, and in the area of archaeological and cultural resources, as discussed in Chapter 4, Section V, Cultural Resources and Chapter 4, Section XVIII, Tribal Cultural Resources. Brush clearance, vegetation management, and fuel modification will be addressed in the Fuel Modification Plan that will be required before the proposed mausoleum can receive a building permit. The County Oak Tree Ordinance is not applicable, as the project is within the City of Santa Clarita. As discussed in Chapter 4, Section IV, Biology, no oak trees would be removed by the project, which would comply with the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance and install protective fencing during construction. As discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, the project would require an Oak Tree Permit (Class 11) as an entitlement. Project impacts to oak trees would be less than significant. No changes to the IS/MND are required. The Health Hazardous Materials Division stated that they have no comments or requirements for the project. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 92 June 2022 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT 1320 NORTH EASTERN AVENUE LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90063-3294 (323)881-2401 www.fire.lacounty.gov "Proud Protectors of Life, Property, and the Environment" DARYL L. OSBY FIRE CHIEF FORESTER & FIRE WARDEN June 10,2022 Andy Olson, AICP, Associate Planner Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mr. Olson: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HILDA L. SOLIS FIRST DISTRICT HOLLY J. MITCHELL SECOND DISTRICT SHEILA KUEHL THIRD DISTRICT JANICE HAHN FOURTH DISTRICT KATHRYNBARGER FIFTH DISTRICT NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, "ETERNAL VALLEY MEMORIAL PARK EXPANSION PROJECT" PROPOSES TO GRADE A 13.6-ACRE AREA AND DEVELOP IT AS CEMETARY GROUNDS, INCLUDING A NEW LOOP ROAD, LANDSCAPING, AS WELL AS BURIAL PLOTS, CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, FFER2022005888 The Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been reviewed by the Planning Division, Land Development Unit, Forestry Division, and Health Hazardous Materials Division of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department. The following are their comments: PLANNING DIVISION: We have no comments. For any questions regarding this response, please contact Kien Chin, Planning Analyst, at (323) 881-2404 or Kien.China_fire.lacounty.gov. SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF AGOURA HILLS CARSON EL MONTE INGLEWOOD LAWNDALE PICO RIVERA SIGNAL HILL ARTESIA CERRITOS GARDENA IRWINDALE LOMITA POMONA SOUTH EL MONTE AZUSA CLAREMONT GLENDORA LA CANADA-FLINTRIDGE LYNWOOD RANCHO PALOS VERDES SOUTH GATE BALDWIN PARK COMMERCE HAWAIIAN GARDENS LA HABRA MALIBU ROLLING HILLS TEMPLE CITY BELL COVINA HAWTHORNE LA MIRADA MAYWOOD ROLLING HILLS ESTATES VERNON BELL GARDENS CUDAHY HERMOSA BEACH LA PUENTE NORWALK ROSEMEAD WALNUT BELLFLOWER DIAMOND BAR HIDDEN HILLS LAKEWOOD PALMDALE SAN DIMAS WEST HOLLYWOOD BRADBURY DUARTE HUNTINGTON PARK LANCASTER PALOS VERDES ESTATES SANTA CLARITA WESTLAKE VILLAGE CALABASAS INDUSTRY PARAMOUNT WHITTIER Andy Olson, AICP Associate Planner June 10, 2022 Page 2 LAND DEVELOPMENT UNIT: The Land Development Unit has no additional comments regarding this project at this time. The comments were addressed in the Conditions of Approval with the review MC 20-231 have not changed and are still applicable to this project. The development of this project must comply with all applicable code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows and fire hydrants. Specific fire and life safety requirements for the construction phase will be addressed at the Fire Department building plan check review. There may be additional fire and life safety requirements during this time. 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 building permit issuance. 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.lacounty.gov/forestry-division/forestry-fuel- modification The Land Development Unit appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Should any questions arise, please contact Wally Collins at (323) 890-4243 or Wally.Collins@fire.lacounty.gov. FORESTRY DIVISION — OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: This property is located in an area described by the Forester and Fire Warden as being in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The development of this project must comply with all Fire Hazard severity Zone code and ordinance requirements for fuel modification. Specific questions regarding fuel modification requirements should be directed to the Fuel Modification Office at (626) 969-2375. The statutory responsibilities of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Forestry Division include erosion control, watershed management, rare and endangered species, brush clearance, vegetation management, fuel modification for Fire Hazard Severity Zones, archeological and cultural resources, and the County Oak Tree Ordinance. Potential impacts in these areas should be addressed. For any questions regarding this response, please contact Forestry Assistant, Nicholas Alegria at (818) 890-5719. Andy Olson, AICP Associate Planner June 10, 2022 Page 3 HEALTH HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DIVISION: The Health Hazardous Materials Division of the Los Angeles County Fire Department has no comments or requirements for the project at this time. Please contact HHMD Hazardous Materials Specialist III, Jennifer Levenson at (323) 890-4114 or Jennifer. LevensonCaD-fire.lacounty.gov if you have any questions. Very truly yours, ��W- AKA,'�- - RONALD M. DURBIN, CHIEF, FORESTRY DIVISION PREVENTION SERVICES BUREAU RMD:pg 8.0 CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS 8.0 CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS Three corrections/additions were made to the draft IS/MND to complete this final IS/MND. The changes are as follows: In Section V, Cultural Resource, checklist item b., on pages 30 and 31, the text of MM CUL-1 was revised, after tribal consultation: Archaeological resources monitoring shall be conducted by an archaeological resource monitor, during project related earth -disturbing activities, per the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) standards, under the supervision of a qualified Lead Archaeologist. Monitoring will entail visual inspection of project related earth -disturbing activities (,e.g., grading, excavation, trenching, shoring, etc.) The project proponent shall retain a professional Native American Monitor procured by the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians or consulting Tribes under AB52 to observe all around -disturbing activities Anappr-ei,edN +i e n ,rer4ea me rite -(s) r A deetiffleffted , est i as that involve excavation of previously undisturbed soil. Monitoring will entail visual inspection project related earth -disturbing activities... The Lead Agencyproject proponent shall, in good faith, consult with the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians on the disposition and treatment of Tribal Cultural Resources encountered during Project implementation. In Section VII, Geology and Soils, checklist item a. iv, on page 38, typographical errors were corrected to remove text for clarity, not in response to a comment: With the incorporation of the recommendations of the Geotechnical & Geological Investigation into the project empleees andi4s4er-s wouldnet : 0 e as a result of the r ee as a part of the regulatory review process and a project feature. Therefore, impacts related to landslides would be less than significant and mitigation measures would not be required. In Section XV, Public Services, checklist item b., on page 69, the location of the nearest police station was updated in response to comments from the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department: The nearest Santa Clarita Valley Sherriff's station is located at 26201 Golden Valley Road approximately" five driving miles north of the project site.12 In addition, on Section XV, Public Services, checklist item b., on page 69, footnote "72" was added to cite the letter from the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department as the source for the location of the nearest police station. The same reference was added to page 87 within the list of references: 'Z Tracey Jue, Director, Facilities Planning Bureau, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration: Eternal Valley Memorial Park Expansion Project Review Comments (Master Case 20-231), June 2022. Additional minor typographical errors were corrected in other parts of the document, not in response to a comment. Eternal Valley Expansion Project City of Santa Clarita Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 96 June 2022 9.0 MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM 9.0 MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE ACTION REQUIRED MITIGATION TIMING MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BIO-1 Pre -Project Surveys for Special -Status Wildlife Species For each grading phase or vegetation clearance phase, prior to the Two pre -construction surveys Prior to ground or City of Santa Clarita commencement of ground or vegetation disturbing activities, for each grading phase or vegetation disturbing Community Development including but not limited to grading and fuel modification, two (2) vegetation clearance phase. If a activities, including but not Department pre -project surveys for special -status wildlife species, including special -status species is found, limited to grading and fuel the California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica), and species avoidance is preferred, but modification, for each considered locally sensitive by the City of Santa Clarita shall be relocation is acceptable with grading phase or vegetation conducted by qualified biologist(s) to detenuine the City and CDFW approval. A clearance phase. presence/absence of these species at the site. The biologist(s) shall letter report shall be submitted have the necessary handling pennits to capture, temporarily to the City. possess, and relocate wildlife. The first survey shall be conducted within fourteen (14) days and the second survey shall be conducted within three (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 concealed in 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 shall be prepared and submitted to the City and CDFW for review and approval. The species shall then be captured and transferred to appropriate habitat and location where they would not be harmed by project activities, preferably to OS 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, shall be submitted to the City and CDFW prior to commencement of project activities. MM BIO-2 Pre -Construction Nesting Bird Surveys During Nesting Bird Season For each grading phase or vegetation clearance phase, no earlier Two pre -construction surveys No earlier than 14 days City of Santa Clarita than 14 days prior to ground or vegetation disturbing activities that for each grading phase or prior to ground or Community Development would occur during the nesting/breeding season of native bird vegetation clearance phase vegetation disturbing Department species potentially nesting on the site (typically February 1 through during nesting bird season. If activities that would occur Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 97 June 2022 9.0 MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE ACTION REQUIRED MITIGATION TIMING MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY August 31), a City -approved qualified biologist shall perform two an active nest is found, activity during the nesting/breeding (2) field surveys to determine if active nests of any bird species shall stop and consult with the season of native bird protected by the State or federal Endangered Species Acts, City, and when applicable species potentially nesting Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and/or the California Fish and Game CDFW and USFWS to on the site (typically Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, or 3511 are present in the disturbance establish an appropriate February 1 through August zone or within 200 feet of the disturbance zone for songbirds or setback buffer. 31), for the first survey. within 500 feet of the disturbance zone for raptors and special- Within three days of the status bird species. The second nesting bird survey shall be start of ground or conducted within three days of the start of ground or vegetation vegetation disturbing disturbing activities. A letter report summarizing the methods and activities for the second results of the surveys shall be submitted to the City and CDFW survey. 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, and when applicable CDFW and USFWS, is conducted and an appropriate setback buffer can be established. The buffer shall be demarcated and project activities within the buffer shall be postponed or halted, at the discretion of the biologist, until the nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged, as determined by the biologist, and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting MM BIO-3 Marking of Work Area For each grading phase or vegetation clearance phase, prior to all Demarcate the northern and Prior to all ground City of Santa Clarita ground disturbing and construction activities, the Applicant shall northeastern project limits of disturbing and construction Community Development demarcate the northern and northeastern project limits of disturbance with exclusionary activities and duration of Department disturbance with exclusionary fencing to prevent encroachment of fencing. the rough grading of the project activities into adjacent native habitats and to dissuade project. wildlife from entering the construction area. The fencing shall be marked with highly visible flagging. Project personnel should stay within the designated work areas to the extent feasible. Work areas shall be marked for the duration of the rough grading of the project. Silt fencing shall be installed to ensure that no debris or dirt enters areas outside of the project area. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 98 June 2022 9.0 MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE ACTION REQUIRED MITIGATION TIMING MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY MM BIO-4 Retainer of a Biological Monitor For each vegetation clearance phase or prior to the issuance of a A qualified biologist shall be For each vegetation City of Santa Clarita grading permit for each grading phase, a qualified biologist shall retained by the Applicant as the clearance phase or prior to Community Development be retained by the Applicant as the lead biological monitor subject lead biological monitor subject the issuance of a grading Department to the approval of the City. That person shall ensure that impacts to the approval of the City. permit for each grading to all biological resources are minimized or avoided and shall That person shall ensure that phase. conduct (or supervise) pre -project field surveys and routine impacts to all biological monitoring for species that may be avoided, affected, or eliminated resources are minimized or as a result of grading or any other site preparation activities. The avoided and shall conduct (or lead biological monitor shall ensure that all surveys and supervise) pre -project field monitoring activities are performed by qualified personnel (e.g. surveys and routine avian biologists for nesting bird surveys, bat specialists for bat monitoring. surveys, etc.) and that they possess all necessary pennits and memoranda of understanding with the appropriate agencies for the handling of potentially -occurring special -status species. The lead biological monitor shall also conduct a pre -project environmental education program for all personnel working at the site, which shall be focused on conditions and protocols necessary to avoid and minimize potential impacts to biological resources. The lead biological monitor shall also ensure that daily monitoring reports (e.g., survey results, protective actions, results of protective actions, adaptive measures, etc.) are prepared, and shall make these monitoring reports available to the City and CDFW at their request. CULTURAL RESOURCES CULT-1 - Archaeological Monitoring Prior to the commencement of construction, a qualified Archaeological resources Prior to the commencement City of Santa Clarita archaeologist shall create a separate Worker's Environmental monitoring shall be conducted of construction and during Community Development Awareness Program pamphlet that will be provided as training to by an archaeological resource ground -disturbing activities Department construction personnel to understand regulatory requirements for monitor. If buried material of that involve excavation of the protection of cultural resources. This training shall include potential archaeological previously undisturbed soil. examples of cultural resources to look for and protocols to follow significant are unexpectantly if discoveries are made. The archaeologist shall develop the discovered, all work must be training and any supplemental materials necessary to execute said halted until a senior training. archaeologist can evaluate the discovery and follow the Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 99 June 2022 9.0 MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE ACTION REQUIRED MITIGATION TIMING MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY Archaeological resources monitoring shall be conducted by an appropriate discovery protocol. archaeological resource monitor, during project related earth - disturbing activities, per the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) standards, under the supervision of a qualified Lead Archaeologist. Monitoring will entail visual inspection of project related earth -disturbing activities (,e.g., grading, excavation, trenching, shoring, etc.) The project proponent shall retain a professional Native American Monitor procured by the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians or consulting Tribes under AB52 to observe all ground - disturbing activities that involve excavation of previously undisturbed soil. Monitoring will entail visual inspection project related earth -disturbing activities. If an archaeological resource is encountered during construction when a monitor is not on site, all construction shall cease within at least 50 feet of the discovery and the Principal Investigator and Lead Archaeologist must be notified. Work cannot resume in the direct area of the discovery until the it is assessed by the Principal Investigator and/or Lead Archaeologist and indicates that construction can resume. If an archaeological discovery cannot be preserved in situ and requires an excavation team or requires additional time to collect cultural resources, a Discovery and Treatment Plan (DTP) will be developed and the area will be cordoned off and secured so that an archaeological resources excavation team, led by the Principal Investigator and Lead Archaeologist, may recover the cultural resources out of that contained area. Once the Principal Investigator has determined that the collection process is complete for a given area or locality, construction activity will resume in that localized area. If human remains are encountered at any point during project construction, the local Native American most likely descendent (MLD) must be notified if not already on site and the procedures dictated by law must be implemented. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 100 June 2022 9.0 MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE ACTION REQUIRED MITIGATION TIMING MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY The Lead Agency and project proponent shall, in good faith, consult with the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians on the disposition and treatment of Tribal Cultural Resources encountered during Project implementation. All significant cultural resources collected will be prepared in a properly equipped laboratory to a point ready for curation. Following laboratory work, all cultural resources will be identified, catalogued, analyzed, and delivered to an accredited museum repository for permanent curation and storage. Any cultural resources collected shall be donated to apublic, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. Accompanying notes, maps, and photographs shall also be filed at the repository. The cost of curation is assessed by the repository and is the responsibility of the project proponent. At the conclusion of laboratory work and museum curation, a final report will be prepared describing the results of the cultural mitigation monitoring efforts associated with the project. The report will include a summary of the field and laboratory methods, an overview of the cultural background within the project vicinity, a list of cultural resources recovered (if any), an analysis of cultural resources recovered (if any) and their scientific significance, and recommendations. A copy of the report will also be submitted to the designated museum repository (if applicable). CUL-2 - Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains In the event of Native American human remains being If the inadvertent discovery of During grading and City of Santa Clarita inadvertently uncovered during project construction, the project human remains occurs during construction activities. Community Development proponent would immediately cease activity in the vicinity of the ground disturbance activities, Department discovery and notify the local Native American MLD if not already no further disturbance shall on site and the procedures dictated by law must be implemented. occur until the County Coroner has made a determination and The inadvertent discovery of human remains is always a possibility all State of California Health during ground disturbances; State of California Health and Safety and Safety Code Section Code Section 7050.5 addresses these findings. This code section 7050.5 protocols are followed. states that in the event human remains are uncovered, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination as to the origin and disposition of the remains Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 101 June 2022 9.0 MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE ACTION REQUIRED MITIGATION TIMING MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY pursuant to California PRC Section 5097.98. The Coroner must be notified of the find immediately, together with the City and the property owner. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify a MLD. The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials and an appropriate re -internment site. The City, as Lead Agency, and a qualified archaeologist shall also establish additional appropriate mitigation measures for further site development, which may include additional archaeological and Native American monitoring or subsurface testing. GEOLOGY AND SOILS PAL-1 - Paleontological Discovery Protocol If potentially significant intact deposits are encountered that are If project excavation is in During project excavation City of Santa Clarita within an undisturbed context, then a fossil "discovery" protocol native soil or bedrock in native soil or bedrock. Community Development will be followed, which will be developed prior to project grading. paleontological monitor should Department If project excavation is in native soil or bedrock, then a be on site to watch for fossil paleontological monitor should be on site to watch for fossil resources. If buried materials resources. Such monitoring will be outlined in the "discovery" of potential paleontological protocol, developed prior to grading. significance are actually discovered, all work shall be If significant prehistoric or larger fossil materials are recovered in halted or diverted until a senior native original context, then all work in that area shall be halted or paleontologist can evaluate the diverted away from the discovery to a distance of 50-feet until a discovery and follow the qualified senior archaeologist or paleontologist can evaluate the appropriate discovery protocol. nature and/or significance of the find(s). If a senior archaeologist or paleontologist (not the field monitor) confirms that the discovery is potentially significant, then the Lead Agency will be contacted and informed of the discovery. Construction will not resume in the locality of the discovery until consultation between the senior archaeologist or paleontologist, the owner's project manager, the City, and all other concerned parties, takes place and reaches a conclusion approved by the City. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 102 June 2022 9.0 MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE ACTION REQUIRED MITIGATION TIMING MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY If a significant resource is discovered during earth -moving, complete avoidance of the find is preferred. However, if the discovery cannot be avoided, further survey work, evaluation tasks, or data recovery of the significant resource may be required by the City. The City may also require changes to the Monitoring Plan, based on the discovery, if fossil material is encountered. All costs for the additional monitoring, discovery assessment, discovery evaluation, or data recovery of will be the responsibility of the applicant, within the cost parameters outlined under CEQA. All individual reports, including the final project Monitoring Report, will be submitted to the NHM at the conclusion of the project. Eternal Valley Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita 103 June 2022 APPENDIX A Site Plan AREA 6 AND MAUSOLEUM SITE PLAN ETERNAL VALLEY MEMORIAL PARK (Location 0791) 23287 N. SIERRA HIGHWAY NEWHALL, CA 91321 661-259-0800 OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE: DOUG HARDENBROOK (818) 263-1509 APPLICANT: JEANINE MOWREY- HUNSAKER ASSOCIATES Tel: (661) 202-5409 Email: jmowrey@hunsaker.com VICINITY MAP SHEET INDEX PROJECT SITE C-1 SITE PLAN / GRADING PLAN C-2 RI DGELINE EXHIBIT C-3 EARTHWORK EXHIBIT S-1 OVERALL ETERNAL VALLEY AERIAL MAP L-1 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN t t A-1 A-2/A-3 A4 MAUSOLEUM SITE AERIAL FLOOR PLAN, ELEVATIONS, SECTIONS, ROOF PLAN, MATERIAL PHOTOS BUILDING PHOTOS / MAUSOLEUM RENDERING PS-1 THRU PS-13 C-4/C-5 PHOTO SIMULATIONS DRAINAGE EXHIBITS ®® SIERRA HIGH" A S S O C I a t e S LOCATION MAP ABBREVIATIONS c :-�, ArIGN " Landscape Architecture 15420 Laguna Canyon Rd, Ste. 210 RN Ar'°" Irvine, California 92618 (714) 434-9803 Fax (714) 434-9109 �R l npM G�MeG °N-11°" Av 04 CIR "EAR II -ET ET RANITE r ITT A.EFT 5 WORE JOIN u NJ°M CEMETERY)/ LOCATION III FOI vnn IN s,�J J JeN °a J°NCGsaxe t p _ A oximate>.I ®®® ® o oundary line �' ._ ® ® o 0 ✓O ® ® � � G(D ® ®® •�w a EXISTING AND PROPOSED CEMETERY GROUNDS - NEEDHAM RANCH Consist of traditional Lawn PROJECT PHASE 1 ' t , ® �' - - - kj ' Burial Area, Cremation ' Inurnment Gardens, Religious Themed Gardens, / z Family Burial Estates, +. Special Features, and 4 Statuary, and Community and Family Mausoleums. All ev TV ,M i , ® �� = a a f` 4�w e. �c NORTH �1 o ioo� zoo' aoo p00 s9� eeo e ,� ooemo +oeo®oo°Dace �► ���� yi". . .0 mee . ®ea a� O�fN 'as SO f r ` ADDITIONS OF . ... / TURF AND IRRIGATION EVERY 2 TO 3 YEARS a r may, �s oeee�� 0000� co eee� APPENDIX B Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report Eternal Valley Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report IMPACT SCIENCES Prepared for: Hunsaker & Associates 26074 Avenue Hall, Suite 23 Valencia, CA 91355 Prepared by: Impact Sciences, Inc. 811 W. Th Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................1 2.0 Air Quality.....................................................................................................................................................3 2.1 Air Quality Setting.........................................................................................................................3 2.2 Ambient Air Quality......................................................................................................................6 2.3 Regulatory Framework...............................................................................................................10 2.4 Thresholds and Methodology....................................................................................................16 2.5 Project Impacts.............................................................................................................................20 3.0 Greenhouse Gas..........................................................................................................................................31 3.1 Greenhouse Gas Setting..............................................................................................................31 3.2 Existing Setting.............................................................................................................................33 3.3 Regulatory Framework...............................................................................................................34 3.4 Thresholds and Methodology.................................................................................................... 38 3.5 Project Impacts.............................................................................................................................39 4.0 References....................................................................................................................................................46 Attachment A CalEEMod Output Files Fi LIST OF FIGURES ProjectSite.....................................................................................................................................................3 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Criteria Pollutants Summary of Common Sources and Effects.............................................................6 2 Air Monitoring Station Ambient Pollutant Concentrations...................................................................8 3 Attainment Status of the South Coast Air Basin......................................................................................9 4 National Ambient Air Quality Standards...............................................................................................12 5 California Ambient Air Quality Standards.............................................................................................13 6 South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds....................................................................18 7 Construction Local Significance Thresholds — Pounds per Day .......................................................... 21 8 Construction -Related Criteria Pollutant and Precursor Emissions — Maximum Pounds per Day...............................................................................................................................................................24 9 Long -Term Operational Emissions — Maximum Pounds per Day......................................................25 10 Localized Significance of Construction Emissions — Maximum Pounds per Day .............................29 11 Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions..........................................................................................................42 13 Project Consistency with SCAG's RTP/SCS............................................................................................45 Impact Sciences, Inc. 1 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Study describes air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the proposed development at the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary (Project) in the City of Santa Clarita (City) and evaluates potential impacts. This report has been prepared by Impact Sciences, Inc., to support the environmental documentation being prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the City of Santa Clarita. This analysis considers both the temporary air quality and GHG impacts from Project construction and long-term impacts associated with operation of the proposed Project. 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION The Project site is located at 23287 Sierra Highway in the City. The Project is located within Newhall neighborhood area in the southern portion of the City. The site is on the western portion of the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary, bounded by Needham Ranch Parkway on the west, open space brush areas to the north, previously developed areas of the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary to the east, and industrial warehouses to the south. The Project site is approximately 17 acres, zoned OS — Open Space, and is currently undeveloped, see Figure 1, Project Site. 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Project consists of rough grading, future lawn burials, and the construction of a community mausoleum. The Project includes approximately 17 acres of grading across the Project site. The Project would be graded with a volume totaling 92,600 cubic yards of cut and fill to be balanced on site. An additional 100,300 cubic yards of dirt will be removed and recompacted onsite in accordance with the Project's soils report recommendations for remedial grading. No soil import or export is anticipated at this time. The 3,665 square foot mausoleum will be set into the hillside and would have a capacity of 780 caskets. A central room would include housing niches for the inurnment of cremated remains. The structure will lie below the ridgeline elevation. The Project would also include traditional lawn burial gardens consistent with the overall cemetery appearance and a private cemetery loop road for access by cemetery visitors and will include an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) parking stall. Shade trees would also be placed in the same general density Impact Sciences, Inc. 1 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 1.0 Introduction and pattern of the existing Eternal Valley developed cemetery areas. The Project is anticipated to be fully constructed and operational in 2023. Impact Sciences, Inc. Z Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 l7" y r R EL Y[7ha'_ Elsme�,e Canyo- _ t V.) f "vi norial Parke r rtLjary 23.287 SS( r Hwy ` B&'I wig tirg ! � Y - r LA North Studios (`S a fr k a r _ Goo le Earth - � ♦ �;' �s� _ � � � � - g i ',' NN 2.0 AIR QUALITY 2.1 AIR QUALITY SETTING South Coast Air Basin South Coast Air Basin Characteristicsl The California Air Resources Board (CARB) divides the state into air basins that share similar meteorological and topographical features. The City is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which incorporates approximately 12,000 square miles consisting of Orange County and the non -desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, in addition to the San Gorgonio Pass area in Riverside County. SCAB is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the southwest and high mountains around the rest of its perimeters. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) divides the Basin into source receptor areas (SRAs) in which monitoring stations operate to monitor the various concentrations of air pollutants in the region. The Project site is located within SRA 13, which covers the Santa Clarita Valley area. Climate and Meteorology The general region lies in the semi -permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific, resulting in a mild climate tempered by cool sea breezes with light average wind speeds. It is considered semi -arid and is characterized by warm summers, mild winters, infrequent seasonal rainfall, moderate daytime onshore breezes, and moderate humidity. This usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted occasionally by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds. The annual average temperature varies little throughout the SCAB region, ranging from the low 60s to the high 80s, measures in degrees Fahrenheit (F°). With a more pronounced oceanic influence, coastal areas show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas. In contrast to a very steady pattern of temperature, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable. Almost all annual rains fall between November and April. Summer rainfall is normally restricted to widely scattered thundershowers near the coast, with slightly heavier shower activity in the east and over the mountains. 1 The discussion of meteorological and topographical conditions of the SCAB is based on information provided in the Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 2.0 Air Quality Humidity Although the SCAB has a semiarid climate, the air near the earth's surface is typically moist because of the presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for infrequent periods when dry, continental air is brought into the SCAB by offshore winds, the "ocean effect" is dominant. Periods of heavy fog, especially along the coast, are frequent, and low clouds, often referred to as high fog, are a characteristic climate feature. Annual average humidity is 70% at the coast and 57% in the eastern portions of the SCAB. Wind Wind patterns across the south coastal region are characterized by westerly or southwesterly onshore winds during the day and by easterly or northeasterly breezes at night. Wind speed is higher during the dry summer months than during the rainy winter. Between periods of wind, air stagnation may occur in both the morning and evening hours. Air stagnation is one of the critical determinants of air quality conditions on any given day. During the winter and fall, surface high-pressure systems over the SCAB, combined with other meteorological conditions, can result in very strong, downslope Santa Ana winds. These winds normally continue a few days before predominant meteorological conditions are reestablished. The mountain ranges to the east affect the diffusion of pollutants by inhibiting the eastward transport of pollutants. Air quality in the SCAB generally ranges from fair to poor and is similar to air quality in most of coastal Southern California. The entire region experiences heavy concentration of air pollutants during prolonged periods of stable atmospheric conditions. Inversions Under ideal meteorological conditions and irrespective of topography, pollutants emitted into the air mix and disperse into the upper atmosphere. However, the Southern California region frequently experiences temperature inversions in which pollutants are trapped and accumulate close to the ground. The inversion, a layer of warm, dry air overlaying cool, moist marine air, is a normal condition in coastal Southern California. The cool, damp, and hazy sea air capped by coastal clouds is heavier than the warm, clear air, which acts as a lid through which the cooler marine layer cannot rise. The height of the inversion is important in determining pollutant concentration. When the inversion is approximately 2,500 feet above mean sea level (amsl), the sea breezes carry the pollutants inland to escape over the mountain slopes or through the passes. At a height of 1,200 feet above mean sea level, the terrain prevents the pollutants from entering the upper atmosphere, resulting in the pollutants settling in the foothill communities. Below 1,200 feet above mean sea level, the inversion puts a tight lid on pollutants, concentrating them in a shallow layer Impact Sciences, Inc. 5 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 2.0 Air Quality over the entire coastal basin. Usually, inversions are lower before sunrise than during the daylight hours. Mixing heights for inversions are lower in the summer and inversions are more persistent, being partly responsible for the high levels of ozone (03) observed during summer months in the SCAB. Smog in Southern California is generally the result of these temperature inversions combining with coastal day winds and local mountains to contain the pollutants for long periods, allowing them to form secondary pollutants by reacting in the presence of sunlight. The basin has a limited ability to disperse these pollutants due to typically low wind speeds and the surrounding mountain ranges. Air Pollutants of Concern Criteria air pollutants are defined as pollutants for which the federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards for outdoor concentrations. The federal and state standards have been set at levels above which concentrations could be harmful to human health and welfare. These standards are designed to protect the most sensitive persons such as children, pregnant women, and the elderly, from illness or discomfort. Criteria air pollutants include ozone (03), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (S02), particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5), particulate matter ten microns or less in diameter (PM10), and lead (Pb). Note that reactive organic gases (ROGs), which are also known as reactive organic compounds (ROCs) or volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and nitrogen oxides (NOx) are not classified as criteria pollutants. However, ROGs and NOx are widely emitted from land development projects and participate in photochemical reactions in the atmosphere to form 03; therefore, NOx and ROGs are relevant to the proposed Project and are of concern in the air basin and are listed below along with the criteria pollutants. Sources and health effects commonly associated with criteria pollutants are summarized in Table 1, Criteria Pollutants Summary of Common Sources and Effects. Table 1 Criteria Pollutants Summary of Common Sources and Effects Pollutant Major Man -Made Sources Human Health & Welfare Effects Carbon Monoxide An odorless, colorless gas formed when carbon in Reduces the ability of blood to deliver oxygen to (CO) fuels is not burned completely, a component of vital tissues, affecting the cardiovascular and motor vehicle exhaust. nervous system. Impairs vision, causes dizziness, and can lead to unconsciousness or death. Nitrogen Dioxide A reddish -brown gas formed during fuel Respiratory irritant; aggravates lung and heart (NO2) combustion for motor vehicles and industrial problems. Precursor to ozone and acid rain. sources. Sources include moto vehicles, electric Contributes to global warming and nutrient utilities, and other sources that burn fuel. overloading which deteriorates water quality. Causes brown discoloration of the atmosphere. Impact Sciences, Inc. 6 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 2.0 Air Quality Pollutant Major Man -Made Sources Human Health & Welfare Effects Ozone (03) Formed by a chemical reaction between volatile Irritates and causes inflammation of the mucous organic compounds (VOC) and nitrous oxides membranes and lung airways; causes wheezing, (NOx) in the presence of sunlight. VOCs are also coughing, and pain when inhaling deeply, commonly referred to as reactive organic gases decreases lung capacity, aggravates lung and heart (ROGs). Common sources of these precursor problems. Damages plants; reduces crop yield. pollutants include motor vehicle exhaust, Damages rubber, some textiles, and dyes. industrial emissions, gasoline storage and transport, solvents, paints, and landfills. Particulate Matter Produced by power plants, steel mills, chemical Increased respiratory symptoms, such as irritation (PM10 & PM2.5) plants, unpaved roads and parking lots, wood- of the airways, coughing or difficulty breathing, burning stoves and fireplaces, automobiles, and aggravated asthma; development of chronic others. bronchitis; irregular heartbeat; nonfatal heart attacks; and premature death in people with heart or lung disease. Impairs visibility (haze). Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) A colorless, nonflammable gas formed when fuel Respiratory irritant; aggravates lung and heart containing sulfur is burned, when gasoline is problems. In the presence of moisture and oxygen, extracted from ore. Examples are petroleum sulfur dioxide converts to sulfuric acid which can refineries, cement manufacturing, metal processing damage marble, iron, and steel. Damages crops and facilities, locomotives, and ships. natural vegetation. Impairs visibility. Precursor to acid rain. Source: CAPCOA, Health Effects. Available: hitp://www.cazcoa.org/health-effects/ 2.2 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY Criteria Air Pollutant Monitoring Data Ambient air quality in Santa Clarita can be inferred from ambient air quality measurements conducted at nearby air quality monitoring stations. Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends and projections are documented by measurements made by the t SCAQMD, the air pollution regulatory agency in the SCAB regions maintains air quality monitoring stations which process ambient air quality measurements. The purpose of the monitoring station is to measure ambient concentrations of pollutants and determine whether ambient air quality meets the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Ozone and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) are pollutants of particular concern in the SCAB. The monitoring station located closest to the Project site and most representative of air quality is the Santa Clarita-Placerita station, located at 22224 Placerita Canyon Road approximately 1.52 miles to the northwest (SCAQMD Station No. 090). Ambient emission concentrations vary due to localized variations in emissions sources and climate and should be considered "generally" representative of ambient concentrations near the Project site. The Santa Clarita-Placerita station monitors 03, NO2, CO, and PM10. Particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less (PM2.5) is not measured at the Santa Clarita-Placerita station. The nearest station to the Project site measuring PM2.5 is Impact Sciences, Inc. % Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 2.0 Air Quality the Reseda station, which is located approximately 11.24 miles south of the Project site (SCAQMD Station No. 074). The air quality data monitored at the Santa Clarita-Placerita and Reseda stations are presented in Table 2, Air Monitoring Station Ambient Pollutant Concentrations. Table 2 Air Monitoring Station Ambient Pollutant Concentrations Pollutant Standards' 2018 Year 2019 2020 OZONE (03) Maximum 1-hour concentration monitored (ppm) 0.132 0.128 0.148 Maximum 8-hour concentration monitored (ppm) 0.106 0.106 0.122 Number of days exceeding state 1-hour standard 0.09 ppm 21 34 44 Number of days exceeding federal/state 8-hour standard 0.070 ppm 52 56 73 NITROGEN DIOXIDE (NO2) Maximum 1-hour concentration monitored (ppm) 0.059 0.046 0.046 Annual average concentration monitored (ppm) 0.011 0.009 0.009 Number of days exceeding state 1-hour standard 0.18 ppm 0 0 0 CARBON MONOXIDE (CO) Maximum 1-hour concentration monitored (ppm) 1.0 1.5 1.2 Maximum 8-hour concentration monitored (ppm) 0.8 1.2 0.8 Number of days exceeding state 1-hour standard 20 ppm 0 0 0 Number of days exceeding federal' -hour standard 35 ppm 0 0 0 RESPIRABLE PARTICULATE MATTER (PMio) Maximum 24-hour concentration monitored (µg/m3) 49.0 62.0 48.0 Annual average concentration monitored (µg/m3) 23.4 18.4 22.5 Number of samples exceeding state standard 50 µg/m3 0 1 0 Number of samples exceeding federal standard 150 µg/m3 0 0 0 FINE PARTICULATE MATTER(PM2.5) Maximum 24-hour concentration monitored (µg/m3) 31.0 30.0 27.6 Annual average concentration monitored (µg/m3) 10.32 9.16 10.1 Number of samples exceeding federal standard 35 µg/m3 0 0 0 Source: California Air Resources Board, "Air Quality Data Statistics," http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/. 2020. SCAQMD. 2020. Air Quality South Coast Air Quality Management District, https://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/air- gualitU/historical-data-by-, ei/ ar/ag2020card final.Pdt?sfvrsn=4. NA = not available I Parts by volume per million of air (ppm), micrograms per cubic meter of air (µg/m3), or annual arithmetic mean (aam). The attainment status for the SCAB region is included in Table 3, Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin. 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 SCAB region is designated as a nonattainment area for federal ozone, PM2.5, and lead standards and are designated as nonattainment for state ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 standards. Impact Sciences, Inc. 8 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 2.0 Air Quality Table 3 Attainment Status of the South Coast Air Basin Pollutant State Federal Ozone (03) Non -Attainment Non -Attainment Particulate Matter (PM10) Non -Attainment Attainment Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Non -Attainment Non -Attainment Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment Attainment Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Attainment Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (S02) Attainment Attainment Lead Attainment Non -Attainment (Partial)' Source: SCAQMD. 2016. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) Attainment Status for South Coast Air Basin. naaqs-caags feb2016.pdf, accessed March 2021. 1 The Los Angeles County portion of the Basin is designated as a non -attainment area for the federal lead standard on the basis of source -specific monitoring at two locations as determined by U.S. EPA using 2007-2009 data. However, all stations in the Basin, including the near -source monitoring in Los Angeles County, have remained below the lead NAAQS for the 2012 through 2015 period The SCAQMD will request that the U.S. EPA re -designated the Los Angeles County portion of the Basin as attainment for lead. Toxic Air Contaminants In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, toxic air contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern. TACs are considered either carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic based on the nature of the health effects associated with exposure to the pollutant. For regulatory purposes, carcinogenic TACs are assumed to have no safe threshold below which health impacts would not occur, and cancer risk is expressed as excess cancer cases per one million exposed individuals. Noncarcinogenic TACs differ in that there is generally assumed to be a safe level of exposure below which no negative health impact is believed to occur. These levels are determined on a pollutant -by -pollutant basis. There are many different types of TACs, with varying degrees of toxicity. Sources of TACs include industrial processes, such as petroleum refining and chrome -plating operations; commercial operations, such as gasoline stations and dry cleaners; and motor vehicle exhaust. Public exposure to TACs can result from emissions from normal operations, as well as from accidental releases of hazardous materials during upset conditions. The health effects associated with TACs are quite diverse and generally are assessed locally, rather than regionally. TACs can cause long-term health effects such as cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, asthma, bronchitis, or genetic damage, or short-term acute affects such as eye watering, respiratory irritation (a cough), running nose, throat pain, and headaches. Impact Sciences, Inc. 9 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 2.0 Air Quality To date, CARB has designated 244 compounds as TACs. Additionally, CARB has implemented control measures for a number of compounds that pose high risks and show potential for effective control. The majority of the estimated health risks from TACs can be attributed to a relatively few compounds.2 CARB identified diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a TAC. DPM differs from other TACs in that it is not a single substance but rather a complex mixture of hundreds of substances. Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of particulates and gases produced when an engine burns diesel fuel. DPM is a concern because it causes lung cancer; many compounds found in diesel exhaust are carcinogenic. DPM includes the particle - phase constituents in diesel exhaust. The chemical composition and particle sizes of DPM vary between different engine types (heavy-duty, light -duty), engine operating conditions (idle, accelerate, decelerate), fuel formulations (high/low sulfur fuel), and the year of the engine. Some short-term (acute) effects of diesel exhaust include eye, nose, throat, and lung irritation, and diesel exhaust can cause coughs, headaches, light- headedness, and nausea. DPM poses the greatest health risk among the TACs. Almost all diesel exhaust particle mass is 10 microns or less in diameter. Because of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung. Sensitive Receptors Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardiovascular diseases.3 Residential areas are considered sensitive receptors to air pollutions because residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Children are considered more susceptible to health effects of air pollution due to their immature immune systems and developing organs.4 As such, schools are also considered sensitive receptors, as children are present for extended durations and engage in regular outdoor activities. Recreational land uses are considered moderately sensitive to air pollution. Although exposure periods are generally short, exercise places a high demand on respiratory functions, which can be impaired by air pollution. In addition, noticeable air pollution can detract from the enjoyment of recreation. The closest residential areas are located approximately 800 feet to the northeast of the Project site. Z California Air Resources Board. CARB Identified Toxic Air Contaminants. Available online at: httl2s://ww2. arb. ca. gov/resources/documents/carb-identified-toxic-air-contaminants. 3 California Air Resources Board. Sensitive Receptor Assessment. Available online at: httl2s://ww2.arb.ca.gov/cal2l2- resource-center/community-assessment/sensitive-recel2tor-assessment. 4 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and The American Lung Association of California. Air Pollution and Children's Health. Available online at: htti2s://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/fads/kidsair4-02.12df. Impact Sciences, Inc. 10 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 2.0 Air Quality 2.3 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Federal Clean Air Act The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 and the CAA Amendments of 1971 required the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish NAAQS, with states retaining the option to adopt more stringent standards or to include other specific pollutants. On April 2, 2007, the Supreme Court found that carbon dioxide is an air pollutant covered by the CAA; however, no NAAQS have been established for carbon dioxide. These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those "sensitive receptors" most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. The EPA has classified air basins (or portions thereof) as being in attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified for each criteria air pollutant, based on whether or not the NAAQS have been achieved. If an area is designated unclassified, it is because inadequate air quality data were available as a basis for a nonattainment or attainment designations. Table 3 lists the federal attainment status of the SCAB for the criteria pollutants. National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Program Under federal law, 187 substances are currently listed as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). Major sources of specific HAPs are subject to the requirements of the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) program. The EPA is establishing regulatory schemes for specific source categories and requires implementation of the Maximum Achievable Control Technologies (MACT) for major sources of HAPs in each source category. State law has established the framework for California's TAC identification and control program, which is generally more stringent than the federal program and is aimed at HAPs that are a problem is California. The state has formally identified 244 substances as TACs and is adopting appropriate control measures for each. Once adopted at the state level, each air district will be required to adopt a measure that is equally or more stringent. Impact Sciences, Inc. 11 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 2.0 Air Quality National Ambient Air Quality Standards The federal CAA required the U.S. EPA to establish NAAQS. The NAAQS set primary standards and secondary standards for specific air pollutants. Primary standards define limits for the intention of protecting public health, which include sensitive populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary Standards define limits to protect public welfare to include protection against decreased visibility, damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. A summary of the federal ambient air quality standards is shown in Table 4, National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Table 4 National Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Primary/SecondaryPrimary/Secondary Averaging Time Level Carbon Monoxide Primary 8 hours 9 ppm 1 hour 35 ppm Lead Primary and secondary Rolling 3-month average 0.15 µg/m3 Nitrogen dioxide Primary 1 hour 100 ppb Primary and secondary Annual 0.053 ppm Ozone Primary and secondary 8 hours 0.070 ppm Particulate Matter PM2.5 Primary Annual 12 µg/m3 Secondary Annual 15 µg/m3 Primary and secondary 24 hours 35 µg/m3 PM10 Primary and secondary 24 hours 150 µg/m3 Sulfur dioxide Primary 1 hour 75 ppb Secondary 3 hours 0.5 ppm Source: California Air Resources Board. May 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available online at: hitps://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aags/aags2.ydt accessed September 20, 2021. State California Clean Air Act of 1988 The California CAA of 1988 (CCAA) allows states to adopt ambient air quality standards and other regulations provided that they are at least as stringent as federal standards. The California Air Resources Board (CARB), a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA), is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and state air pollution control programs within California, including setting the CAAQS. The CCAA, amended in 1992, requires all air quality management districts (AQMDs) in the state to achieve and maintain the CAAQS. The CAAQS are generally stricter than national standards for the same pollutants and has also established state standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, Impact Sciences, Inc. 12 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 2.0 Air Quality vinyl chloride, and visibility -reducing particles, for which there are no national standards. CARB also conducts research, compiles emission inventories, develops suggested control measures, and provides oversight of local programs. CARB also has primary responsibility for the development of California's State Implementation Plan (SIP), for which it works closely with the federal government and the local air districts. California Ambient Air Quality Standards The federal CAA permits states to adopt additional or more protective air quality standards if needed. California has set standards for certain pollutants, such as particulate matter and ozone, which are more protective of public health than respective federal standards. California has also set standards for some pollutants that are not addressed by federal standards. The state standards for ambient air quality are summarized in Table 5, California Ambient Air Quality Standards. Table 5 California Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time Level Carbon monoxide 8 hours 9 ppm 1 hour 20 ppm Lead 30-day average 1.5 µg/m3 Nitrogen dioxide 1 hour 0.180 ppm Annual 0.030 ppm Ozone 8 hours 0.070 ppm 1 hour 0.09 ppm Particulate matter PM2.5 Annual 12 µg/m3 PM10 24 hours 50 µg/m3 Annual 20 µg/m3 Sulfur dioxide 1 hour 0.25 ppm 24 hours 0.04 ppm Sulfates 24 hours 25 µg/m3 Hydrogen sulfide 1 hour 0.03 ppm Vinyl chloride 24 hours 0.01 ppm Source: California Air Resources Board. May 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available online at: hitps://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aags/aags2.ydt accessed September 20, 2021. California State Implementation Plan The federal CAA (and its subsequent amendments) requires each state to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as a State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP is a living document that is periodically Impact Sciences, Inc. 13 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 2.0 Air Quality modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, plans, and rules and regulations of air basins as reported by the agencies with jurisdiction over them. The CAA Amendments dictate that states containing areas violating the NAAQS revise their SIPs to include extra control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP includes strategies and control measures to attain the NAAQS by deadlines established by the CAA. The EPA has the responsibility to review all SIPs to determine if they conform to the requirements of the CAA. State law makes CARB the lead agency for all purposes related to the SIP. Local air districts and other agencies prepare SIP elements and submit them to CARB for review and approval. CARB then forwards SIP revisions to the EPA for approval and publication in the Federal Register. The 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP) is the SIP for SCAB. The 2016 AQMP is a regional blueprint for achieving air quality standards and healthful air in the SCAB and those portions of the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB) that are under the SCAQMD's jurisdictions. The 2016 AQMP represents a new approach, focusing on available, proven, and cost-effective alternatives to traditional strategies, while seeking to achieve multiple goals in partnerships with other entities promoting reductions in greenhouse gases and toxic risk, as well as efficiencies in energy use, transportation, and goods movement. The most effective way to reduce air pollution impacts is to reduce emissions from mobile sources. The AQMP relies on regional and multi -level partnerships of governmental agencies at the federal, state, regional, and local level. Those agencies (EPA, CARB, local governments, Southern California Association of Governments [SCAG] and the SCAQMD) are the primary agencies that implement the AQMP programs. The 2016 AQMP incorporates the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including SCAG's 2016-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories, and SCAG's latest growth forecasts. The 2016 AQMP includes integrated strategies and measures to meet the NAAQS. On September 3, 2020, SCAG's Regional Council unanimously voted to approve and fully adopt Connect SoCal (2020-2045 RTP/SCS). However, the forecasts and measures in the plan have not been incorporated into any applicable air quality plan for the region.5 California Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act (AB 2588) The California Air Toxics Program is supplemented by the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" program, which became law (AB 2588, Statutes of 1987) in 1987. In 1992, the AB 2588 program was amended by Senate Bill 1731 to require facilities that pose a significant health risk to the community to perform a risk reduction audit and reduce their emissions through implementation of a risk management plan. Under this program, which is required under the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act (Section 44363 of the California 5 Southern California Association of Governments. Adopted Final Connect SoCal (2020-2045 RTP/SCS). Available online at: htti2s://scag.ca.gov/read-121an-adol2ted-final-121an. Impact Sciences, Inc. 14 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 2.0 Air Quality Health and Safety Code), facilities are required to report their air toxics emissions, assess health risks, and notify nearby residents and workers of significant risks when present. Typically, land development projects generate diesel emissions from construction vehicles during the construction phase, as well as some diesel emissions from small trucks during the operational phase. Diesel exhaust is mainly composed of particulate matter and gases, which contain potential cancer -causing substances. Emissions from diesel engines currently include over 40 substances that are listed by EPA as hazardous air pollutants and by CARB as TACs. On August 27, 1998, CARB identified particulate matter in diesel exhaust as a TAC, based on data linking diesel particulate emissions to increased risks of lung cancer and respiratory disease.6 In March 2015, the OEHHA adopted "The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments" in accordance with the Health and Safety Code, Section 44300. The Final Guidance Manual incorporates the scientific basis from three earlier developed Technical Support Documents to assess risk from exposure to facility emissions. The 2015 OEHHA Final Guidance has key changes including greater age sensitivity in particular for children, decreased exposure durations, and higher breathing rate profiles. Because cancer risk could be up to three times greater using this new guidance, it may result in greater mitigation requirements, more agency backlog, and increased difficulty in getting air permits. Regardless of the change in calculation methodology, actual emissions and cancer risk within South Coast Air Basin has declined by more than 50% since 2005. The CARB provides a computer program, the Hot Spots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP), to assist in a coherent and consistent preparation of an HRA. HARP2, an update to HARP, was released in March 2015. HARP2 has a more refined risk characterization in HRA and CEQA documents and incorporates the 2015 OEHHA Final Guidance. Regional South Coast Air Quality Management District The SCAQMD is the air pollution control district for Orange County and the non -desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The agency's primary responsibility is ensuring that the SCAB region meets attainment for the federal and state standards. The SCAQMD is responsible for preparing an air quality management plan in order to meet federal attainment status. The SCAQMD is also responsible for adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning air pollutant sources, issuing 6 Diesel exhaust is included within pollutants subject to the hotspot program. Please refer to OEHHA's Air Toxics Hot Spot Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot- spots-program-guidance-manual-prep aration-health-risk-0. Impact Sciences, Inc. 15 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 2.0 Air Quality permits for stationary sources of air pollutants, inspecting stationary sources of air pollutants, responding to citizen complaints, monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, awarding grants to reduce motor vehicle emissions, and conducting public education campaigns, as well as many other activities. All projects are subject to SCAQMD rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction. SCAQMD Rules and Regulations The following is a list of noteworthy SCAQMD rules that are required of construction activities associated with the proposed Project: • Rule 402 (Nuisance) — This rule prohibits the discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. This rule does not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals. • Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) — This rule requires fugitive dust sources to implement best available control measures for all sources, and all forms of visible particulate matter are prohibited from crossing any property line. This rule is intended to reduce PM10 emissions from any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. PM10 suppression techniques are summarized below. — Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized. — All on -site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized. — All material transported off -site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. — The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be minimized at all times. — Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the work day to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface. • Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) — This rule requires manufacturers, distributors, and end -uses of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce ROG emissions from the use of these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the ROG content of various coating categories. Impact Sciences, Inc. 16 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 2.0 Air Quality Rule 445 (Wood -Burning Devices) — The purpose of this rule is to reduce the emission of particulate matter from wood -burning devices and establish contingency measures for applicable ozone standards for the reduction of volatile organic compounds. The rule requires that any new residential or commercial development that begins construction on or after March 9, 2009, only install gaseous -fueled fireplaces and stoves. 7 Local City of Santa Clarita General Plan Applicable goals and policies related to air quality from the City of Santa Clarita General Plan (General Plan) Land Use and Conservation and Open Space Element are listed below: • Clean air to protect human health and support healthy ecosystems. — Reduce air pollution from mobile sources. • Through the mixed land use patterns and multi -modal circulation policies set forth in the Land Use and Circulation Elements, limit air pollution from transportation sources. • Support the use of alternative fuel vehicles. • Support alternative travel modes and new technologies, including infrastructure to support alternative fuel vehicles, as they become commercially available. — Apply guidelines to protect sensitive receptors from sources of air pollution as developed by the CARB, where appropriate. • Ensure adequate spacing of sensitive land use from the following sources of air pollution: high traffic freeways and roads; distribution centers; truck stops; chrome plating facilities; dry cleaners using perchloroethylene; and large gas stations, as recommended by CARB. — Coordinate with other agencies to plan for and implement programs for improving air quality in the South Coast Air Basin. 7 South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2019. Rule 445 — Wood Burning Devices Local Government, Builder, Contractor, Architect Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). Available online at: httl2://www.aQmd. gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/sul2l2ort-documents/rule-445/detailed-rule-445- information.12df. Impact Sciences, Inc. 17 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 2.0 Air Quality • Coordinate with local, regional, state, and federal agencies to develop and implement regional air quality policies and programs. 2.4 THRESHOLDS AND METHODOLOGY Thresholds of Significance The impact analysis provided below is based on the application of the following California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G, which indicates that a Project would have a significant impact on air quality if it would: 1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable air quality plan. 2. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. 3. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. 4. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. The significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district (SCAQMD) may be relied upon to make the above determinations. According to the SCAQMD, an air quality impact is considered significant if the proposed Project would violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The SCAQMD has established thresholds of significance for air quality for construction and operational activities of land use development projects, shown in Table 6, South Coast AQMD Regional Significance Thresholds. Table 6 South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds Mass Daily Thresholds a Pollutant Construction " Operation NOx 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day voc 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day PM10 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day PM2.5 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/day sox 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day CO 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day Impact Sciences, Inc. 18 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 2.0 Air Quality Mass Daily Thresholds a Lead 3 lbs/day 3 lbs/day Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs), Odor, and GHG Thresholds TACs Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk >_ 10 in 1 million (including carcinogens and non- Cancer Burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas >_ 1 in 1 million) carcinogens) Chronic & Acute Hazard Index >_ 1.0 (Project increment) Odor Project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to South Coast AQMD Rule 402 GHG 10,000 MT/yr CO2eq for industrial facilities Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants a NO2 South coast AQMD is in attainment; Project is significant if it causes or contributes to an exceedance of the following attainment standards: 1-hour average 0.18 ppm (state) annual arithmetic mean 0.03 ppm (state) and 0.0534 ppm (federal) PM10 24-hour average 10.4 µg/m3 (construction) e & 2.5 µg/m3 (operation) annual average 1.0 µg/m3 PM2.5 24-hour average 10.4 µg/m3 (construction) e & 2.5 µg/m3 (operation) S02 1-hour average 0.25 ppm (state) & 0.075 ppm (federal - 99th percentile) 24-hour average 0.04 ppm (state) Sulfate 24-hour average 25 µg/m3 (state) CO South Coast AQMD is in attainment; Project is significant if it causes or contributes to an exceedance of the following attainment standards: 1-hour average 20 ppm (state) and 35 ppm (federal) 8-hour average 9.0 ppm (state/federal) Lead 30-day Average 1.5 µg/m3 (state) Rolling 3-month average 0.15 µg/m3 (federal) I Source: South Coast AQMD CEQA Handbook (South Coast AQMD,1993) b Construction thresholds apply to both the South Coast Air Basin and Coachella Valley (Salton Sea and Mojave Desert Air Basins). For Coachella Valley, the mass daily thresholds for operation are the same as the construction thresholds. d Ambient air quality thresholds for criteria pollutants based on South Coast AQMD Rule 1303, Table A-2 unless otherwise stated. , Ambient air quality threshold based on South Coast AQMD Rule 403. CO Hotspot Analysis In addition to the daily thresholds listed above, the proposed Project area would also be subject to the ambient air quality standards, through an analysis of localized CO impacts. The California 1-hour and 8- hour CO standards are: 1-hour = 20 parts per million 8-hour = 9 parts per million Impact Sciences, Inc. 19 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 2.0 Air Quality The significance of localized impacts depends on whether ambient CO levels in the vicinity of the Project site are above state and federal CO standards. The SCAB region is designated as attainment under the 1- hour and 8-hour standards (see Table 3). Localized Significance Thresholds In addition to regional emissions and the CO hotspot analysis, the SCAQMD has developed a set of mass emissions rate look -up tables that can be used to evaluate localized impacts that may result from construction and operational -period emissions called localized significance thresholds (LSTs). If the on -site emissions from proposed construction activities are below the emission levels found in the LST mass rate look -up tables for the Project site receptor area (SRA), then emissions would not have the potential to cause a significant localized air quality impact. When quantifying mass emissions for LST analysis, only emissions that occur on site are considered. Consistent with SCAQMD LST guidance, emissions from offsite delivery hauling trucks, or employee trips are not considered in the evaluation of localized impacts. The SCAQMD has developed localized significance thresholds (LST) for construction areas that are one, two, and five acres in size to simplify the evaluation of localized emissions. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. LSTs are provided for each source receptor area (SRA) and various distances from the source of emissions. As described previously, the nearest air quality sensitive receptors to the Project site are residences located approximately 800 feet (245 meters) to the northeast. In the case of this analysis, the Project site is located within SRA 13 — Santa Clarita Valley with receptors located approximately 213 meters to the northeast. The CaIEEMod User's Guide (Appendix A: Calculation Details for CaIEEMod) states the applicable LST should be based on the equipment list for each construction phase and calculated according to the anticipated maximum number of acres a given piece of equipment can pass over in an 8-hour workday. Based on the Project's construction assumptions, approximately 4 acres per day would be disturbed during the grading phase. The LSTs for a 4-acre site in SRA 13 with sensitive receptors located approximately 200 meters were calculated per r SCAQMD Linear Regression Methodology and utilized for the grading phase. Table 7, Construction Local Significance Thresholds — Pounds per Day, shows the construction LST screening threshold for sensitive receptors located approximately 200 meters from the Project site. Impact Sciences, Inc. 20 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 2.0 Air Quality Table 7 Construction Local Significance Thresholds — Pounds per Day Phase Nitrogen Oxide Carbon Coarse Particulate Fine Particulate (NOx) Monoxide (CO) Matter (PM10) Matter (PM2.5) Grading 250.77 4,099.69 72.23 24.00 Building Construction 275.00 4,608.00 79.00 26.00 1 Based on the Project's construction assumptions outlined previously, the applicable LST for grading is 4 acres and building construction is 5 acres. The localized thresholds for each phase are based on a receptor distance of 200 meters in SCAQMD's SRA 13. Where necessary, LST calculated per SCAQMD Linear Regression Methodology. Source: SCAQMD. 2009. Appendix C Mass Rate Look Up Table. Available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/cega/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/appendix-c-mass-rate-lst-look-up-tables.pdj?sfvrsn=2. Methodology Air quality impacts were evaluated in accordance with the methodologies recommended by CARB and the SCAQMD. Where criteria air pollutant quantification was required, emissions modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2020.4.0 (CalEEMod). CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to quantify potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. 2.5 PROJECT IMPACTS AQ Impact 1 Would implementation of the proposed Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable air quality plan? (Less than Significant). As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the EPA requires each state with nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a SIP that demonstrates the means to attain the federal standards. The SIP must integrate federal, state, and local plan components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution in nonattainment areas, using a combination of performance standards and market -based programs. Similarly, under state law, the CCAA requires an air quality attainment plan to be prepared for areas designated as nonattainment with regard to the federal and state ambient air quality standards. Air quality attainment plans outline emissions limits and control measures to achieve and maintain these standards by the earliest practical date. Impact Sciences, Inc. 21 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 2.0 Air Quality Drafted by the SCAQMD, the 2016 AQMP8 was developed in effort with CARB, SCAG, and the U.S. EPA to establish a program of rules and regulations to reduce air pollutant emissions to achieves CAAQS and NAAQS. The plan's pollutant control strategies are based on SCAG's 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). While SCAG adopted the updated 2020-2045 RTP/SCS in September 2020, it has not been incorporated into an applicable air quality plan. Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined in Chapter 12, Section 12.2 and Section 12.3 of the SCAQMD's 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook, and include the following: • Consistency Criterion No. 1: The proposed Project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of an existing air quality violation, or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP. • Consistency Criterion No. 2: The proposed Project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the years of the Project build -out phase. The violations to which Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers are the CAAQS and the NAAQS. As evaluated under Impacts 2 below, the Project would not exceed the short-term construction standards or long-term operational standards and, thus, would not have the potential to violate any air quality standards (see Table 8 and Table 9). Thus, the proposed Project would be consistent with first criterion. Concerning Consistency Criterion No. 2, the 2016 AQMP contains air pollutant reduction strategies based on SCAG's growth forecasts, and SCAG's growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. The proposed Project would not alter the local population or other SCAG's regional growth forecasts. 9 In addition, the proposed Project is consistent with the land use designation and development density in the City of Santa Clarita General Plan. Therefore, the proposed Project would not have the potential to alter local or regional growth projections used by the SCAMQD to develop the 2016 AQMP. Thus, the proposed Project is also consistent with the second criterion. As the Project is consistent with Criterion Nos. 1 and 2, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable air quality plan, and this impact is less than significant. 8 South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2016. Air Quality Management Plan. Available online at: http://www. agmd. gov/do cs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-qu ality-management-plans/2016-air-qualit3 management-121an/final-2016-agmi2/final2016 agmp�p dfdf. 9 Given the Project's characteristics, the Project would not have the potential to alter local or regional population, housing or employment growth forecasts. See also CalEEMod modeling in Attachment A. Impact Sciences, Inc. 22 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 2.0 Air Quality AQ Impact 2 Would implementation of the proposed Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? (Less than Significant). A project may have a significant impact if project -related emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase for an criteria pollutant for which the region in nonattainment under applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards. The cumulative analysis of air quality impacts follows the SCAQMD's guidance such that construction or operational project emissions will be considered cumulatively considerable if project -specific emissions exceed an applicable SCAQMD recommended daily threshold. Regional Construction Significance Analysis Construction associated with the proposed Project would generate short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants. The criteria pollutants of primary concern within the Project area include ozone -precursor pollutants (i.e., ROG and NOx), PM10, and PM2.5. Construction -generated emissions are short term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but would be considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceeds the SCAQMD's thresholds of significance. Construction results in the temporary generation of emissions resulting from site grading and excavation, road paving, motor vehicle exhaust associated with construction equipment and worker trips, and the movement of construction equipment, especially on unpaved surfaces. Emissions of airborne particulate matter are largely dependent on the amount of ground disturbance associated with site preparation activities as well as weather conditions and the appropriate application of water. The duration of construction activities associated with the proposed Project is estimated to last approximately 17 months, beginning in May 2022 and ending in October 2023. Construction -generated emissions associated with the proposed Project were calculated using the SCAQMD- and CARB-approved CalEEMod model. CalEEMod is designed to estimate construction and operational emissions for land use development projects. The model incorporates typical construction requirements such as construction equipment, demolition debris, and hauling trips. The assumptions used in the CalEEMod model, including construction equipment usage and earthwork cut and fill of 192,889 cubic yards, were based on information provided by the Project applicant. No soil import or export is anticipated at this time. Predicted maximum daily construction -generated emissions for the proposed Project are summarized in Table 8, Construction - Related Criteria Pollutant and Precursor Emissions — Maximum Pounds per Day. Impact Sciences, Inc. 23 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 2.0 Air Quality During construction, the contractors are required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance) and Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), among others, which assist in reducing short-term construction -related air pollutant emissions. Rule 402 prohibits emissions that would cause a public nuisance and Rule 403 requires fugitive dust sources to implement best available control measures for all sources, and all forms of visible particulate matter are prohibited from crossing any property line. The proposed Project would be subject to Rules 402, 403, and 113 described in the Regulatory Framework subsection above. As shown below, all criteria pollutant emissions would remain below their respective thresholds. Thus, the proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria air pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Table 8 Construction -Related Criteria Pollutant and Precursor Emissions — Maximum Pounds per Day Construction Year ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 PM2.5 2022 3.70 38.90 29.77 0.06 21.47 11.64 2023 3.14 15.08 17.74 0.03 1.23 0.80 Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceed? No No No No No No Source: Impact Sciences, CalEEMod modeling, 2022. See Attachment A. Note: Project emissions account for the reductions from SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). Regional Operational Significance Analysis Project -generated emissions would be associated with motor vehicle use, energy use, and area sources, such as the use of natural -gas -fired appliances, landscape maintenance equipment, consumer cleaning products, and architectural coatings associated with the operation of the proposed Project. The operational emissions from the proposed Project were calculated within CalEEMod and the operational emissions were compared against SCAQMD regional thresholds to determine Project significance. Emissions associated with vehicle travel depend on the year of analysis because emission control technology requirements are phased -in over time. Therefore, the earlier the year analyzed in the model the higher emission rates used by CalEEMod. The earliest year the Project could possibly be constructed and fully occupied would be 2023. Emissions associated with build -out later than 2023 would be lower, because newer vehicles have to meet increasingly more stringent emissions standards, while older, more polluting, vehicles are used less. Impact Sciences, Inc. 24 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 2.0 Air Quality Long-term operational emissions attributable to the proposed Project are summarized in Table 9, Long - Term Operational Emissions — Maximum Pounds per Day. Table 9 Long -Term Operational Emissions — Maximum Pounds per Day Source ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 PM2.5 Area Source 0.12 <0.01 <0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy Use <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mobile Source 0.25 0.25 2.20 <0.01 0.46 0.12 Total 0.37 0.26 2.22 <0.01 0.46 0.12 Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceed? No No Source: Impact Sciences, CalEEMod modeling, 2022. See Attachment No A. No No No As shown in Table 8 and Table 9, the proposed Project's construction and operational emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD's thresholds for any criteria air pollutants. Therefore, impacts associated with regional construction and operational emissions from the Project would be less than significant. Air Quality Health Impacts On December 24, 2018, the California Supreme Court published its opinion on the Sierra Club et al. v. County of Fresno et. Al. (Case No. S219783) which determined that an environmental review must adequately analyze a project's potential impacts and inform the public how its bare numbers translate to a potential adverse health impacts or explain how existing scientific constraints cannot translate the emissions numbers to the potential health impacts. SCAB is in state non -attainment for PM2.5, PM10, and Ozone (03) and federal non -attainment for PM2.5 and 03. Therefore, an increase in emissions of particulate matter or ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) has the potential to push the region further from reaching attainment status and, as a result, are the pollutants of greatest concern in the region. As noted in Table 8 and Table 9 above, the proposed Project will emit criteria air pollutants during construction and operation. However, the proposed Project will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ozone precursors (ROG and NOx), PM2.5, PM10, or any other criteria air pollutants, and will not result in a cumulatively significant impact for which the region is in non - attainment. This discussion focuses on the health effects from the pollutants for which the region is in non - attainment and why it is not feasible to provide an analysis to relate the emissions of ozone precursors from an individual project to likely health consequences. Impact Sciences, Inc. 25 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 2.0 Air Quality Exposure to particulate matter can affect both a person's lungs and heart and has been linked to a variety of health problems including aggravated asthma, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms. DPM is a type of particulate that is emitted from diesel engines and is estimated to cause approximately 70% of total known cancer risks related to air toxics in California.10 As discussed below, see Impact 3, the proposed Project would not result in an increased health risk as a result from exposure to DPM or other TACs. Further, since the proposed Project will not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds for particulate matter, the Project will not result in a cumulatively significant impact to particulate matter in the region. Exposure to 03 can cause respiratory irritation, lung damage, aggravate asthma, and may worsen existing chronic lung diseases such as emphysema and chronic bronchitis.11 03 is formed in the atmosphere when heat and sunlight cause a chemical reaction between NOx and ROG emissions. NOx and ROG are referred to as ozone precursors and affect air quality on a regional scale. Health effects related to 03 are therefore the product of emissions generated by numerous sources throughout a region. Existing models have limited sensitivity to small changes in criteria pollutant concentrations, and, as such, translating project - generated criteria pollutants to specific health effects or additional days of nonattainment would produce meaningless results. In other words, the proposed Project's less than significant increases in regional air pollution from criteria air pollutants would not have measurable effect on the human health implications of the Basin's ambient air quality. The Congressional Research service prepared the Background Ozone: Challenges in Science and Policy report for U.S. Congress which provides a summary of the scientific capabilities of measuring ozone and understanding the needs and improvements necessary to understand contributions from background sources. While this paper specifically addresses background concentrations of ozone and ozone modeling, it demonstrates the difficulty in assessing ozone and related health implications from any single source or project. According to the Congressional Research Service, currently there are several data and analytical challenges to reliably assess background ozone concentrations and to model ozone. First, the current understanding of the amount, location, and type of pollutant emissions from many types of sources is insufficient. Therefore, inventories typically provide estimation, which may not be precise enough for apportioning contributions. Second, meteorological data (i.e., wind speed, wind direction, temperature, cloud cover, humidity, etc.) is not currently measured at a fine enough spatial scale to adequately represent relevant weather processes. Third, data on pollutant concentrations are limited, which increases the 10 California Air Resources Board. Overview: Diesel Exhaust & Health. Available online at: htti2s: //ww2. arb. ca. gov/resources/overview-die sel-exhau st-and-health. 11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ozone and Your Health. Available online at: htti2s://www.aimow.gov/sites/default/files/2020-02/ozone-c.12d . Impact Sciences, Inc. 26 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 2.0 Air Quality challenges of understanding ozone formation and movement. Fine spatial and temporal measurements are needed both horizontally across the surface and vertically to higher levels of the atmosphere. Finally, background ozone source contributions change by year, season, day, and hour and from location to location.12 While several models and tools are available to quantify emissions, these models are limited by a number of factors in their ability to determine health impacts of individual development projects. The U.S. EPA currently performs health impact assessments (HIAs) using the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ)13 model for pollutant transport modeling and Environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program — Community Edition (BENMAP — CE) for health impact calculations.14 However, these models are designed to estimate health impacts over a large scale (e.g., city-wide, state-wide). In addition, the CMAQ model requires inputs such as regional sources of pollutants and global meteorological data, which are not readily accessible. In general, the current suite of available models is not able to accurately model concentrations or dispersion of ozone because they are regional models unable to provide accurate results for individual projects. If reliable ozone concentrations can be determined, there is also limitation on being able to correlate concentrations to related health effects. The SCAQMD acknowledges that quantifying the health impacts from 03 is difficult. The 2012 Air Quality Management Plan determines that a reduction of 432 tons (864,000 pounds) per day of NOx and a reduction of 187 tons (374,000 pounds) per day of VOC would reduce 03 levels at the highest monitored site by only nine parts per billion.15 Meaning, large reductions in precursor emissions translate to incremental reductions in measured ozone. Therefore, quantifying 03 and related 03 health impacts caused by NOx or VOC emissions from relatively small projects (defined as projects with regional scope) is limited. Thus, as the proposed Project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for construction and operational air emissions, it can be reasonably concluded that the proposed Project would not have a measurable effect on the human health in the Basin, nor would it have implications for the ambient air quality. As a result, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact for air quality health impacts. 12 Congressional Research Service. 2019. Background Ozone: Challenges in Science and Policy. Available online at: htti2s://fas.org/sgi2/crs/misc/R45482.12df. 13 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. CMAQ: Community Multiscale Air Modeling System. Available online at: httl2s://www.el2a.gov/cmaQ. 14 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program — Community Edition (BenMAP — CE). Available online at: htti2s://www.el2a.gov/benmai2. 15 SCAQMD. Final 2012 AQMP. Available online at: httl2s://www.agmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-Flans/air- quality-mgt-plan/final-2012-air-qu ality-management-Flan. Impact Sciences, Inc. 27 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 2.0 Air Quality AQ Impact 3 Would implementation of the proposed Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial air pollutant concentrations? (Less than Significant). Localized Significance Thresholds Construction The nearest sensitive receptors are residential uses located approximately 800 feet northeast of the Project site. To identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing LSTs for construction. LSTs were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards' Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I-4). The SCAMQD provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology for guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized impacts associated with project -specific analysis. Based on the Project's construction assumptions, approximately 4 acres per day would be disturbed during the grading phase. The LSTs for a 4-acre site in SRA 13 with sensitive receptors located approximately 200 meters were calculated per SCAQMD Linear Regression Methodology and utilized for the grading phase. The SCAQMD's methodology states that "off -site mobile emissions from the Project should not be included in the emissions compared to LSTs." Therefore, for purposes of the construction LST analysis, only emissions included in the CalEEMod "on -site" emissions outputs were considered. The nearest sensitive receptor to the Project site is a multi -family apartment complex approximately 800 feet northeast, or approximately 244 meters. LST screening thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. Therefore, LSTs for receptors located at 200 meters were utilized in this analysis. Table 10, Localized Significance of Construction Emissions — Maximum Pounds per Day, presents the proposed Project's localized emissions during construction activity. As shown in Table 10, the on -site air pollutant emissions on the peak day of construction would not exceed the applicable LSTs. Therefore, the proposed Project's localized air quality impacts would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial air pollutant concentrations. Impacts would be less than significant. Impact Sciences, Inc. 28 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 2.0 Air Quality Table 10 Localized Significance of Construction Emissions — Maximum Pounds per Day Construction Phase NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Grading 38.90 29.77 21.47 11.64 SCAQMD Localized Thresholds 250.77 4,099.69 72.23 24.00 Exceed? No No No No Building Construction 25.87 32.62 1.28 1.20 SCAQMD Localized Thresholds 275.00 4,608.00 79.00 26.00 Exceed? No No No No Source: Impact Science, CalEEMod modeling, 2022. See Appendix A. Note: Building Construction, Paving, and Architectural Coating phases will all overlap in 2023. The on -site maximum daily emissions during each phase were added together to provide the most conservative assessment of possible emissions on the proposed Project site. Localized Operational Significance Analysis As discussed previously, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a project if the project includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site. For example, the LST methodology applies to operational projects such as warehouse/transfer facilities.16 As the Project would not include warehouse or transfer facilities, an operational analysis against the LST methodology is not applicable to the Project and a detailed analysis associated with on -site operational emissions is not necessary to determine these impacts would be less than significant. Localized Air Quality Health Impacts As evaluated above, the proposed Project's air emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD's LST thresholds. Therefore, the Project would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable NAAQS or CAAQS for emissions of CO, NOx, PM10, or PM2.5. It should be noted that the ambient air quality standards are developed and represent levels at which the most susceptible persons are protected. In other words, the ambient air quality standards are purposely set in a stringent manner to protect children, elderly, and those with existing and respiratory problems. Thus, air quality health impacts would be less than significant. 16 SCAQMD, Sample Construction Scenarios for Projects Less than Five Acres in Size, February 2005, page 1-3. Impact Sciences, Inc. 29 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 2.0 Air Quality Carbon Monoxide Hotspots CO emissions are a function of vehicle idling time, meteorological conditions, and traffic flow. Under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels (i.e., adversely affecting residents, school children, hospital patients, the elderly, etc.). The SCAB is designated as an attainment/maintenance area for the federal CO standards and attainment area for state standards. CO emissions have declined in recent years even as VMT on urban and rural roads have increased nationwide. Estimated anthropogenic CO emissions have decreased 68% between 1990 and 2014. In 2014, mobile sources accounted for 82% of the nation's total anthropogenic CO emissions.17 Three major control programs have contributed to the reduced per -vehicle CO emissions: exhaust standards, cleaner burning fuels, and motor vehicle inspection/maintenance programs. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, a potential CO hotspot may occur at any location where the background CO concentration already exceeds 9.0 ppm, the CAAQS for 8-hour for CO. As previously discussed, the site is located in SRA 13, Santa Clarita Valley. Communities within SRAs are expected to have similar climatology and ambient air pollutant concentrations. The monitoring station representative of SRA 13 is the Santa Clarita-Placerita station, which is located approximately 1.52 miles northwest of the site. Within the most recent three years for which measurements are available, the highest CO concentration at the Santa Clarita-Placerita station was measured at 1.2 ppm in 2019. Based on these measured concentrations, CO concentrations in SRA 13 are substantially below the California one -hour or eight -hour CO standards of 20 or 9.0 ppm, respectively. Accordingly, with the steadily decreasing CO emissions from vehicles, even very busy intersections do not result in exceedances of the CO standard. Therefore, the Project would not have the potential to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the California one -hour or eight -hour CO standards of 20 or 9.0 ppm, respectively. Impacts with respect to localized CO concentrations would be less than significant Diesel Particulate Matter Project Construction Construction would result in the generation of DPM emissions from the use of off -road diesel equipment required for grading and excavation, paving, and other construction activities. The amount to which the receptors are exposed (a function of concentration and duration of exposure) is the primary factor used to 17 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2018. Report on the Environment: Carbon Monoxide Emissions. Available online at: htti2s://cf.12ub.el2a.gov/roe/indicator.cftn?i=10. Impact Sciences, Inc. 30 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 2.0 Air Quality determine health risk (i.e., potential exposure to TAC emission levels that exceed applicable standards). Health -related risks associated with diesel -exhaust emissions are primarily linked to long-term exposure and the associated risk of contracting cancer. The use of diesel -powered construction equipment would be temporary and episodic (i.e., intermittent during the Project's anticipated 17-month construction period). The duration of exposure would be short and exhaust from construction equipment dissipates rapidly. Current methodology for conducting health risk assessments is associated with long term exposure periods (9, 30, and 70 years). Therefore, short-term construction activities would not generate a significant health risk. In addition, the nearest air quality sensitive receptor is located approximately 800 feet from the Project site and thus exposure to sensitive populations would be limited. Furthermore, construction would be subject to and would comply with California regulations limiting the idling of heavy-duty construction equipment to no more than 5-minutes, which would further reduce nearby sensitive receptors' exposure to temporary and variable DPM emissions.18 For these reasons, DPM generated by construction activities, in and of itself, would not be expected to expose sensitive receptors to substantial amounts of air toxics and the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact. Project Operation The greatest potential during long-term operations for exposure to TACs is from the use of heavy-duty diesel trucks and stationary generators that use diesel fuel. Once operational, the majority of vehicle trips to the Project site would be from visitors and, as a result, the proposed Project would attract very few diesel truck trips. For these reasons, once operational, the proposed Project would not expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial amounts of air toxics and the Project would have a less than significant impact. AQ Impact 4 Would the proposed Project include sources that could create other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? (Less than Significant). The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) identifies certain land uses as sources of odors. These land uses include agriculture (farming and livestock), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting facilities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed Project would not include any of the land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources. 18 California Air Resources Board. 2015. Frequently Asked Questions Regulation for In -Use Off -Road Diesel -Fueled (Off - Road Regulation). Available online at: htti2s://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msi2rog/ordiesel/faq/idlel2olicyfaq.12df. Impact Sciences, Inc. 31 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 2.0 Air Quality Construction activities associated with the proposed Project may generate detectable odors from heavy- duty equipment exhaust and architectural coatings. However, construction -related odors would be short- term in nature and cease upon Project completion. In addition, the proposed Project would be required to comply with the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485, which minimizes the idling time of construction equipment either by shutting it off when not in use or by reducing the time of idling to no more than five minutes. This would reduce the detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust. The proposed Project would also be required to comply with the SCAQMD Rule 1113 — Architectural Coating, which would minimize odor impacts from ROG emissions during architectural coating. Any odor impacts to existing adjacent land uses would be short-term and not substantial. As such, the Project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. Impacts would be less than significant. Impact Sciences, Inc. 32 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 3.0 GREENHOUSE GAS 3.1 GREENHOUSE GAS SETTING Global climate change refers to any significant change in climate measurements, such as temperature, precipitation, or wind, lasting for an extended period (i.e., decades or longer).19 Climate change may result from: • Natural factors, such as changes in the sun's intensity or slow changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun; • Natural processes within the climate system (e.g., changes in ocean circulation, reduction in sunlight from the addition of GHG and other gases to the atmosphere from volcanic eruptions); and • Human activities that change the atmosphere's composition (e.g., through burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g., deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, desertification). In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans. Impacts are due to observed climate change, irrespective of its cause, indicating the sensitivity of natural and human systems to changing climate.20 Continuing changes to the global climate system and ecosystems, and to California, are projected to include: • Rapidly diminishing sea ice and mountain snowpack levels, thereby increasing sea levels and sea surface evaporation rates with a corresponding increase in tropospheric water vapor due to the atmosphere's ability to hold more water vapor at higher temperatures;21 • Rising average global sea levels primarily due to thermal expansion and the melting of glaciers, ice caps, and ice sheets; • Changing weather patterns, including changes to precipitation, ocean salinity, and wind patterns, and more energetic aspects of extreme weather, including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, extreme cold, and the intensity of tropical cyclones; 19 US EPA. 2013. Overview of Greenhouse Gases. Available online at: htti2s://www.el2a.gov/Vhgemissions/ overview -greenhouse -gases. Accessed on August 11, 2018. 20 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2013. "Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis." Available online at: httl2://www.climatechange2013.org/. Accessed August 13, 2018. 21 Ibid. Impact Sciences, Inc. 33 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 3.0 Greenhouse Gas • Changing levels in snowpack, river flow and sea levels indicating that climate change is already affecting California's water resources,22 • Dry seasons that start earlier and end later, evoking more frequent and intense wildland fires,23 and • Increasing demand for electricity due to rising temperatures.24 The natural process through which heat is retained in the troposphere25 is called the "greenhouse effect." Various gases in the Earth's atmosphere, classified as atmospheric greenhouse gases, play a critical role in determining the Earth's surface temperature. Solar radiation enters Earth's atmosphere as short -wave radiation. It travels through the atmosphere without warming it and is absorbed by the Earth's surface. When the Earth re -emits this radiation back toward space, the radiation changes to long wave radiation. GHGs are transparent to incoming short wave solar radiation but absorb outgoing long wave radiation. As a result, radiation that otherwise would escape back into space is now retained, warming the atmosphere. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. Greenhouse Gas Compounds Global warming potential was developed to allow comparisons of the global warming impacts of different gases. Specifically, it is a measure of how much energy the emissions of 1 ton of a gas will absorb over a given period of time, relative to the emissions of 1 ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). CO2, by definition, has a GWP of 1 regardless of the time period used, because it is the gas being used as the reference. CO2 remains in the climate system for a very long time: CO2 emissions cause increases in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 that will last thousands of years. Methane (CH4) is estimated to have a GWP of 28-36 over 100 years. CH4 emitted today lasts about a decade on average, which is much less time than CO2. But CH4 also absorbs much more energy than CO2. The net effect of the shorter lifetime and higher energy absorption is reflected in the GWP. Nitrous Oxide (N2O) has a GWP 265-298 times that of CO2 for a 100-year timescale. N2O emitted today remains in the atmosphere for more than 100 years, on average. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) are sometimes called high-GWP gases because, for a given amount of mass, they trap 22 California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA). 2010. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. 23 Ibid. 24 California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA). 2010. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. 25 The troposphere is the bottom layer of the atmosphere, which varies in height from the Earth's surface from 6 to 7 miles. Impact Sciences, Inc. 34 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 3.0 Greenhouse Gas substantially more heat than CO2. (The GWPs for these gases can be in the thousands or tens of thousands.)26 California State law defines GHGs to include the following six compounds: • Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is released to the atmosphere when solid waste, fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), and wood and wood products are burned. CO2 emissions from motor vehicles occur during operation of vehicles and operation of air conditioning systems. • Methane (CH4) is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from the decomposition of organic waste in solid waste landfills, raising livestock, natural gas and petroleum systems, stationary and mobile combustion, and wastewater treatment. • Nitrous Oxide (N2O) is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of solid waste and fossil fuels. N2O is also emitted from motor vehicles generally occurring from operation of vehicles. • Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are one of several GWP gases that are not naturally occurring and are generated from industrial processes. HFC (refrigerant) emissions from vehicle air conditioning systems occur due to leakage, losses during recharging, or release from scrapping vehicles at end of their useful life. • Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are another high GWP gas that are not naturally occurring and are generated in a variety of industrial processes. Emissions of PFCs are generally negligible from motor vehicles. • Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) is another high GWP gas that is not naturally occurring and is generated in a variety of industrial processes. Emissions of SF6 are generally negligible from motor vehicles. 3.2 EXISTING SETTING The Project site is located at 23287 Sierra Highway in the City of Santa Clarita. The Project is located within Newhall neighborhood area in the southern portion of the City. The site is on the western portion of the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary, bounded by Needham Ranch Parkway on the west, open space brush areas to the north, previously developed areas of the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary to the east, and industrial warehouses to the south. 26 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Understanding Global Warming Potentials. Available online at: htti2s://www. el2a. gov/ghgemissions/understanding-glob al-warming-12otentials Impact Sciences, Inc. 35 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 3.0 Greenhouse Gas Land uses at this site associated with GHG emissions are from vehicle trips to the site, energy sources for electrical supply to the site and area sources such as the use of landscape maintenance equipment, consumer cleaning products, and architectural coatings. GHG emissions from the existing uses were calculated using CalEEMod (see Impact 1). 3.3 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Federal Paris Climate Agreement The Paris Climate Agreement is an international treaty on climate change adopted on December 12, 2015. The goal of the agreement is to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius as compared to pre -industrial levels. Countries will aim to reach global peaking of GHG emissions as soon as possible to achieve a climate neutral world by mid-century. In order to achieve these reductions, the Paris Climate Agreement works on a 5-year cycle of increasingly ambitious climate action carried out by countries. Therefore, by 2020, countries were required to submit their plans for climate action, known as nationally determined contributions. Additionally, the Agreement provides a framework for financial, technical and capacity building support to those countries who need it. Developed counties will take a lead in providing financial assistance to other countries since large scale investments are required for GHG mitigation and climate adaptation.27 The United States joined 190 other countries in the Paris Climate Agreement under the Obama administration in September 2016.28 Under the Trump administration, the former President announced his intention to withdraw from the Agreement in June 2017 and formally notified the United Nations in November 2019. However, the Agreement requires a year -long waiting period before a formal withdrawal will be recognized. As a result, the United States officially withdrew the Agreement in November 2020.29 However, on January 20, 2021, President Biden accepted and rejoined the Paris Climate Agreement.30 27 United Nations. The Paris Agreement. Available online at httl2s://unfccc.int/12rocess-and-meetings/the-12aris- agreement/the-12aris-agreement. 28 The White House. President Obama: The United States Formally Entered the Paris Agreement. Available online at: htti2s://obamawhitehouse.archives. gov/blog/2016/09/03/President-obama-united-states-formally-enters-12aris- agreement. 29 NPR. U.S. Officially Leaving Paris Climate Agreement. Available online at: htti2s://www.ni2r.org/2020/11 /03 /930312701 /u-s-officially-leavings aris-climate-agreement. 30 The White House. 2021. Paris Climate Agreement. Available online at: httl2s://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing room/statements-releases/2021 /01 /20/12aris-climate-agreement/. Impact Sciences, Inc. 36 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 3.0 Greenhouse Gas State The state of California has implemented a series of greenhouse gas plans and policies aimed at reducing state greenhouse gas emissions. Measures applicable to the Project are summarized below: Executive Order (EO) S-03-05 On June 1, 2005, EO S-03-05 was issued by Governor Schwarzenegger in order to set statewide emissions reduction standards. The order required the state to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. EO S-3-05 also calls for the Secretary of California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) to be responsible for coordination of state agencies and progress reporting. Assembly Bill 32 Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) was codified into law in 2006 and codified into law the 2020 GHG emissions targets set by EO S-03-05. AB 32 represents the first enforceable statewide program to limit GHG emissions from all major sectors with penalties for noncompliance. Senate Bill 32 Senate Bill (SB) 32 was signed into law in 2015 and sets into law the mandated reduction targets set in EO B-30-15, which required a reduction in GHG emissions to 40% below the 1990 levels by 2030. CARB's 2017 Final Scoping Plan The California Air Resources Board (CARB) in collaboration with over twenty state agencies issued a Final Scoping Plan in 2017 in order to set a framework for the state to meet the overall reduction goals set in SB 32. The 2017 Scoping Plan identified key sectors of the implementation strategy, which includes improvements in low carbon energy, industry, transportation sustainability, natural and working lands, waste management, and water. Through a combination of data synthesis and modeling, CARB determined that the target statewide 2030 emissions limit is 260 MMTCO2e, and that further commitments will need to be made to achieve an additional reduction of 50 MMTCO2e beyond current policies and programs. Key elements of the 2017 Update include a proposed 20% reduction in GHG emissions from refineries and an expansion of the Cap -and -Trade program to meet the aggressive 2030 GHG emissions goal. Impact Sciences, Inc. 37 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 3.0 Greenhouse Gas Regional SCAQMD Draft Guidance Regarding Interim CEQA GHG Significance Thresholds SCAQMD released draft guidance regarding interim CEQA GHG significance thresholds. In its October 2008 document, the SCAQMD proposed a 30% emission reduction target to determine significance for commercial/residential projects that emit greater than 3,000 metric tons per year. On December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted the staff proposal for an interim GHG significance threshold for stationary source/industrial projects where the SCAQMD is lead agency. However, SCAQMD has yet to adopt a GHG significance threshold for land use development projects (e.g., residential/commercial projects) and has formed a GHG Significance Threshold Working Group to further evaluate potential GHG significance thresholds. The draft tier thresholds recommended by the SCAQMD Working Group were never authorized as guidance for GHG analyses. These recommended thresholds are over a decade old; as a result, these thresholds were not utilized in this analysis. SCAG 2020 Connect SoCal Plan RTP/SCS On September 3, 2020, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Council unanimously voted to approve and fully adopt Connect SoCal (2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy [RTP/SCS]). Connect SoCal is a long-range visioning plan that builds upon and expands land use and transportation strategies established over several planning cycles to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern. It charts a path toward a more mobile, sustainable and prosperous region by making connections between transportation networks, between planning strategies and between the people whole collaboration can improve the quality of life for Southern Californians. In addition, Connect SoCal is supported by a combination of transportation and land use strategies that outline how the region can achieve California's greenhouse gas emission reduction goals and federal CAA requirements. The plan also strives to achieve broader regional objectives, such as the preservation of natural lands, improvement of public health, increased roadway safety, support for the region's vital goods movement industries and more efficient use of resources. Local City of Santa Clarita General Plan The City's Conservation and Open Space Element of the 2011 Santa Clarita General Plan (General Plan) has identified the following goals, objectives, and policies aimed at greenhouse gas reduction in private Impact Sciences, Inc. 38 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 3.0 Greenhouse Gas development projects in the City. Applicable goals and policies from the General Plan's Conservation and Open Space Elements are listed below: • Goal CO 8: Development designed to improve energy efficiency, reduce energy and natural resource consumption, and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. — Objective CO 8.1: Comply with the requirements of State law, including AB 32, SB 375 and implementing regulations, to reach targeted reductions of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. — Objective CO 8.3: Encourage the following green building and sustainable development practices on private development projects, to the extent reasonable and feasible. • Policy CO 8.3.2: Promote construction of energy efficient buildings through requirements for LEED certification or through comparable alternative requirements as adopted by local ordinance. • Policy CO 8.3.7: Encourage the use of trees and landscaping to reduce heating and cooling energy loads, through shading of buildings and parking lots. • Policy CO 8.3.8: Encourage energy -conserving heating and cooling systems and appliances, and energy -efficiency in windows and insulation, in all new construction. City of Santa Clarita Climate Action Plan The State of California requires all cities that create a new general plan or update their general plan document to consider its impacts on GHG emissions. In order to do so, cities must complete a CAP. The CAP must achieve the emission reduction goals outlined by the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions must be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. Measures identified in the City's CAP will not only meet but exceed the state's AB 32 GHG emission reduction mandate.31 In June 2011, the City Council adopted a new General Plan (referred to as One Valley One Vision), which is intended to guide growth and development within all portions of the Santa Clarita Valley. As noted above, Policy CO 8.1.1 of the City's General Plan states the City shall create and adopt a CAP within 18 months of the adoption of the City's General Plan Update that meets state requirements. Consistent with this policy, in January 2011, the City began the process of developing a CAP, with the Final CAP published 31 City of Santa Clarita. 2012. Climate Action Plan. Available online at: htti2s://greensantaclarita. com/files/2012/10/APPROVED-CAP-AUGUST-2012.F df Impact Sciences, Inc. 39 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 3.0 Greenhouse Gas in August 2012. The CAP, part of the General Plan, serves as a component of the general plan document for the City to address GHG emissions. Using the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan as a starting point, the CAP identifies mitigation measures that can be quantified and translated into significant reductions in the GHG emissions by the year 2020. The development of a CAP begins with a premise that establishing a complete GHG emissions inventory within the City's boundary is the critical foundation for the remainder of the project. The CAP also defines a local threshold of significance for GHG emissions for project level submittals that trigger review by the CEQA. Because goals, objectives, and policies approved under the General Plan are forecast to meet the GHG emission reduction targets mandated by AB 32, development projects that are able to demonstrate consistency with the General Plan and zoning ordinance will by association demonstrate consistency with the CAP. However, the CAP is only certified through 2020. Santa Clarita Building Standards Code Section 25.01.010 in the Santa Clarita Municipal Code adopts by reference that certain code known and designated as the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11, further described as the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code, also referred to as the 2019 CalGreen Code, published by the California Building Standards Commission. Such code shall be and become the City of Santa Clarita Green Building Standards Code, regulating the planning, design, operation, construction, use and occupancy of every new building or structure to ensure buildings have a more positive environmental impact and encourage sustainable construction practices as specifically provided for therein. 3.4 THRESHOLDS AND METHODOLOGY Thresholds of Significance The impact analysis provided below is based on the application of the following CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, which indicates that a proposed Project would have a significant impact on GHG emissions if it would: 1) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. 2) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gas emissions. Impact Sciences, Inc. 40 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 3.0 Greenhouse Gas Methodology GHG emissions and climate change were evaluated in accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 states that, when making a determination with respect to the significance of a Project's GHG emissions, a lead agency shall have discretion to determine whether to: (1) Use a model or methodology to quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project, and which model or methodology to use; and/or (2) Rely on a qualitative analysis or performance -based standards. Section 15064.4 also states that a lead agency should consider the following factors when assessing the significance of the impact of GHG emissions on the environment: (1) The extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting; (2) Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project; and (3) The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. GHG emissions were calculated in the same CalEEMod model used to determine the proposed Project's criteria air pollutant emissions. Consistent with SCAQMD recommendations, construction emissions were amortized over a thirty-year period and added to the annual operational emissions to determine the proposed Project's annual GHG emissions. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3), Project significance was determined based on the proposed Project's consistency with an approved plan or mitigation program that provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area of the proposed Project. The relevant adopted regulatory plans include CARB's 2017 Scoping Plan, CALGreen, California Energy Code, SCAG's 2020 Connect SoCal Plan, and the City's General Plan. Although the City's CAP is only a qualified plan through the year 2020, the following consistency analysis with the City's CAP is included for informational purposes. 3.5 PROJECT IMPACTS GHG Impact 1 Would implementation of the proposed Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Less than Significant). Both construction period and operational period activities would have the potential to generate GHG emissions. Construction Emissions The proposed Project would generate GHG emissions during temporary, short-term construction activities such as demolition, site preparation and grading, running of construction equipment engines, movement Impact Sciences, Inc. 41 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 3.0 Greenhouse Gas of on -site heavy-duty construction vehicles, hauling of materials to and from the site, asphalt paving, and construction worker motor vehicle trips. Through CalEEMod, GHG emissions throughout proposed Project construction were calculated from off - road equipment usage, hauling vehicles, delivery, and worker trips to and from the site. The total GHG construction emissions over the approximately 572.46 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e). As GHG emissions impact from construction activities would occur over a relatively short time span, it would contribute a relatively small portion of the lifetime GHG emission impact of the proposed Project. The total construction GHG emissions were divided by 30 to determine an annual construction emission rate to be amortized over the proposed Project's first 30 years of operations, consistent with SCAQMD recommendations. Amortized over a 30-year period, the proposed Project is anticipated to emit approximately 19.08 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year (MT CO2e/year). Operational Emissions Operational emissions occur over the life of a project. The proposed Project is expected to generate GHG emissions from area, energy, and mobile -sources, in the form of vehicle trips by employees and visitors. Area source emissions are based on the land use sizes, GHG emission factors for fuel combustion such as for landscaping equipment, and the global warming potential (GWP) values for the GHGs emitted. Electricity usage emissions are based on the land uses, default demand factors for the land use, GHG emission factors for the utility provider, and the GWP values of the GHGs emitted. Mobile -source GHG emissions are determined based on the Project's estimated annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to and from the site. Waste and water emissions are derived from the anticipated water usage and wastewater generated based on the Project's proposed land uses and the associated water demand factors. The estimated total net annual project emissions, including operation emissions and amortized construction and operational emissions, are detailed in Table 11, Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Table 11 Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Emissions Source Equivalent (per year) Amortized Construction 19.08 Area Sources >0.01 Energy Sources 10.65 Mobile Sources 26.74 Waste Sources 10.52 Impact Sciences, Inc. 42 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 3.0 Greenhouse Gas Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Emissions Source Equivalent (per year) Water Sources 0.78 Total GHG Emissions 67.77 Source: Impact Sciences, 2022. As shown in Table 11, the Project's combined long-term net operational emissions and amortized construction emissions would be approximately 67.77 MT CO2e/year. While quantified emissions are provided for informational purposes, significance under CEQA is based on the Project's consistency with statewide and regional policies and plans to meet the state reduction goals set in SB 32, including CARB's 2017 Scoping Plan and SCAG's 2020 Connect SoCal RTP/SCS, see GHG Impact 2. GHG Impact 2 Would implementation of the proposed Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Less than Significant). A proposed Project would have a significant impact with respect to GHG emissions and global climate change if it would substantially conflict with the provisions of Section 15064.4(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant GHG impact is identified if a project could conflict with applicable GHG reduction plans, policies, or regulations. The relevant adopted regulatory plans include CARB's 2017 Scoping Plan, CALGreen, California Energy Code, SCAG's 2020 Connect SoCal Plan, and the City's General Plan. Consistency with AB 32 & SB 32 The proposed Project would be consistent with applicable statewide regulatory programs designed to reduce GHG emissions consistent with AB 32 and SB 32. During construction, the Project will utilize equipment in compliance with CARB. Mobile sources during construction and operation would be subject to the requirements of California Assembly Bill 1493 (Pavley Standards), the Advanced Clean Cars Program, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard Regulation. Additionally, the Project would be designed, constructed, and operated consistent with California Title 24 and CALGreen (2019). These regulations require projects to comply with specific standards related to building energy efficiency and green building. Impact Sciences, Inc. 43 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 3.0 Greenhouse Gas Consistency with the Final 2017 Scoping Plan Update The Project would be consistent with CARB's Scoping Plan. The Scoping Plan (approved by CARB in 2008 and updated in 2014 and 2017) provides a framework for actions to reduce California's GHG emissions and requires CARB and other state agencies to adopt regulations and other strategies to reduce GHGs. The Scoping Plan is not directly applicable to specific projects, nor is it intended to be used for project- level evaluations. Under the Scoping Plan, however, there are several regulatory measures aimed at the identification and reduction of GHG emissions. CARB and other state agencies have adopted many of the measures identified in the Scoping Plan. Most of these measures focus on area source emissions (e.g., energy production, distribution and usage, and high-GWP GHGs in consumer products) and changes to the vehicle fleet (i.e., hybrid, electric, and more fuel -efficient vehicles) and associated fuels (e.g., Low Carbon Fuel Standard), among others. The 2008 Scoping Plan recommends strategies for implementation at the statewide level to meet the goals of AB 32 and establishes an overall framework for the measures that will be adopted to reduce California's GHG emissions. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update reflects the 2030 target of a 40% reduction below 1990 levels codified by SB 32. The Project would comply with all regulations adopted in furtherance of the Scoping Plan to the extent required by law and to the extent that they are applicable to the proposed Project. Consistency with SCAG's Connect SoCal Plan At the regional level, SCAG's Connect SoCal Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) represent the region's Climate Action Plan that defines strategies for reducing GHGs. In order to assess the Project's potential to conflict with the RTP/SCS, this section analyzes the Project's land use profile for consistency with those in the RTP/SCS. Generally, projects are considered consistent with the provisions and general policies of applicable City and regional land use plans and regulations, such as SCAG's RTP/SCS, if they are compatible with the general intent of the plans and would not preclude the attainment of their primary goals. As shown in Table 13, Project Consistency with SCAG's RTP/SCS, the Project would be consistent with the applicable strategies set forth in the RTP/SCS's "A Path to Greater Access, Mobility, & Sustainability" chapter. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the applicable GHG reduction related actions and strategies contained in Connect SoCal. Impact Sciences, Inc. 44 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 3.0 Greenhouse Gas Table 13 Project Consistency with SCAG's RTP/SCS Actions and Strategies Consistency Analysis Focus Growth Near Destinations & Mobili Options Emphasize land use patterns that facilitate multimodal access to Consistent: The proposed Project would be an expansion of work, educational and other destinations the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary into a currently unused area. The proposed project would not add new residents to the area and would not change the existing zoning, which informs the Connect SoCal Plan. Focus on job/housing balance to reduce commute times and Not Applicable: The proposed Project would be an expansion distances and expand job opportunities near transit and along of the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary into a center -focused main streets currently unused area. The proposed Project does not include any housing. Plan for growth near transit investments and support Not Applicable: The proposed Project would be an expansion implementation of first/last mile strategies of the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary into a currently vacant area. The proposed Project would not conflict with the implementation of such strategies. Not Applicable: The proposed Project would be an expansion Promote the redevelopment of underperforming retail of the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary into a developments and other outmoded nonresidential uses currently vacant area which does not currently include retail or other outmoded nonresidential uses. The proposed Project does not include retail uses. Prioritize infill and redevelopment of underutilized land to Consistent: The proposed Project would be an expansion of the accommodate new growth, increase amenities and connectivity Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary into a currently in existing neighborhoods vacant area which is underutilized. Encourage design and transportation options that reduce the Not Applicable: The proposed Project would be an expansion reliance on and number of solo car trips (this could include of the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary into a mixed uses or locating and orienting close to existing currently vacant area. destinations) Promote Diverse Housing Preserve and rehabilitate affordable housing and prevent displacement Identify opportunities for new workforce and affordable housing development Leverage Technology Innovations Promote low emission technologies such as neighborhood electric vehicles, shared rides hailing, car sharing, bike sharing and scooters by providing supportive and safe infrastructure such as dedications lanes, charging and parking/drop-off space Identify ways to incorporate "micro -power grids" in communities, for example solar energy, hydrogen fuel cell power storage and power generation Not Applicable: The proposed Project would be an expansion of the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary into a currently vacant area, which does not include housing. The proposed Project would not include housing. There are not currently any housing units within the site and the project would not displace affordable housing residents. Not Applicable: The proposed Project would be an expansion of the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary into a currently vacant area. The proposed Project would not include housing. Not Applicable: The proposed Project would be an expansion of the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary into a currently vacant area. The proposed Project would not conflict with such pohcymaking. Not Applicable: This strategy is aimed at local government to identify ways to incorporate "micro -power grids." The proposed Project would not conflict with such pohcymaking. Impact Sciences, Inc. 45 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 3.0 Greenhouse Gas Actions and Strategies Consistency Analysis Support Implementation of Sustainability Policies Pursue funding opportunities to support local sustainable Not Applicable: While this strategy calls on local governments development implementation projects that reduce GHG to adopt policies for sustainable infrastructure and emissions development projects, the proposed Project would not conflict with such pohcymaking. Support statewide legislation that reduces barriers to new Not Applicable: While this strategy calls on the state to adopt construction and that incentivizes development near transit policies to new construction near transit corridors and stations, corridors and stations the proposed Project would not conflict with such pohcymaking. Support cities in the establishment of Enhanced Infrastructure Not Applicable: While this strategy calls on cities to establish Financing Districts (EIFDs), Community Revitalization and Investment Authorities (CRIAs), or other tax increment or value tax incentive or other value capture tools to finance sustainable capture tools to finance sustainable infrastructure and infrastructure, the proposed Project would not conflict with development projects such policymaking. Work with local jurisdictions/communities to identify Not Applicable: While this strategy calls on SCAG to work opportunities and assess barriers to implement sustainability with local jurisdictions to identify ways to implement strategies sustainable strategies, the proposed Project would not conflict with such pohcymaking. Enhance partnerships with other planning organizations to Not Applicable: While this strategy calls on planning promote resources and best practices in the SCAG region organizations to promote resources and best practices in SCAG, the proposed Project would not conflict with such pohcymaking. Continue to support long range planning efforts by local Not Applicable: While this strategy calls on local jurisdictions jurisdictions to support long range planning, the proposed Project would not conflict with such policymaking. Provide educational opportunities to local decisions makers and Not Applicable: While this strategy calls on local jurisdictions staff on new tools, best practices and policies related to to provide educational opportunities on new tools and practices implementing the Sustainable Communities Strategy to promote the Sustainable Communities Strategy, the proposed Project would not conflict with such pohcymaking. Promote a Green Region Support development of local climate adaptation and hazard Not Applicable: This strategy calls on local jurisdictions to mitigation plans, as well as Project implementation that develop climate adaptation and hazard mitigation plans. The improves community resiliency to climate change and natural proposed project would not conflict with such pohcymaking hazards. Support local policies for renewable energy production, Not Applicable: While this strategy calls on local governments reduction of urban heat islands and carbon sequestration. to adopt policies for renewable energy production, the proposed Project would not conflict with such policymaking. Integrate local food production into the regional landscape Not Applicable: While this strategy calls on local governments to integrate local food into the regional landscape, the proposed Project would not conflict with such policymaking. Promote more resource efficient development focused on Consistent. The proposed Project will be required to adhere to conservation, recycling and reclamation the latest CALGreen Building Codes and Title 24. Preserve, enhance and restore regional wildlife connectivity Consistent: The project would not impact natural lands during construction or operation The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. The proposed Project will be constructed adjacent to the existing Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary and would not interfere with any known wildlife corridors. Reduce consumption of resource areas, including agricultural Consistent. The proposed Project will not consume any land resource areas or agricultural land. Impact Sciences, Inc. 46 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 3.0 Greenhouse Gas 6 Actions and Strategies Consistency Analysis Identify ways to improve access to public park space Not Applicable. This strategy calls on local governments to improve access to public park space. The proposed Project would not conflict with this goal. Source: Impact Sciences, 2 02 1. SCAG. 2019. Connect SoCal — The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, Chapter 3: A Path to Greater Access, Mobility, & Sustainability. Available online at: hops://www.connectsocal.org/Documents/Draft/dConnec[SoCal-03—Draft-Plan.pdf, accessed September 22, 2021. Consistency with Santa Clarita General Plan Because goals, objectives and policies approved under the General Plan are forecast to meet the GHG emission reduction targets mandated by AB 32, development projects that are able to demonstrate consistency with the General Plan and zoning ordinance will by association demonstrate consistency with the CAP. The Project site is zoned OS - Open Space and has a General Plan designation of Open Space. The proposed Project would be an expansion of the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary into a currently vacant area. The proposed Project would include construction of a 3,665 square foot mausoleum, traditional lawn burial gardens, and a private cemetery loop road for access by cemetery visitors. As such, the Project would be consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning designation for the site. Furthermore, the Project is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's General Plan. Conclusion As demonstrated above, the proposed Project is consistent and would not result in the generation of GHG emissions in the environment or conflict with the applicable plans, policies and regulation including the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan, SCAG's RTP/SCS, and the Santa Clarita General Plan. As such, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact in regard to GHG emissions. Impact Sciences, Inc. 47 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 4.0 REFERENCES California Air Resources Board, "Air Quality Data Statistics," http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/. 2020. California Air Resources Board. CARB Identified Toxic Air Contaminants. Available online at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/carb-identified-toxic-air-contaminants. California Air Resources Board. 2015. Frequently Asked Questions Regulation for In -Use Off -Road Diesel - California Air Resources Board. Sensitive Receptor Assessment. Available online at: https://ww2. arb.ca.gov/cal2p-resource-center/community-assessment/sensitive-receptor- assessment. California Air Resources Board. California's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Available online at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping plan 2017.12df. California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA). 2010. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. City of Santa Clarita. 2011. Conservation and Open Space Element. Available at: https://www. codepublishing. com/CA/SantaClarita/html/SantaClaritaGP/6%20- %20Conservation%20and%200pen%2OSpace%20EIemenLpdf. Coast Air Basin. Available online at: https://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/air-quality/air-toxic- studies/mates-iv/mates-iv-final-draft-report-4-1-15.pdf? sfvrsn=7. Fueled (Off -Road Regulation). Available online at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/ordiesel/faq/idlepolicyfaq.12df. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2013. "Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis." Available online at: http://www.climatechange2013.org[. NPR. U.S. Officially Leaving Paris Climate Agreement. Available online at: https://www.npr.org/2020/11/03/930312701/u-s-officially-leaving-l2aris-climate-agreement. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and The American Lung Association of California. Air Pollution and Children's Health. Available online at: httl2s://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/faqs/kidsair4-02.12d . SCAQMD. 2019. Air Quality South Coast Air Quality Management District. Available at: http://www. agmd. gov/docs/default-source/air-quality/historical-data-by-year/2019-air-quality data -tables. pdf? sfvrsn=8. 2020. Southern California Association of Governments. 2019. Connect SoCal — The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, Chapter 3: A Path to Greater Access, Mobility, & Sustainability. Available online at: https://www.connectsocal.org/Documents/Draft/dConnectSoCal-03 Draft-Plan.pdf. Impact Sciences, Inc. 48 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 4.0 References South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2003 Air Quality Management Plan. Available online at: https://www.agmd.gov/home/air-duality/clean-air-plans/air-duality-mgt-plan/2003-admp. South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2015. Final Report Multiple Exposure Study in the South South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2016. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) Attainment Status for South Coast Air Basin. The White House. President Obama: The United States Formally Entered the Paris Agreement. Available online at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/09/03/president-obama-united-states- formally-enters-Paris-agreement. The White House. 2021. Paris Climate Agreement. Available online at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/01/20/Paris-dimate- a reement . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Reducing Air Pollution from: Dry Cleaning Operations. Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017- 06/documents/drycleaners comm info.pdf. US Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Overview of Greenhouse Gases. Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2018. Monitor Values Report. Available: https://www.epa.gov /outdoor-air-duality-data/monitor-values-report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2018. Report on the Environment: Carbon Monoxide Emissions. Available online at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/indicator.cfm?i=10. United Nations. The Paris Agreement. Available online at https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the- paris-agreement/the-Paris-agreement. Impact Sciences, Inc. 49 Eternal Valley Air Quality and GHG Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 ATTACHMENT A CaIEEMod Inputs and Output Files l7" y r R EL Y[7ha'_ Elsme�,e Canyo- _ t V.) f "vi norial Parke r rtLjary 23.287 SS( r Hwy ` B&'I wig tirg ! � Y - r LA North Studios (`S a fr k a r _ Goo le Earth - � ♦ �;' �s� _ � � � � - g i ',' NN CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:21 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Eternal Valley Future Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Place of Worship 3.67 * 1000sgft 14.80 3,665.00 0 F (- Other Asphalt Surfaces 87.50 * 1000sgft 2.01 87,500.00 0 .............................................................. ------------------------------ r..............F------------------ ............. Parking Lot 1.00 Space 0.01 400.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 33 Climate Zone 9 Operational Year 2023 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2Intensity 390.98 CH4Intensity 0.033 N20Intensity 0.004 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data Project Characteristics - Land Use - Total lot acreage based on project information of 17 acre project site. The proposed Loop Road and road connection estimated to have a length of 3,500 feet and width of 25 feet for a total of approximately 87,500 sf of asphalt surface. Construction Phase - Area Mitigation - Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/10/2022 5/13/2022 i tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/22/2022 6/24/2022 i tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 9/15/2023 8/18/2023 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:21 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied tblConstructionPhase PhaseE nd Date 10/13/2023 9/15/2023 ............................. tblConstructionPhase ............................. PhaseEndDate ----------------------------- 11/10/2023 10/13/2023 i tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/28/2022 5/2/2022 i tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 6/11/2022 5/14/2022 i tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/23/2022 6/25/2022 i tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 9/16/2023 8/19/2023 i tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/14/2023 9/16/2023 i tblLandUse LotAcrea e 0.08 14.80 2.0 Emissions Summary CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:21 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Year lb/day lb/day 2022 3.6989 38.8993 29.7653 0.0640 19.8582 1.6363 21.4721 10.1558 1.5054 11.6406 ` 0.0000 ' 6,208.437 ' 6,208.437 ' 1.9499 0.0557 ' 6,258.778 2 2 , 5 i 2023 3.1404 15.0814 17.7398 0.0333 0.5208 0.7052 1.2260 0.1403 0.6636 0.8039 ` 0.0000 ' 3,220.646 ' 3,220.646 ' 0.7178 0.0527 ' 3,252.033 5 5 , 3 Maximum 3.6989 38.8993 29.7653 0.0640 19.8582 1.6363 21.4721 10.1558 1.5054 11.6406 0.0000 6,208.437 6,208.437 1.9499 0.0557 6,258.778 1 2 1 2 1 5 1 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Year lb/day lb/day 2022 3.6989 38.8993 29.7653 0.0640 19.8582 1.6363 21.4721 10.1558 1.5054 11.6406 ` 0.0000 ' 6,208.437 ' 6,208.437 ' 1.9499 0.0557 ' 6,258.778 2 2 , 5 i 0.7052 1.2260 0.1403 0.6636 0.8039 0.0000 ' 3,220.646 ' 3,220.646 ' 0.7178 0.0527 ' 3,252.033 2023 3.1404 15.0814 17.7398 0.0333 0.5208 5 5 , 3 Maximum 3.6989 38.8993 29.7653 0.0640 19.8582 1.6363 21.4721 10.1558 1.5054 11.6406 0.0000 6,208.437 6,208.437 1.9499 0.0557 6,258.778 1 2 1 2 1 5 1 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:21 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:21 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Area 0.1206 9.000Oe- 9.4100e- 0.0000 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 0.0202 0.0202 5.000Oe- 0.0215 005 ; 003 005 005 ; 005 i 005 ; 005 i -----------• ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- --------------- -------+-------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- Energy 1.9400e- 0.0177 0.0149 1.1000e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 21.2162 21.2162 4.1000e- 3.9000e- 21.3423 003 ; 004 003 003 ; 003 i 003 ; 004 004 i Mobile 0.2468 0.2467 2.2004 4.3300e- 0.4547 3.3400e- 0.4580 0.1211 3.1000e- 0.1242 446.1822 446.1822 0.0353 0.0215 453.4672 003 003 ; 003 Total 0.3693 0.2645 2.2247 4.4400e- 0.4547 4.7100e- 0.4594 0.1211 4.4700e- 0.1256 467.4186 467.4186 0.0357 0.0219 474.8310 003 003 003 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total I PM2.5 I PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Area 0.1206 9.000Oe- 9.4100e- 0.0000 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 0.0202 0.0202 5.000Oe- 0.0215 005 ; 003 005 005 ; 005 i 005 ; 005 -----------• ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- i-------+-------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- �--------------- Energy 1.9400e- 0.0177 0.0149 1.1000e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 21.2162 21.2162 4.1000e- 3.9000e- 21.3423 003 ; 004 003 003 ; 003 i 003 ; 004 004 i Mobile 0.2468 0.2467 2.2004 - 4.3300e- 0.4547 - 3.3400e- 0.4580 0.1211 3.1000e- 0.1242 446.1822 446.1822 0.0353 0.0215 453.4672 003 003 ; 003 Total 0.3693 0.2645 2.2247 4.4400e- 0.4547 4.7100e- 0.4594 0.1211 4.4700e- 0.1256 467.4186 467.4186 0.0357 0.0219 474.8310 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:21 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Site Preparation Site Preparation ;5/2/2022 :5/13/2022 5: 101 •-----------------------------------�------------r -------- I 2 •Grading •Grading ,5/14/2022 :6/24/2022 5: 30- •-----------------------------------�------------ -------- I 3 •Building Construction •Building Construction ,6/25/2022 :8/18/2023 5: 300- 4 • Paving • Paving , 8/19/2023 : 9/15/2023 5I 20 ............................................... ----- --------- -------}-------- ......................... 5 •Architectural Coating :Architectural Coating •9/16/2023 •10/13/2023 5• 20• Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 15 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 90 Acres of Paving: 2.02 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non -Residential Indoor: 5,498; Non -Residential Outdoor: 1,833; Striped Parking Area: 5,274 (Architectural Coating - sgft) OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation • Rubber Tired Dozers 3; 8.00: 247' 0.40 Site Preparation •Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4: 8.00: 97- 0.37 Grading •Excavators 28.00: 158- 0.38 Grading •Graders 1 8.00: 187- 0.41 Grading •Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00: 247- 0.40 ........................ .......................... ----------------Y -------------------------}------------ Grading :Scrapers 2 8.00• 367• 0.48 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:21 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Grading •Tractors/Load ers/Backhoes 2 8.00• 97• 0.37 -----------------------------=------------- Building Construction -Cranes 1 7.00; F 231, -------------- 0.29 Building Construction •Forklifts 38.00; 89, 0.2C Building Construction -Generator Sets 1 8.00; 84, 0.74 Building Construction •Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3' 7.00; 97, 0.37 Building Construction -Welders 1 8.00; 46, 0.45 Paving •Pavers 28.00; 130, 0.42 Paving :Paving Equipment 28.00; 132, 0.36 Paving •Rollers 28.00; 80, 0.38 ............................. ------------------------------------------------- ------------F.............. Architectural Coating -Air Compressors 1 6.00 78• 0.48 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count I Number I Number I Number I Length I Length I Length I Class IVehicleClass Vehicle Class Site Preparation 7; 18.00, 0.00 0.00; 14.70; 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix EHDT_Mix 'HHDT -- ---------------------------- ;----------F---------- -------------------; ----------=---------- ---------=-------------T----------� .......... Grading 8: 20.00, 0.00, 0.00, 14.70; 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix EHDT_Mix HHDT --------------------- ;----------F---------- -------------------; ----------=---------- ---------=-------------T---------- Building Construction 9: 38.00, 15.00: 0.00, 14.70; 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix :HDT_Mix HHDT ---------------------;----------F----------� ;----------=---------- --------------- --------T---------- Paving 6� 15.00, 0.00: 0.00, 14.70; 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix :HDT_Mix HHDT _ T _ _ Architectural Coating 1 8.00• 0.00• 0.00• 14.70, 6.90• 20.00•LD_Mix THDT_Mix •HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:21 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3.2 Site Preparation - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 19.6570 0.0000 19.6570 10.1025 0.0000 10.1025 ` 0.0000 0.0000 i , Off -Road 3.1701 33.0835 19.6978 0.0380 1.6126 1.6126 1.4836 1.4836 ` 3,686.061 3,686.061 1.1922 3,715.865 A 9 9 , 5 Total 3.1701 33.0835 19.6978 0.0380 19.6570 1.6126 21.2696 10.1025 1.4836 11.5860 3,686.061 3,686.061 1.1922 3,715.865 9 9 5 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i , Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i , Worker 0.0667 0.0503 0.6514 1.7400e- 0.2012 1.2900e- 0.2025 0.0534 1.1900e- 0.0546 177.3240 177.3240 5.1300e- 4.8100e- 178.8864 003 ; 003 003 A 003 ; 003 i A , Total 0.0667 0.0503 0.6514 1.7400e- 0.2012 1.2900e- 0.2025 0.0534 1.1900e- 0.0546 177.3240 177.3240 5.1300e- 4.8100e- 178.8864 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:21 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3.2 Site Preparation - 2022 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 19.6570 0.0000 19.6570 10.1025 0.0000 10.1025 ` 0.0000 0.0000 i , Off -Road 3.1701 33.0835 19.6978 0.0380 1.6126 1.6126 1.4836 1.4836 ` 0.0000 3,686.061 3,686.061 1.1922 3,715.865 A 9 9 , 5 Total 3.1701 33.0835 19.6978 0.0380 19.6570 1.6126 21.2696 10.1025 1.4836 11.5860 0.0000 3,686.061 3,686.061 1.1922 3,715.865 9 9 5 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i , Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i , Worker 0.0667 0.0503 0.6514 1.7400e- 0.2012 1.2900e- 0.2025 0.0534 1.1900e- 0.0546 177.3240 177.3240 5.1300e- 4.8100e- 178.8864 003 ; 003 003 A 003 ; 003 i A , Total 0.0667 0.0503 0.6514 1.7400e- 0.2012 1.2900e- 0.2025 0.0534 1.1900e- 0.0546 177.3240 177.3240 5.1300e- 4.8100e- 178.8864 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:21 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3.3 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 9.2036 0.0000 9.2036 3.6538 0.0000 3.6538 ` 0.0000 0.0000 i , Off -Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 ` 6,011.410 6,011.410 1.9442 6,060.015 A 5 5 , 8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 9.2036 1.6349 10.8385 3.6538 1.5041 5.1579 6,011.410 6,011.410 1.9442 6,060.015 1 1 5 5 1 8 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i , Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i , Worker 0.0741 0.0558 0.7237 1.9400e- 0.2236 1.4300e- 0.2250 0.0593 1.3200e- 0.0606 197.0266 197.0266 5.7000e- 5.3500e- 198.7627 003 ; 003 003 A 003 ; 003 i A , Total 0.0741 0.0558 0.7237 1.9400e- 0.2236 1.4300e- 0.2250 0.0593 1.3200e- 0.0606 197.0266 197.0266 5.7000e- 5.3500e- 198.7627 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:21 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3.3 Grading - 2022 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 9.2036 0.0000 9.2036 3.6538 0.0000 3.6538 ` 0.0000 0.0000 i , Off -Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 ` 0.0000 6,011.410 6,011.410 1.9442 6,060.015 A 5 5 , 8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 9.2036 1.6349 10.8385 3.6538 1.5041 5.1579 0.0000 6,011.410 6,011.410 1.9442 6,060.015 1 5 1 5 1 8 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i , Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i , Worker 0.0741 0.0558 0.7237 1.9400e- 0.2236 1.4300e- 0.2250 0.0593 1.3200e- 0.0606 197.0266 197.0266 5.7000e- 5.3500e- 198.7627 003 ; 003 003 A 003 ; 003 i A , Total 0.0741 0.0558 0.7237 1.9400e- 0.2236 1.4300e- 0.2250 0.0593 1.3200e- 0.0606 197.0266 197.0266 5.7000e- 5.3500e- 198.7627 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:21 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3.4 Building Construction - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 ` 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 2,569.632 6 6 , 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 2,569.632 1 1 6 1 6 1 2 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i , Vendor 0.0292 0.7651 0.2606 2.9400e- 0.0961 7.0200e- 0.1031 0.0277 6.7200e- 0.0344 & 315.8110 315.8110 0.0105 0.0456 329.6480 003 ; 003 003 A ; i A , , Worker 0.1408 0.1061 1.3751 3.6800e- 0.4248 2.7200e- 0.4275 0.1127 2.5100e- 0.1152 374.3506 374.3506 0.0108 0.0102 377.6491 003 ; 003 003 A ; i A , Total 0.1700 0.8712 1.6357 6.6200e- 0.5208 9.7400e- 0.5306 0.1403 9.2300e- 0.1495 690.1616 690.1616 0.0214 0.0557 707.2971 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:21 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3.4 Building Construction - 2022 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 ` 0.0000 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 2,569.632 6 6 , 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 2,569.632 1 6 1 6 1 2 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i , Vendor 0.0292 0.7651 0.2606 2.9400e- 0.0961 7.0200e- 0.1031 0.0277 6.7200e- 0.0344 & 315.8110 315.8110 0.0105 0.0456 329.6480 003 ; 003 003 A ; i A , , Worker 0.1408 0.1061 1.3751 3.6800e- 0.4248 2.7200e- 0.4275 0.1127 2.5100e- 0.1152 374.3506 374.3506 0.0108 0.0102 377.6491 003 ; 003 003 A ; i A , Total 0.1700 0.8712 1.6357 6.6200e- 0.5208 9.7400e- 0.5306 0.1403 9.2300e- 0.1495 690.1616 690.1616 0.0214 0.0557 707.2971 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:21 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3.4 Building Construction - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 ` 2,555.209 2,555.209 0.6079 2,570.406 9 9 , 1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 2,555.209 0.6079 2,570.406 1 1 9 1 9 1 1 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i , Vendor 0.0167 0.6028 0.2301 2.8000e- 0.0961 2.9100e- 0.0990 0.0277 2.7900e- 0.0305 & 300.9305 300.9305 0.0100 0.0433 314.0867 003 ; 003 003 A ; i A , , Worker 0.1307 0.0937 1.2657 3.5600e- 0.4248 2.5600e- 0.4273 0.1127 2.3600e- 0.1150 364.5062 364.5062 9.7100e- 9.3700e- 367.5406 003 ; 003 003 A 003 ; 003 i A , Total 0.1474 0.6965 1.4958 6.3600e- 0.5208 5.4700e- 0.5263 0.1403 5.1500e- 0.1455 665.4366 665.4366 0.0197 0.0527 681.6273 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:21 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3.4 Building Construction - 2023 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 ` 0.0000 2,555.209 2,555.209 0.6079 2,570.406 9 9 , 1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 2,555.209 0.6079 2,570.406 1 9 1 9 1 1 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i , Vendor 0.0167 0.6028 0.2301 2.8000e- 0.0961 2.9100e- 0.0990 0.0277 2.7900e- 0.0305 & 300.9305 300.9305 0.0100 0.0433 314.0867 003 ; 003 003 A ; i A , , Worker 0.1307 0.0937 1.2657 3.5600e- 0.4248 2.5600e- 0.4273 0.1127 2.3600e- 0.1150 364.5062 364.5062 9.7100e- 9.3700e- 367.5406 003 ; 003 003 A 003 ; 003 i A , Total 0.1474 0.6965 1.4958 6.3600e- 0.5208 5.4700e- 0.5263 0.1403 5.1500e- 0.1455 665.4366 665.4366 0.0197 0.0527 681.6273 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:21 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3.5 Paving - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 ` 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 2,225.433 1 1 , 6 i Paving 0.2646 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ` 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.2974 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 2,225.433 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i Worker 0.0516 0.0370 0.4996 1.4100e- 0.1677 1.0100e- 0.1687 0.0445 9.3000e- 0.0454 143.8840 143.8840 3.8300e- 3.7000e- 145.0818 003 ; 003 004 A 003 ; 003 i A Total 0.0516 0.0370 0.4996 1.4100e- 0.1677 1.0100e- 0.1687 0.0445 9.3000e- 0.0454 143.8840 143.8840 3.8300e- 3.7000e- 145.0818 003 003 004 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:21 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3.5 Paving - 2023 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 ` 0.0000 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 2,225.433 1 1 , 6 i Paving 0.2646 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ` 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.2974 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 2,225.433 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i Worker 0.0516 0.0370 0.4996 1.4100e- 0.1677 1.0100e- 0.1687 0.0445 9.3000e- 0.0454 143.8840 143.8840 3.8300e- 3.7000e- 145.0818 003 ; 003 004 A 003 ; 003 i A Total 0.0516 0.0370 0.4996 1.4100e- 0.1677 1.0100e- 0.1687 0.0445 9.3000e- 0.0454 143.8840 143.8840 3.8300e- 3.7000e- 145.0818 003 003 004 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:21 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating •• 2.9212 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ` 0.0000 0.0000 i Off -Road 0.1917 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e- 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 ` 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 003 Total 3.1129 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e- 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 003 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i Worker 0.0275 0.0197 0.2665 7.5000e- • 0.0894 5.4000e- 0.0900 0.0237 5.000Oe- 0.0242 76.7381 76.7381 2.0500e- • 1.9700e- 77.3770 004 ; 004 004 A 003 ; 003 i A Total 0.0275 0.0197 0.2665 7.5000e- 0.0894 5.4000e- 0.0900 0.0237 5.000Oe- 0.0242 76.7381 76.7381 2.0500e- 1.9700e- 77.3770 004 004 004 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:21 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating •• 2.9212 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ` 0.0000 0.0000 i Off -Road 0.1917 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e- 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 ` 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 003 Total 3.1129 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e- 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 003 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i Worker 0.0275 0.0197 0.2665 7.5000e- • 0.0894 5.4000e- 0.0900 0.0237 5.000Oe- 0.0242 76.7381 76.7381 2.0500e- • 1.9700e- 77.3770 004 ; 004 004 A 003 ; 003 i A Total 0.0275 0.0197 0.2665 7.5000e- 0.0894 5.4000e- 0.0900 0.0237 5.000Oe- 0.0242 76.7381 76.7381 2.0500e- 1.9700e- 77.3770 004 004 004 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:21 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total I Fugitive PM2.5 I Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 0.2468 0.2467 2.2004 4.3300e- 0.4547 3.3400e- 0.4580 0.1211 3.1000e- 0.1242 + 446.1822 446.1822 0.0353 0.0215 453.4672 003 ; 003 003 i + Unmitigated 0.2468 0.2467 2.2004 4.3300e- 0.4547 3.3400e- 0.4580 0.1211 3.1000e- 0.1242 446.1822 446.1822 0.0353 0.0215 453.4672 003 003 003 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Other Asphalt Surfaces .................................... :------_---------------------......------------------------ Parking Lot .............. ........................:--------------------- Place of Worship 0.00 0.00 25.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---- � 21.95 ' 101.26 76,347 76,347 Total 25.47 21.95 101.26 76,347 76,347 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip % Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass -by Other Asphalt Surfaces ; 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 .......................4 - - - - - - - - - - r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .............. - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - ......... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . Parking Lot ; 16.60 ; 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0 0 0 ... .___ 8.40 6.90 0.00 95.00 5.00 64 25 11 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:21 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA I LDTi I LDT2 I MDV I LHD1 I LHD2 I MHD I HHD I OBUS I UBUS I MCY I SBUS I MH Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.544785: 0.062844: 0.187478: 0.127235: 0.023089: 0.006083: 0.010475: 0.008012: 0.000925: 0.000611: 0.024394: 0.000698E 0.003377 ------------------ i L i i i i i Parkin Lot 0.544785: 0.062844: 0.187478: 0.127235: 0.023089: 0.006083: 0.010475: 0.008012: 0.000925: 0.000611: 0.024394: 0.000698E 0.003374 i i i i i i Place of Worship 0.544785• 0.062844: 0.187478: 0.127235: 0.023089: 0.006083: 0.010475: 0.008012: 0.000925: 0.000611: 0.024394: 0.000698: 0.003374 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total I Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas 1.9400e- 0.0177 0.0149 1.1000e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 21.2162 21.2162 4.1000e- 3.9000e- 21.3423 Mitigated 003 004 ; 003 003 ; 003 003 004 004 i NaturalGas 1.9400e- 0.0177 0.0149 1.1000e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 21.2162 21.2162 4.1000e- 3.9000e- 21.3423 Unmitigated 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:21 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 C114 N20 CO2e s Use I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Other Asphalt 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces i i Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Place of Worship ; 180.338 1.9400e- 0.0177 0.0149 1.1000e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 21.2162 21.2162 4.1000e- 3.9000e- 21.3423 i; 003 ; 004 003 003 ; 003 i 003 ; 004 004 Total 1.9400e- 0.0177 0.0149 1.1000e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 21.2162 21.2162 4.1000e- 3.9000e- 21.3423 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:21 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 C114 N20 CO2e s Use I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Other Asphalt 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces i i Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Place of Worship ; 0.180338 1.9400e- 0.0177 0.0149 1.1000e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 21.2162 21.2162 4.1000e- 3.9000e- 21.3423 i; 003 ; 004 003 003 ; 003 i 003 ; 004 004 Total 1.9400e- 0.0177 0.0149 1.1000e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 21.2162 21.2162 4.1000e- 3.9000e- 21.3423 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area No Hearths Installed CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:21 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG I NOx I CO I S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total I Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 0.1206 9.000Oe- 9.4100e- 0.0000 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 0.0202 0.0202 5.000Oe- 0.0215 005 ; 003 005 005 ; 005 005 ; 005 i Unmitigated 0.1206 9.000Oe- 9.4100e- 0.0000 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 0.0202 0.0202 5.000Oe- 0.0215 005 003 005 005 005 005 005 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural 0.0160 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating ------------------ ------- i------- - ------- ------- ------- --------------- ---------------- Ir -------•------ �--------------- rr--------------- Consumer 0.1037 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products i Landscaping 8.7000e- 9.000Oe- 9.4100e- 0.0000 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 0.0202 0.0202 5.000Oe- 0.0215 004 005 ; 003 005 005 ; 005 i 005 ; 005 Total 0.1206 9.000Oe- 9.4100e- 0.0000 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 0.0202 0.0202 5.000Oe- 0.0215 005 003 005 005 005 005 005 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:21 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural 0.0160 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ` 0.0000 0.0000 Coating i............... -----------•�----------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------+---------------------- �------- Consumer 0.1037 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ` 0.0000 0.0000 Products i Landscaping 8.7000e- 9.000Oe- 9.4100e- 0.0000 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 0.0202 0.0202 5.000Oe- 0.0215 004 005 ; 003 005 005 ; 005 i 005 ; 005 Total 0.1206 9.000Oe- 9.4100e- 0.0000 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 0.0202 0.0202 5.000Oe- 0.0215 005 003 005 005 005 005 005 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:21 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emeraencv Generators IEquipment Type I Number I Hours/Day I Hours/Year I Horse Power I Load Factor I Fuel Type I Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:45 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Eternal Valley Future Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Place of Worship 3.67 * 1000sgft 14.80 3,665.00 0 F (- Other Asphalt Surfaces 87.50 * 1000sgft 2.01 87,500.00 0 .............................................................. ------------------------------ r..............F------------------ ............. Parking Lot 1.00 Space 0.01 400.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 33 Climate Zone 9 Operational Year 2023 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2Intensity 390.98 CH4Intensity 0.033 N20Intensity 0.004 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data Project Characteristics - Land Use - Total lot acreage based on project information of 17 acre project site. The proposed Loop Road and road connection estimated to have a length of 3,500 feet and width of 25 feet for a total of approximately 87,500 sf of asphalt surface. Construction Phase - Area Mitigation - Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/10/2022 5/13/2022 i tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/22/2022 6/24/2022 i tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 9/15/2023 8/18/2023 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:45 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied tblConstructionPhase PhaseE nd Date 10/13/2023 9/15/2023 ............................. tblConstructionPhase ............................. PhaseEndDate ----------------------------- 11/10/2023 10/13/2023 i tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/28/2022 5/2/2022 i tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 6/11/2022 5/14/2022 i tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/23/2022 6/25/2022 i tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 9/16/2023 8/19/2023 i tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/14/2023 9/16/2023 i tblLandUse LotAcrea e 0.08 14.80 2.0 Emissions Summary CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:45 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Year lb/day lb/day 2022 3.6940 38.8940 29.8298 0.0641 19.8582 1.6363 21.4721 10.1558 1.5054 11.6406 ` 0.0000 ' 6,219.436 ' 6,219.436 ' 1.9498 0.0550 ' 6,269.673 0 0 , 4 i , 2023 3.1385 15.0455 17.8441 0.0335 0.5208 0.7052 1.2260 0.1403 0.6636 0.8039 ` 0.0000 3,240.426 ' 3,240.426 ' 0.7178 0.0520 ' 3,271.598 5 5 , 6 Maximum 3.6940 38.8940 29.8298 0.0641 19.8582 1.6363 21.4721 10.1558 1.5054 11.6406 0.0000 6,219.436 6,219.436 1.9498 0.0550 6,269.673 1 0 1 0 1 4 1 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Year lb/day lb/day 2022 3.6940 38.8940 29.8298 0.0641 19.8582 1.6363 21.4721 10.1558 1.5054 11.6406 ` 0.0000 6,219.436 ' 6,219.436 ' 1.9498 0.0550 ' 6,269.673 0 0 , 4 2023 3.1385 15.0455 17.8441 0.0335 0.5208 0.7052 1.2260 0.1403 0.6636 0.8039 0.0000 ' 3,240.426 ' 3,240.426 ' 0.7178 0.0520 ' 3,271.598 5 5 , 6 Maximum 3.6940 38.8940 29.8298 0.0641 19.8582 1.6363 21.4721 10.1558 1.5054 11.6406 0.0000 6,219.436 6,219.436 1.9498 0.0550 6,269.673 1 0 1 0 1 4 1 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:45 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:45 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Area 0.1206 9.000Oe- 9.4100e- 0.0000 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 0.0202 0.0202 5.000Oe- 0.0215 005 ; 003 005 005 ; 005 i 005 ; 005 i -----------• ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- --------------- -------+-------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- Energy 1.9400e- 0.0177 0.0149 1.1000e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 21.2162 21.2162 4.1000e- 3.9000e- 21.3423 003 ; 004 003 003 ; 003 i 003 ; 004 004 i Mobile 0.2527 0.2283 2.2167 4.5200e- 0.4547 3.3400e- 0.4580 0.1211 3.1000e- 0.1242 465.7712 465.7712 0.0339 0.0205 472.7343 003 003 ; 003 Total 0.3752 0.2460 2.2409 4.6300e- 0.4547 4.7100e- 0.4594 0.1211 4.4700e- 0.1256 487.0076 487.0076 0.0343 0.0209 494.0981 003 003 003 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total I PM2.5 I PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Area 0.1206 9.000Oe- 9.4100e- 0.0000 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 0.0202 0.0202 5.000Oe- 0.0215 005 ; 003 005 005 ; 005 i 005 ; 005 -----------• ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- i-------+-------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- �--------------- Energy 1.9400e- 0.0177 0.0149 1.1000e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 21.2162 21.2162 4.1000e- 3.9000e- 21.3423 003 ; 004 003 003 ; 003 i 003 ; 004 004 i Mobile 0.2527 0.2283 2.2167 - 4.5200e- 0.4547 - 3.3400e- 0.4580 0.1211 3.1000e- 0.1242 465.7712 465.7712 0.0339 0.0205 472.7343 003 003 ; 003 Total 0.3752 0.2460 2.2409 4.6300e- 0.4547 4.7100e- 0.4594 0.1211 4.4700e- 0.1256 487.0076 487.0076 0.0343 0.0209 494.0981 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:45 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Site Preparation Site Preparation ;5/2/2022 :5/13/2022 5: 101 •-----------------------------------�------------r -------- I 2 •Grading •Grading ,5/14/2022 :6/24/2022 5: 30- •-----------------------------------�------------ -------- I 3 •Building Construction •Building Construction ,6/25/2022 :8/18/2023 5: 300- 4 • Paving • Paving , 8/19/2023 : 9/15/2023 5I 20 ............................................... ----- --------- -------}-------- ......................... 5 •Architectural Coating :Architectural Coating •9/16/2023 •10/13/2023 5• 20• Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 15 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 90 Acres of Paving: 2.02 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non -Residential Indoor: 5,498; Non -Residential Outdoor: 1,833; Striped Parking Area: 5,274 (Architectural Coating - sgft) OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation • Rubber Tired Dozers 3; 8.00: 247' 0.40 Site Preparation •Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4: 8.00: 97- 0.37 Grading •Excavators 28.00: 158- 0.38 Grading •Graders 1 8.00: 187- 0.41 Grading •Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00: 247- 0.40 ........................ .......................... ----------------Y -------------------------}------------ Grading :Scrapers 2 8.00• 367• 0.48 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:45 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Grading •Tractors/Load ers/Backhoes 2 8.00• 97• 0.37 -----------------------------=------------- Building Construction -Cranes 1 7.00; F 231, -------------- 0.29 Building Construction •Forklifts 38.00; 89, 0.2C Building Construction -Generator Sets 1 8.00; 84, 0.74 Building Construction •Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3' 7.00; 97, 0.37 Building Construction -Welders 1 8.00; 46, 0.45 Paving •Pavers 28.00; 130, 0.42 Paving :Paving Equipment 28.00; 132, 0.36 Paving •Rollers 28.00; 80, 0.38 ............................. ------------------------------------------------- ------------F.............. Architectural Coating -Air Compressors 1 6.00 78• 0.48 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count I Number I Number I Number I Length I Length I Length I Class IVehicleClass Vehicle Class Site Preparation 7; 18.00, 0.00 0.00; 14.70; 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix EHDT_Mix 'HHDT -- ---------------------------- ;----------F---------- -------------------; ----------=---------- ---------=-------------T----------� .......... Grading 8: 20.00, 0.00, 0.00, 14.70; 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix EHDT_Mix HHDT --------------------- ;----------F---------- -------------------; ----------=---------- ---------=-------------T---------- Building Construction 9: 38.00, 15.00: 0.00, 14.70; 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix :HDT_Mix HHDT ---------------------;----------F----------� ;----------=---------- --------------- --------T---------- Paving 6� 15.00, 0.00: 0.00, 14.70; 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix :HDT_Mix HHDT _ T _ _ Architectural Coating 1 8.00• 0.00• 0.00• 14.70, 6.90• 20.00•LD_Mix THDT_Mix •HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:45 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3.2 Site Preparation - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 19.6570 0.0000 19.6570 10.1025 0.0000 10.1025 ` 0.0000 0.0000 i , Off -Road 3.1701 33.0835 19.6978 0.0380 1.6126 1.6126 1.4836 1.4836 ` 3,686.061 3,686.061 1.1922 3,715.865 A 9 9 , 5 Total 3.1701 33.0835 19.6978 0.0380 19.6570 1.6126 21.2696 10.1025 1.4836 11.5860 3,686.061 3,686.061 1.1922 3,715.865 9 9 5 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i , Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i , Worker 0.0623 0.0455 0.7094 1.8400e- 0.2012 1.2900e- 0.2025 0.0534 1.1900e- 0.0546 187.2229 187.2229 5.0700e- 4.5000e- 188.6918 003 ; 003 003 A 003 ; 003 i A , Total 0.0623 0.0455 0.7094 1.8400e- 0.2012 1.2900e- 0.2025 0.0534 1.1900e- 0.0546 187.2229 187.2229 5.0700e- 4.5000e- 188.6918 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:45 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3.2 Site Preparation - 2022 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 19.6570 0.0000 19.6570 10.1025 0.0000 10.1025 ` 0.0000 0.0000 i , Off -Road 3.1701 33.0835 19.6978 0.0380 1.6126 1.6126 1.4836 1.4836 ` 0.0000 3,686.061 3,686.061 1.1922 3,715.865 A 9 9 , 5 Total 3.1701 33.0835 19.6978 0.0380 19.6570 1.6126 21.2696 10.1025 1.4836 11.5860 0.0000 3,686.061 3,686.061 1.1922 3,715.865 9 9 5 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i , Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i , Worker 0.0623 0.0455 0.7094 1.8400e- 0.2012 1.2900e- 0.2025 0.0534 1.1900e- 0.0546 187.2229 187.2229 5.0700e- 4.5000e- 188.6918 003 ; 003 003 A 003 ; 003 i A , Total 0.0623 0.0455 0.7094 1.8400e- 0.2012 1.2900e- 0.2025 0.0534 1.1900e- 0.0546 187.2229 187.2229 5.0700e- 4.5000e- 188.6918 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:45 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3.3 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 9.2036 0.0000 9.2036 3.6538 0.0000 3.6538 ` 0.0000 0.0000 i , Off -Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 ` 6,011.410 6,011.410 1.9442 6,060.015 A 5 5 , 8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 9.2036 1.6349 10.8385 3.6538 1.5041 5.1579 6,011.410 6,011.410 1.9442 6,060.015 1 1 5 5 1 8 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i , Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i , Worker 0.0692 0.0505 0.7883 2.0400e- 0.2236 1.4300e- 0.2250 0.0593 1.3200e- 0.0606 208.0254 208.0254 5.6300e- 5.000Oe- 209.6576 003 ; 003 003 A 003 ; 003 i A , Total 0.0692 0.0505 0.7883 2.0400e- 0.2236 1.4300e- 0.2250 0.0593 1.3200e- 0.0606 208.0254 208.0254 5.6300e- 5.000Oe- 209.6576 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:45 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3.3 Grading - 2022 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 9.2036 0.0000 9.2036 3.6538 0.0000 3.6538 ` 0.0000 0.0000 i , Off -Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 ` 0.0000 6,011.410 6,011.410 1.9442 6,060.015 A 5 5 , 8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 9.2036 1.6349 10.8385 3.6538 1.5041 5.1579 0.0000 6,011.410 6,011.410 1.9442 6,060.015 1 5 1 5 1 8 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i , Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i , Worker 0.0692 0.0505 0.7883 2.0400e- 0.2236 1.4300e- 0.2250 0.0593 1.3200e- 0.0606 208.0254 208.0254 5.6300e- 5.000Oe- 209.6576 003 ; 003 003 A 003 ; 003 i A , Total 0.0692 0.0505 0.7883 2.0400e- 0.2236 1.4300e- 0.2250 0.0593 1.3200e- 0.0606 208.0254 208.0254 5.6300e- 5.000Oe- 209.6576 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:45 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3.4 Building Construction - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 ` 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 2,569.632 6 6 , 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 2,569.632 1 1 6 1 6 1 2 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i , Vendor 0.0295 0.7348 0.2519 2.9400e- 0.0961 7.000Oe- 0.1031 0.0277 6.7000e- 0.0344 & 315.6924 315.6924 0.0106 0.0455 329.5127 003 ; 003 003 A ; i A , , Worker 0.1315 0.0960 1.4977 3.8900e- 0.4248 2.7200e- 0.4275 0.1127 2.5100e- 0.1152 395.2483 395.2483 0.0107 9.5100e- 398.3494 003 ; 003 003 A ; 003 i A , Total 0.1610 0.8308 1.7496 6.8300e- 0.5208 9.7200e- 0.5306 0.1403 9.2100e- 0.1495 710.9407 710.9407 0.0213 0.0550 727.8621 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:45 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3.4 Building Construction - 2022 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 ` 0.0000 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 2,569.632 6 6 , 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 2,569.632 1 6 1 6 1 2 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i , Vendor 0.0295 0.7348 0.2519 2.9400e- 0.0961 7.000Oe- 0.1031 0.0277 6.7000e- 0.0344 & 315.6924 315.6924 0.0106 0.0455 329.5127 003 ; 003 003 A ; i A , , Worker 0.1315 0.0960 1.4977 3.8900e- 0.4248 2.7200e- 0.4275 0.1127 2.5100e- 0.1152 395.2483 395.2483 0.0107 9.5100e- 398.3494 003 ; 003 003 A ; 003 i A , Total 0.1610 0.8308 1.7496 6.8300e- 0.5208 9.7200e- 0.5306 0.1403 9.2100e- 0.1495 710.9407 710.9407 0.0213 0.0550 727.8621 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:45 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3.4 Building Construction - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 ` 2,555.209 2,555.209 0.6079 2,570.406 9 9 , 1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 2,555.209 0.6079 2,570.406 1 1 9 1 9 1 1 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i , Vendor 0.0173 0.5758 0.2231 2.7900e- 0.0961 2.8900e- 0.0990 0.0277 2.7700e- 0.0304 & 300.4237 300.4237 0.0101 0.0432 313.5467 003 ; 003 003 A ; i A , , Worker 0.1217 0.0848 1.3770 3.7600e- 0.4248 2.5600e- 0.4273 0.1127 2.3600e- 0.1150 384.7929 384.7929 9.5800e- 8.7700e- 387.6459 003 ; 003 003 A 003 ; 003 i A , Total 0.1390 0.6606 1.6001 6.5500e- 0.5208 5.4500e- 0.5263 0.1403 5.1300e- 0.1454 685.2166 685.2166 0.0197 0.0520 701.1926 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:45 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3.4 Building Construction - 2023 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 ` 0.0000 2,555.209 2,555.209 0.6079 2,570.406 9 9 , 1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 2,555.209 0.6079 2,570.406 1 9 1 9 1 1 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i , Vendor 0.0173 0.5758 0.2231 2.7900e- 0.0961 2.8900e- 0.0990 0.0277 2.7700e- 0.0304 & 300.4237 300.4237 0.0101 0.0432 313.5467 003 ; 003 003 A ; i A , , Worker 0.1217 0.0848 1.3770 3.7600e- 0.4248 2.5600e- 0.4273 0.1127 2.3600e- 0.1150 384.7929 384.7929 9.5800e- 8.7700e- 387.6459 003 ; 003 003 A 003 ; 003 i A , Total 0.1390 0.6606 1.6001 6.5500e- 0.5208 5.4500e- 0.5263 0.1403 5.1300e- 0.1454 685.2166 685.2166 0.0197 0.0520 701.1926 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:45 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3.5 Paving - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 ` 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 2,225.433 1 1 , 6 i Paving 0.2646 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ` 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.2974 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 2,225.433 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i Worker 0.0480 0.0335 0.5436 1.4800e- 0.1677 1.0100e- 0.1687 0.0445 9.3000e- 0.0454 151.8919 151.8919 3.7800e- 3.4600e- 153.0181 003 ; 003 004 A 003 ; 003 i A Total 0.0480 0.0335 0.5436 1.4800e- 0.1677 1.0100e- 0.1687 0.0445 9.3000e- 0.0454 151.8919 151.8919 3.7800e- 3.4600e- 153.0181 003 003 004 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:45 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3.5 Paving - 2023 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 ` 0.0000 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 2,225.433 1 1 , 6 i Paving 0.2646 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ` 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.2974 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 0.0000 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 2,225.433 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i Worker 0.0480 0.0335 0.5436 1.4800e- 0.1677 1.0100e- 0.1687 0.0445 9.3000e- 0.0454 151.8919 151.8919 3.7800e- 3.4600e- 153.0181 003 ; 003 004 A 003 ; 003 i A Total 0.0480 0.0335 0.5436 1.4800e- 0.1677 1.0100e- 0.1687 0.0445 9.3000e- 0.0454 151.8919 151.8919 3.7800e- 3.4600e- 153.0181 003 003 004 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:45 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating •• 2.9212 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ` 0.0000 0.0000 i Off -Road 0.1917 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e- 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 ` 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 003 Total 3.1129 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e- 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 003 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i Worker 0.0256 0.0179 0.2899 7.9000e- • 0.0894 5.4000e- 0.0900 0.0237 5.000Oe- 0.0242 81.0090 81.0090 2.0200e- • 1.8500e- 81.6097 004 ; 004 004 A 003 ; 003 i A Total 0.0256 0.0179 0.2899 7.9000e- 0.0894 5.4000e- 0.0900 0.0237 5.000Oe- 0.0242 81.0090 81.0090 2.0200e- 1.8500e- 81.6097 004 004 004 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:45 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating •• 2.9212 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ` 0.0000 0.0000 i Off -Road 0.1917 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e- 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 ` 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 003 Total 3.1129 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e- 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 003 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i Worker 0.0256 0.0179 0.2899 7.9000e- • 0.0894 5.4000e- 0.0900 0.0237 5.000Oe- 0.0242 81.0090 81.0090 2.0200e- • 1.8500e- 81.6097 004 ; 004 004 A 003 ; 003 i A Total 0.0256 0.0179 0.2899 7.9000e- 0.0894 5.4000e- 0.0900 0.0237 5.000Oe- 0.0242 81.0090 81.0090 2.0200e- 1.8500e- 81.6097 004 004 004 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:45 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total I Fugitive PM2.5 I Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 0.2527 0.2283 2.2167 4.5200e- 0.4547 3.3400e- 0.4580 0.1211 3.1000e- 0.1242 + 465.7712 465.7712 0.0339 0.0205 472.7343 003 ; 003 003 i + Unmitigated 0.2527 0.2283 2.2167 4.5200e- 0.4547 3.3400e- 0.4580 0.1211 3.1000e- 0.1242 465.7712 465.7712 0.0339 0.0205 472.7343 003 003 003 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Other Asphalt Surfaces .................................... :------_---------------------......------------------------ Parking Lot .............. ........................:--------------------- Place of Worship 0.00 0.00 25.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---- � 21.95 ' 101.26 76,347 76,347 Total 25.47 21.95 101.26 76,347 76,347 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip % Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass -by Other Asphalt Surfaces ; 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 .......................4 - - - - - - - - - - r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .............. - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - ......... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . Parking Lot ; 16.60 ; 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0 0 0 ... .___ 8.40 6.90 0.00 95.00 5.00 64 25 11 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:45 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA I LDTi I LDT2 I MDV I LHD1 I LHD2 I MHD I HHD I OBUS I UBUS I MCY I SBUS I MH Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.544785: 0.062844: 0.187478: 0.127235: 0.023089: 0.006083: 0.010475: 0.008012: 0.000925: 0.000611: 0.024394: 0.000698E 0.003377 ------------------ i L i i i i i Parkin Lot 0.544785: 0.062844: 0.187478: 0.127235: 0.023089: 0.006083: 0.010475: 0.008012: 0.000925: 0.000611: 0.024394: 0.000698E 0.003374 i i i i i i Place of Worship 0.544785• 0.062844: 0.187478: 0.127235: 0.023089: 0.006083: 0.010475: 0.008012: 0.000925: 0.000611: 0.024394: 0.000698: 0.003374 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total I Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas 1.9400e- 0.0177 0.0149 1.1000e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 21.2162 21.2162 4.1000e- 3.9000e- 21.3423 Mitigated 003 004 ; 003 003 ; 003 003 004 004 i NaturalGas 1.9400e- 0.0177 0.0149 1.1000e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 21.2162 21.2162 4.1000e- 3.9000e- 21.3423 Unmitigated 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:45 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Other Asphalt 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces i i Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Place of Worship ; 180.338 1.9400e- 0.0177 0.0149 1.1000e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 21.2162 21.2162 4.1000e- 3.9000e- 21.3423 i; 003 ; 004 003 003 ; 003 i 003 ; 004 004 Total 1.9400e- 0.0177 0.0149 1.1000e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 21.2162 21.2162 4.1000e- 3.9000e- 21.3423 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:45 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Other Asphalt 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces i i Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Place of Worship ; 0.180338 1.9400e- 0.0177 0.0149 1.1000e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 21.2162 21.2162 4.1000e- 3.9000e- 21.3423 i; 003 ; 004 003 003 ; 003 i 003 ; 004 004 Total 1.9400e- 0.0177 0.0149 1.1000e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 1.3400e- 21.2162 21.2162 4.1000e- 3.9000e- 21.3423 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area No Hearths Installed CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:45 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG I NOx I CO I S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total I Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 0.1206 9.000Oe- 9.4100e- 0.0000 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 0.0202 0.0202 5.000Oe- 0.0215 005 ; 003 005 005 ; 005 005 ; 005 i Unmitigated 0.1206 9.000Oe- 9.4100e- 0.0000 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 0.0202 0.0202 5.000Oe- 0.0215 005 003 005 005 005 005 005 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural 0.0160 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating ------------------ ------- i------- - ------- ------- ------- --------------- ---------------- Ir -------•------ �--------------- rr--------------- Consumer 0.1037 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products i Landscaping 8.7000e- 9.000Oe- 9.4100e- 0.0000 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 0.0202 0.0202 5.000Oe- 0.0215 004 005 ; 003 005 005 ; 005 i 005 ; 005 Total 0.1206 9.000Oe- 9.4100e- 0.0000 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 0.0202 0.0202 5.000Oe- 0.0215 005 003 005 005 005 005 005 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:45 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural 0.0160 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ` 0.0000 0.0000 Coating i............... -----------•�----------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------+---------------------- �------- Consumer 0.1037 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ` 0.0000 0.0000 Products i Landscaping 8.7000e- 9.000Oe- 9.4100e- 0.0000 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 0.0202 0.0202 5.000Oe- 0.0215 004 005 ; 003 005 005 ; 005 i 005 ; 005 Total 0.1206 9.000Oe- 9.4100e- 0.0000 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 0.0202 0.0202 5.000Oe- 0.0215 005 003 005 005 005 005 005 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 26 Date: 3/13/2022 9:45 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Summer EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emeraencv Generators IEquipment Type I Number I Hours/Day I Hours/Year I Horse Power I Load Factor I Fuel Type I Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 33 Date: 3/13/2022 9:46 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Eternal Valley Future Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Place of Worship 3.67 * 1000sgft 14.80 3,665.00 0 F (- Other Asphalt Surfaces 87.50 * 1000sgft 2.01 87,500.00 0 .............................................................. ------------------------------ r..............F------------------ ............. Parking Lot 1.00 Space 0.01 400.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 33 Climate Zone 9 Operational Year 2023 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2Intensity 390.98 CH4Intensity 0.033 N20Intensity 0.004 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data Project Characteristics - Land Use - Total lot acreage based on project information of 17 acre project site. The proposed Loop Road and road connection estimated to have a length of 3,500 feet and width of 25 feet for a total of approximately 87,500 sf of asphalt surface. Construction Phase - Area Mitigation - Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/10/2022 5/13/2022 i tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/22/2022 6/24/2022 i tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 9/15/2023 8/18/2023 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 33 Date: 3/13/2022 9:46 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied tblConstructionPhase PhaseE nd Date 10/13/2023 9/15/2023 ............................. tblConstructionPhase ............................. PhaseEndDate ----------------------------- 11/10/2023 10/13/2023 i tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/28/2022 5/2/2022 i tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 6/11/2022 5/14/2022 i tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/23/2022 6/25/2022 i tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 9/16/2023 8/19/2023 i tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/14/2023 9/16/2023 i tblLandUse LotAcrea e 0.08 14.80 2.0 Emissions Summary CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 33 Date: 3/13/2022 9:46 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Year tons/yr MT/yr 2022 0.1975 1.8626 1.7656 3.4300e- 0.2751 0.0879 0.3630 0.1158 0.0820 0.1978 0.0000 301.0745 301.0745 0.0708 3.5200e- 303.8912 003 003 i , 2023 0.1859 1.3601 1.6377 3.0300e- 0.0447 0.0640 0.1087 0.0120 0.0602 0.0722 & 0.0000 266.0384 266.0384 0.0537 4.0000 - 268.5725 003 ; A ; 003 Maximum 0.1975 1.8626 1.7656 3.4300e- 0.2751 0.0879 0.3630 0.1158 0.0820 0.1978 0.0000 301.0745 301.0745 0.0708 4.000Oe- 303.8912 003 003 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Year tons/yr MT/yr 2022 0.1975 1.8626 1.7656 3.4300e- 0.2751 0.0879 0.3630 0.1158 0.0820 0.1978 0.0000 301.0742 301.0742 0.0708 3.5200e- 303.8909 003 ; ; 003 i , 1.6377 3.0300e 0.0447 0.0640 0.1087 0.0120 0.0602 0.0722 0.0000 266.0382 266.0382 0.0537 4.000Oe 268.5722 2023 0.1859 1.3601 003 ; ; 003 Maximum 0.1975 1.8626 1.7656 3.4300e- 0.2751 0.0879 0.3630 0.1158 0.0820 0.1978 0.0000 301.0742 301.0742 0.0708 4.000Oe- 303.8909 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 33 Date: 3/13/2022 9:46 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 5-2-2022 8-1-2022 1.0432 1.0432 2 8-2-2022 11-1-2022 0.6023 0.6023 3 11-2-2022 2-1-2023 0.5855 0.5855 4 2-2-2023 5-1-2023 0.5336 0.5336 5 5-2-2023 8-1-2023 0.5506 0.5506 6 8-2-2023 9-30-2023 0.2413 0.2413 Highest 1.0432 1.0432 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 33 Date: 3/13/2022 9:46 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.0220 1.000Oe- 1.1800e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2900e- 2.2900e- 1.000Oe- 0.0000 2.4400e- 005 ; 003 ; i i 003 ; 003 005 003 i , -----------• ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------+--------------�------- ------- ------- •....... Energy 3.5000e- 3.2300e- 2.7100e- 2.000Oe- 2.5000e- 2.5000e- 2.5000e- 2.5000e- 0.0000 10.5961 10.5961 6.7000e- 1.4000e- 10.6535 004 003 ; 003 005 004 004 ; 004 i 004 ; 004 004 i , ------------------ ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ---------------------- ------- -------•------- r------- r rrrrr-------- r rrr-------- r------- r Mobile 0.0155 0.0161 0.1424 2.8000e- 0.0287 2.1000e- 0.0289 7.6500e- 2.000Oe- 7.8500e- 0.0000 26.3165 26.3165 2.0400e- 1.2600e- 26.7427 004 004 ; 003 004 i 003 ; 003 003 ------------------ ------- -------r------- --- ---- ------- ------- ------- --------------- ------- ------- -------•------- �------- rrrrrrrr------- Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ` 4.2466 0.0000 4.2466 0.2510 0.0000 10.5207 i I , i , Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ` 0.0364 0.6191 0.6555 3.7900e- 9.000Oe- 0.7785 003 005 Total 0.0379 0.0193 0.1463 3.000Oe- 0.0287 4.6000e- 0.0292 7.6500e- 4.5000e- 8.1000e- 4.2830 37.5339 41.8169 0.2575 1.4900e- 48.6979 004 004 003 004 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 33 Date: 3/13/2022 9:46 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.0220 1.000Oe- 1.1800e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2900e- 2.2900e- 1.000Oe- 0.0000 2.4400e- 005 ; 003 ; i i 003 ; 003 005 003 i , -----------• ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------+--------------�------- ------- ------- •....... Energy 3.5000e- 3.2300e- 2.7100e- 2.000Oe- 2.5000e- 2.5000e- 2.5000e- 2.5000e- 0.0000 10.5961 10.5961 6.7000e- 1.4000e- 10.6535 004 003 ; 003 005 004 004 ; 004 i 004 ; 004 004 ------------------ ------- ------- i , ------- ------- ------- ---------------------- ------- -------•------- r------- r rrrrr-------- r rrr-------- r------- r Mobile 0.0155 0.0161 0.1424 2.8000e- 0.0287 2.1000e- 0.0289 7.6500e- 2.000Oe- 7.8500e- 0.0000 26.3165 26.3165 2.0400e- 1.2600e- 26.7427 004 004 ; 003 004 i 003 ; 003 003 ------------------ ------- -------r------- --- ---- ------- ------- ------- --------------- ------- ------- -------•------- �------- rrrrrrrr------- Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ` 4.2466 0.0000 4.2466 0.2510 0.0000 10.5207 i I , i , Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ` 0.0364 0.6191 0.6555 3.7900e- 9.000Oe- 0.7785 003 005 Total 0.0379 0.0193 0.1463 3.000Oe- 0.0287 4.6000e- 0.0292 7.6500e- 4.5000e- 8.1000e- 4.2830 37.5339 41.8169 0.2575 1.4900e- 48.6979 004 004 003 004 003 003 ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week 1 Site Preparation Site Preparation ;5/2/2022 :5/13/2022 5: 101 2 •Grading •Grading ,5/14/2022 :6/24/2022 5: 30- ------------------------------------------+........... .........-------}-------- ----------------------- 3 'Building Construction :Building Construction :6/25/2022 :8/18/2023 5- 300- CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 33 Date: 3/13/2022 9:46 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 4 :Paving :Paving : 8/19/2023 : 9/15/2023 5: 20 : 5 :Architectural Coating :Architectural Coating :9/16/2023 :10/13/2023 5, 20, Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 15 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 90 Acres of Paving: 2.02 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non -Residential Indoor: 5,498; Non -Residential Outdoor: 1,833; Striped Parking Area: 5,274 (Architectural Coating - sgft) OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation • Rubber Tired Dozers 3; 8.00: 247' 0.40 ---------------------------.-----------------------------------------------------..----------------.--------------------------F-------------- Site Preparation •Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4: 8.00: 97- 0.37 Grading •Excavators 28.00: 158- 0.38 Grading •Graders 1 8.00: 187- 0.41 Grading •Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00: 247- 0.40 Grading :Scrapers 28.00: 367- 0.48 Grading •Tractors/Load ers/Backhoes 28.00: 97- 0.37 Building Construction •Cranes 1 7.00: 231 - 0.29 Building Construction •Forklifts 3; 8.00: 89, 0.20 Building Construction •Generator Sets 1 8.00: 84- 0.74 Building Construction •Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3; 7.00: 97- 0.37 Building Construction •Welders 1 8.00: 46- 0.45 Paving •Pavers 28.00: 130- 0.42 Paving :Paving Equipment 28.00: 132- 0.36 Paving •Rollers 28.00: 80, 0.38 ........................ .......................... ----------------Y -------------------------}------------ ArchitecturalCoating Air Compressors 1 6.00- 78, 0.48 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 33 Date: 3/13/2022 9:46 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Phase Name I Offroad Equipment I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip I Worker Vehicle I Vendor I Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Site Preparation 7; 18.00; 0.00, 0.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix :HDT_Mix 'HHDT =-------------T---------- ------------------------------ Grading ;----------F---------- 8, 20.00, 0.00, -------------;----------=----------Ir 0.00, 14.70: --------- 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix :HDT_Mix HHDT --------------------- Building Construction ;----------F---------- 6 9, 38.00, 15.00: --------------------- 0.00, 14.70: ---------=-------------T----------� 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix EHDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6, 15.00, 0.00, 0.00, 14.70: 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix EHDT_Mix HHDT _ T _ _ Architectural Coating 1 ; 8.00: 0.00: 0.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00; LD_Mix THDT_Mix ; HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Site Preparation - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0983 0.0000 0.0983 0.0505 0.0000 0.0505 A 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i Off -Road 0.0159 0.1654 0.0985 1.9000e- 8.0600e- 8.0600e- 7.4200e- 7.4200e- A 0.0000 16.7197 16.7197 5.4100e- 0.0000 16.8549 004 ; 003 003 003 003 003 ; Total 0.0159 0.1654 0.0985 1.9000e- 0.0983 8.0600e- 0.1064 0.0505 7.4200e- 0.0579 0.0000 16.7197 16.7197 5.4100e- 0.0000 16.8549 004 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 33 Date: 3/13/2022 9:46 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3.2 Site Preparation - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ` 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ` 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i Worker •• 3.1000e- 2.6000e- 3.3400e- 1.0000e- • 9.9000e- 1.0000e- 9.9000e- 2.6000e- 1.000Oe- 2.7000e- 0.0000 0.8164 0.8164 2.000Oe- • 2.000Oe- 0.8236 004 004 003 005 ; 004 005 004 004 005 004 005 ; 005 Total 3.1000e- 2.6000e- 3.3400e- 1.000Oe- 9.9000e- 1.000Oe- 9.9000e- 2.6000e- 1.000Oe- 2.7000e- 0.0000 0.8164 0.8164 2.000Oe- 2.000Oe- 0.8236 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005 005 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0983 0.0000 0.0983 0.0505 0.0000 0.0505 & 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i Off -Road 0.0159 0.1654 0.0985 1.9000e- • 8.0600e- 8.0600e- 7.4200e- 7.4200e- & 0.0000 16.7197 16.7197 5.4100e- • 0.0000 16.8549 004 ; 003 003 003 003 A 003 ; i A Total 0.0159 0.1654 0.0985 1.9000e- 0.0983 8.0600e- 0.1064 0.0505 7.4200e- 0.0579 0.0000 16.7197 16.7197 5.4100e- 0.0000 16.8549 004 003 003 1 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 33 Date: 3/13/2022 9:46 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3.2 Site Preparation - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ` 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ` 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i Worker •• 3.1000e- 2.6000e- 3.3400e- 1.0000e- • 9.9000e- 1.0000e- 9.9000e- 2.6000e- 1.000Oe- 2.7000e- 0.0000 0.8164 0.8164 2.000Oe- • 2.000Oe- 0.8236 004 004 003 005 ; 004 005 004 004 005 004 005 ; 005 Total 3.1000e- 2.6000e- 3.3400e- 1.000Oe- 9.9000e- 1.000Oe- 9.9000e- 2.6000e- 1.000Oe- 2.7000e- 0.0000 0.8164 0.8164 2.000Oe- 2.000Oe- 0.8236 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005 005 3.3 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.1381 0.0000 0.1381 0.0548 0.0000 0.0548 & 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i Off -Road 0.0544 0.5827 0.4356 9.3000e- 0.0245 0.0245 0.0226 0.0226 & 0.0000 81.8019 81.8019 0.0265 0.0000 82.4633 004 , A , i A Total 0.0544 0.5827 0.4356 9.3000e- 0.1381 0.0245 0.1626 0.0548 0.0226 0.0774 0.0000 81.8019 81.8019 0.0265 0.0000 82.4633 004 1 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 33 Date: 3/13/2022 9:46 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3.3 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ` 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ` 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i Worker •• 1.0300e- 8.6000e- 0.0111 3.000Oe- • 3.2900e- 2.000Oe- 3.3100e- 8.7000e- 2.000Oe- 8.9000e- 0.0000 2.7212 2.7212 8.000Oe- • 7.000Oe- 2.7452 003 004 005 ; 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 ; 005 Total 1.0300e- 8.6000e- 0.0111 3.000Oe- 3.2900e- 2.000Oe- 3.3100e- 8.7000e- 2.000Oe- 8.9000e- 0.0000 2.7212 2.7212 8.000Oe- 7.000Oe- 2.7452 003 004 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 005 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.1381 0.0000 0.1381 0.0548 0.0000 0.0548 & 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i Off -Road 0.0544 0.5827 0.4356 9.3000e- 0.0245 0.0245 0.0226 0.0226 & 0.0000 81.8018 81.8018 0.0265 0.0000 82.4632 004 , A , i A Total 0.0544 0.5827 0.4356 9.3000e- 0.1381 0.0245 0.1626 0.0548 0.0226 0.0774 0.0000 81.8018 81.8018 0.0265 0.0000 82.4632 004 1 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 33 Date: 3/13/2022 9:46 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3.3 Grading - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ` 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i , Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ` 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i , Worker •• 1.0300e- 8.6000e- 0.0111 3.000Oe- • 3.2900e- 2.000Oe- 3.3100e- 8.7000e- 2.000Oe- 8.9000e- 0.0000 2.7212 2.7212 8.000Oe- • 7.000Oe- 2.7452 003 004 005 ; 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 ; 005 Total 1.0300e- 8.6000e- 0.0111 3.000Oe- 3.2900e- 2.000Oe- 3.3100e- 8.7000e- 2.000Oe- 8.9000e- 0.0000 2.7212 2.7212 8.000Oe- 7.000Oe- 2.7452 003 004 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 005 3.4 Building Construction - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road 0.1152 1.0541 1.1045 1.8200e- 0.0546 0.0546 0.0514 0.0514 & 0.0000 156.4145 156.4145 0.0375 0.0000 157.3514 003 , A , i A , Total 0.1152 1.0541 1.1045 1.8200e- 0.0546 0.0546 0.0514 0.0514 0.0000 156.4145 156.4145 0.0375 0.0000 157.3514 003 1 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 33 Date: 3/13/2022 9:46 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3.4 Building Construction - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ` 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i , Vendor •• 1.9800e- 0.0521 0.0173 2.000Oe- • 6.3800e- 4.7000e- 6.8500e- 1.8400e- 4.5000e- 2.2900e- & 0.0000 19.3345 19.3345 6.5000e- • 2.7900e- 20.1817 003 004 ; 003 004 003 003 004 003 'A 004 ; 003 i , Worker •• 8.7900e- 7.3200e- 0.0952 2.5000e- • 0.0281 1.8000e- 0.0283 7.4700e- 1.7000e- 7.6300e- & 0.0000 23.2663 23.2663 6.6000e- • 6.3000e- 23.4712 003 003 004 ; 004 003 004 003 'A 004 ; 004 Total 0.0108 0.0594 0.1125 4.5000e- 0.0345 6.5000e- 0.0351 9.3100e- 6.2000e- 9.9200e- 0.0000 42.6008 42.6008 1.3100e- 3.4200e- 43.6529 004 004 003 004 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road 0.1152 1.0541 1.1045 1.8200e- 0.0546 0.0546 0.0514 0.0514 & 0.0000 156.4144 156.4144 0.0375 0.0000 157.3512 003 , A , i A , Total 0.1152 1.0541 1.1045 1.8200e- 0.0546 0.0546 0.0514 0.0514 0.0000 156.4144 156.4144 0.0375 0.0000 157.3512 003 1 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 33 Date: 3/13/2022 9:46 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3.4 Building Construction - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ` 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i , Vendor •• 1.9800e- 0.0521 0.0173 2.000Oe- • 6.3800e- 4.7000e- 6.8500e- 1.8400e- 4.5000e- 2.2900e- & 0.0000 19.3345 19.3345 6.5000e- • 2.7900e- 20.1817 003 004 ; 003 004 003 003 004 003 'A 004 ; 003 i , Worker •• 8.7900e- 7.3200e- 0.0952 2.5000e- • 0.0281 1.8000e- 0.0283 7.4700e- 1.7000e- 7.6300e- & 0.0000 23.2663 23.2663 6.6000e- • 6.3000e- 23.4712 003 003 004 ; 004 003 004 003 'A 004 ; 004 Total 0.0108 0.0594 0.1125 4.5000e- 0.0345 6.5000e- 0.0351 9.3100e- 6.2000e- 9.9200e- 0.0000 42.6008 42.6008 1.3100e- 3.4200e- 43.6529 004 004 003 004 003 003 003 3.4 Building Construction - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road 0.1298 1.1868 1.3401 2.2200e- 0.0577 0.0577 0.0543 0.0543 & 0.0000 191.2389 191.2389 0.0455 0.0000 192.3762 003 , A , i A , Total 0.1298 1.1868 1.3401 2.2200e- 0.0577 0.0577 0.0543 0.0543 0.0000 191.2389 191.2389 0.0455 0.0000 192.3762 003 1 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 33 Date: 3/13/2022 9:46 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3.4 Building Construction - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ` 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i , Vendor •• 1.4000e- 0.0499 0.0187 2.3000e- • 7.8000e- 2.4000e- 8.0400e- 2.2500e- 2.3000e- 2.4800e- & 0.0000 22.5005 22.5005 7.5000e- • 3.2400e- 23.4843 003 004 ; 003 004 003 003 004 003 'A 004 ; 003 i , Worker •• 9.9500e- 7.9000e- 0.1071 3.000Oe- • 0.0344 2.1000e- 0.0346 9.1200e- 1.9000e- 9.3200e- & 0.0000 27.6876 27.6876 7.3000e- • 7.1000e- 27.9179 003 003 004 ; 004 003 004 003 'A 004 ; 004 Total 0.0114 0.0578 0.1258 5.3000e- 0.0422 4.5000e- 0.0426 0.0114 4.2000e- 0.0118 0.0000 50.1881 50.1881 1.4800e- 3.9500e- 51.4022 004 004 004 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road 0.1298 1.1868 1.3401 2.2200e- 0.0577 0.0577 0.0543 0.0543 & 0.0000 191.2387 191.2387 0.0455 0.0000 192.3760 003 , A , i A , Total 0.1298 1.1868 1.3401 2.2200e- 0.0577 0.0577 0.0543 0.0543 0.0000 191.2387 191.2387 0.0455 0.0000 192.3760 003 1 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 33 Date: 3/13/2022 9:46 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3.4 Building Construction - 2023 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ` 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i , Vendor •• 1.4000e- 0.0499 0.0187 2.3000e- • 7.8000e- 2.4000e- 8.0400e- 2.2500e- 2.3000e- 2.4800e- & 0.0000 22.5005 22.5005 7.5000e- • 3.2400e- 23.4843 003 004 ; 003 004 003 003 004 003 'A 004 ; 003 i , Worker •• 9.9500e- 7.9000e- 0.1071 3.000Oe- • 0.0344 2.1000e- 0.0346 9.1200e- 1.9000e- 9.3200e- & 0.0000 27.6876 27.6876 7.3000e- • 7.1000e- 27.9179 003 003 004 ; 004 003 004 003 'A 004 ; 004 Total 0.0114 0.0578 0.1258 5.3000e- 0.0422 4.5000e- 0.0426 0.0114 4.2000e- 0.0118 0.0000 50.1881 50.1881 1.4800e- 3.9500e- 51.4022 004 004 004 003 003 3.5 Paving - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road 0.0103 0.1019 0.1458 2.3000e- • 5.1000e- 5.1000e- 4.6900e- 4.6900e- & 0.0000 20.0269 20.0269 6.4800e- • 0.0000 20.1888 004 ; 003 003 003 003 'A 003 ; i A , , Paving •• 2.6500e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 003 , A , i A , Total 0.0130 0.1019 0.1458 2.3000e- 5.1000e- 5.1000e- 4.6900e- 4.6900e- 0.0000 20.0269 20.0269 6.4800e- 0.0000 20.1888 004 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 33 Date: 3/13/2022 9:46 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3.5 Paving - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ` 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i , Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ` 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i , Worker •• 4.8000e- 3.8000e- 5.1200e- 1.000Oe- • 1.6400e- 1.000Oe- 1.6500e- 4.4000e- 1.000Oe- 4.5000e- & 0.0000 1.3248 1.3248 3.000Oe- • 3.000Oe- 1.3358 004 004 003 005 ; 003 005 003 004 005 004 'A 005 ; 005 Total 4.8000e- 3.8000e- 5.1200e- 1.000Oe- 1.6400e- 1.000Oe- 1.6500e- 4.4000e- 1.000Oe- 4.5000e- 0.0000 1.3248 1.3248 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 1.3358 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 005 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road 0.0103 0.1019 0.1458 2.3000e- • 5.1000e- 5.1000e- 4.6900e- 4.6900e- & 0.0000 20.0268 20.0268 6.4800e- • 0.0000 20.1888 004 ; 003 003 003 003 'A 003 ; i A , , Paving •• 2.6500e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 003 , A , i A , Total 0.0130 0.1019 0.1458 2.3000e- 5.1000e- 5.1000e- 4.6900e- 4.6900e- 0.0000 20.0268 20.0268 6.4800e- 0.0000 20.1888 004 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 33 Date: 3/13/2022 9:46 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3.5 Paving - 2023 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ` 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ` 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i Worker •• 4.8000e- 3.8000e- 5.1200e- 1.000Oe- • 1.6400e- 1.000Oe- 1.6500e- 4.4000e- 1.000Oe- 4.5000e- & 0.0000 1.3248 1.3248 3.000Oe- • 3.000Oe- 1.3358 004 004 003 005 ; 003 005 003 004 005 004 'A 005 ; 005 Total 4.8000e- 3.8000e- 5.1200e- 1.000Oe- 1.6400e- 1.000Oe- 1.6500e- 4.4000e- 1.000Oe- 4.5000e- 0.0000 1.3248 1.3248 3.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 1.3358 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 005 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating •• 0.0292 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i Off -Road •• 1.9200e- 0.0130 0.0181 3.000Oe- • 7.1000e- 7.1000e- 7.1000e- 7.1000e- 0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.5000e- • 0.0000 2.5571 003 005 ; 004 004 004 004 004 ; Total 0.0311 0.0130 0.0181 3.000Oe- 7.1000e- 7.1000e- 7.1000e- 7.1000e- 0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.5000e- 0.0000 2.5571 005 004 004 004 004 004 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 33 Date: 3/13/2022 9:46 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ` 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ` 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i Worker •• 2.5000e- 2.000Oe- 2.7300e- 1.000Oe- • 8.8000e- 1.000Oe- 8.8000e- 2.3000e- 0.0000 2.4000e- & 0.0000 0.7065 0.7065 2.000Oe- • 2.000Oe- 0.7124 004 004 003 005 ; 004 005 004 004 004 005 ; 005 Total 2.5000e- 2.000Oe- 2.7300e- 1.000Oe- 8.8000e- 1.000Oe- 8.8000e- 2.3000e- 0.0000 2.4000e- 0.0000 0.7065 0.7065 2.000Oe- 2.000Oe- 0.7124 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 004 005 005 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating •• 0.0292 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i Off -Road •• 1.9200e- 0.0130 0.0181 3.000Oe- • 7.1000e- 7.1000e- 7.1000e- 7.1000e- 0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.5000e- • 0.0000 2.5571 003 005 ; 004 004 004 004 004 ; Total 0.0311 0.0130 0.0181 3.000Oe- 7.1000e- 7.1000e- 7.1000e- 7.1000e- 0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.5000e- 0.0000 2.5571 005 004 004 004 004 004 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 33 Date: 3/13/2022 9:46 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ` 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ` 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i Worker •• 2.5000e- 2.00OOe- 2.7300e- 1.00OOe- • 8.8000e- 1.00OOe- 8.8000e- 2.3000e- 0.0000 2.4000e- & 0.0000 0.7065 0.7065 2.00OOe- • 2.00OOe- 0.7124 004 004 003 005 ; 004 005 004 004 004 'A 005 ; 005 Total 2.5000e- 2.00OOe- 2.7300e- 1.00OOe- 8.8000e- 1.00OOe- 8.8000e- 2.3000e- 0.0000 2.4000e- 0.0000 0.7065 0.7065 2.00OOe- 2.00OOe- 0.7124 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 004 005 005 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2O2O.4.0 Page 21 of 33 Date: 3/13/2022 9:46 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total I Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.0155 0.0161 0.1424 2.8000e- ' 0.0287 2.1000e- 0.0289 7.6500e- ' 2.00OOe- 7.8500e- + 0.0000 26.3165 26.3165 2.0400e- 1.2600e- 26.7427 004 ; 004 003 004 i 003 + 003 i + ; 003 Unmitigated 0.0155 0.0161 0.1424 2.8000e- 0.0287 2.1000e- 0.0289 7.6500e- 2.00OOe- 7.8500e- 0.0000 26.3165 26.3165 2.0400e- 1.2600e- 26.7427 004 004 003 004 003 003 003 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 ------_----------------------......----------------------- Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 .............. .........................--------------------- ---- _ Place of Worship 25.47 21.95 ' 101.26 76,347 76,347 Total 25.47 21.95 101.26 76,347 76,347 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip % Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass -by Other Asphalt Surfaces ; 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 •......................4.................... ........ ..............--------- ......... Parking Lot 16.60 ; 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 ...-----------------}------------------- -------- ........ ......... Place of Worship 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 95.00 5.00 0 ......... 0 --------- 64 0 ........--------------- 0 --------------11------- 25 0 0 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA I LDTi I LDT2 I MDV I LHD1 I LHD2 I MHD I HHD I OBUS I UBUS I MCY I SBUS I MH Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.544785: 0.062844: 0.187478: 0.127235: 0.023089: 0.006083: 0.010475: 0.008012: 0.000925: 0.000611: 0.024394: 0.000698E 0.003377 i i i i i i Parkin Lot 0.544785, 0.062844, 0.187478, 0.127235, 0.023089, 0.006083, 0.010475, 0.008012, 0.000925, 0.000611, 0.024394, 0.0006980.003374 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 33 Date: 3/13/2022 9:46 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Place of Worship 0.544785• 0.062844• 0.187478• 0.127235• 0.023089• 0.006083• 0.010475• 0.008012• 0.000925• 0.000611• 0.024394• 0.000698• 0.003374 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy ROG I NOx I CO I S02 I FFMt1ve 0 I ExhauPM1st I Total I Fugitive PM2.5 I EPM2.5t I PM2.TotaI Bio- CO2 I NBio- CO2I Total CO2 I CH4 I N20 I CO2e Category I tons/yr I MT/yr Electricity • 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.0835 7.0835 6.000Oe- 7.000Oe- 7.1201 Mitigated ; ; 004 005 i - , Electricity • 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 A 0.0000 7.0835 7.0835 6.000Oe- 7.000Oe- 7.1201 Unmitigated ; ; 004 005 i , NaturalGas •• 3.5000e- 3.2300e- 2.7100e- 2.000Oe- • 2.5000e- 2.5000e- • 2.5000e- 2.5000e- A 0.0000 3.5126 3.5126 7.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 3.5335 Mitigated 004 003 003 005 ; 004 004 ; 004 004 005 005 _ _ _ i _ _ _ _ NaturalGas •• 3.5000e- 3.2300e- 2.7100e- 2.000Oe- 2.5000e- 2.5000e- 2.5000e- 2.5000e- 0.0000 3.5126 3.5126 7.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 3.5335 Unmitigated „ 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 005 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 33 Date: 3/13/2022 9:46 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Other Asphalt 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces i i Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Place of Worship ; 65823.4 3.5000e- 3.2300e- 2.7100e- 2.000Oe- 2.5000e- 2.5000e- 2.5000e- 2.5000e- 0.0000 3.5126 3.5126 7.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 3.5335 i; 004 003 ; 003 005 004 004 ; 004 i 004 ; 005 005 Total 3.5000e- 3.2300e- 2.7100e- 2.000Oe- 2.5000e- 2.5000e- 2.5000e- 2.5000e- 0.0000 3.5126 3.5126 7.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 3.5335 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 005 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 33 Date: 3/13/2022 9:46 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Other Asphalt 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces i i Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Place of Worship ; 65823.4 3.5000e- 3.2300e- 2.7100e- 2.000Oe- 2.5000e- 2.5000e- 2.5000e- 2.5000e- 0.0000 3.5126 3.5126 7.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 3.5335 i; 004 003 ; 003 005 004 004 ; 004 i 004 ; 005 005 Total 3.5000e- 3.2300e- 2.7100e- 2.000Oe- 2.5000e- 2.5000e- 2.5000e- 2.5000e- 0.0000 3.5126 3.5126 7.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 3.5335 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 005 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 33 Date: 3/13/2022 9:46 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Use I Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Other Asphalt 0 ` 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces i , , Parking Lot 140 ` 0.0248 0.0000 0.0000 0.0250 , , Place of Worship 39801.9 7.0587 6.000Oe 7.000Oe 7.0951 i; 004 ; 005 Total 7.0835 6.000Oe- 7.000Oe- 7.1201 004 005 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 33 Date: 3/13/2022 9:46 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Mitigated Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Use I Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Other Asphalt 0 ` 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces i , , Parking Lot 140 ` 0.0248 0.0000 0.0000 0.0250 , , Place of Worship 39801.9 7.0587 6.000Oe 7.000Oe 7.0951 i; 004 ; 005 Total 7.0835 6.000Oe- 7.000Oe- 7.1201 004 005 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area No Hearths Installed CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 33 Date: 3/13/2022 9:46 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG I NOx I CO I S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.0220 1.000Oe- 1.1800e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2900e- 2.2900e- 1.000Oe- 0.0000 2.4400e- 005 ; 003 ; i 003 ; 003 005 003 i Unmitigated 0.0220 1.000Oe- 1.1800e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2900e- 2.2900e- 1.000Oe- 0.0000 2.4400e- 005 003 003 003 005 003 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I SubCategory ton s/yr MT/yr Architectural •� 2.9200e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating 003 i ---------------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- --------------- -------+------------------------------ ------- •....... Consumer 0.0189 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products i Landscaping 1.1000e- 1.000Oe- 1.1800e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2900e- 2.2900e- 1.000Oe- 0.0000 2.4400e- 004 005 ; 003 ; i 003 ; 003 005 003 Total 0.0220 1.000Oe- 1.1800e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2900e- 2.2900e- 1.000Oe- 0.0000 2.4400e- 005 003 003 003 005 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 33 Date: 3/13/2022 9:46 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural 2.9200e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ` 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating 003 i , Consumer 0.0189 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ` 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products i , Landscaping 1.1000e- 1.000Oe- 1.1800e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2900e- 2.2900e- 1.000Oe- 0.0000 2.4400e- 004 005 ; 003 ; i i 003 ; 003 005 003 Total 0.0220 1.000Oe- 1.1800e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2900e- 2.2900e- 1.000Oe- 0.0000 2.4400e- 005 003 003 003 005 003 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 33 Date: 3/13/2022 9:46 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated 0.6555 3.7900e- 9.000Oe- 0.7785 003 ; 005 __ Unmitigated 0.6555 3.7900e- 9.000Oe- 0.7785 003 005 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e door Use I Land Use Mgal MT/yr Other Asphalt ; 0/0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces i., ., Parking Lot 0/0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ., Place of Worship ; 0.11483 / 0.6555 3.7900e- 9.000Oe- 0.7785 0.179606 ;; 003 005 Total 0.6555 3.7900e- 9.000Oe- 0.7785 003 005 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 33 Date: 3/13/2022 9:46 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 7.2 Water by Land Use Mitigated Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e door Use I Land Use Mgal MT/yr Other Asphalt 0/0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces .. Parking Lot 0/0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 .. Place of Worship ; 0.11483 / 1- 0.6555 3.7900e- 9.000Oe- 0.7785 0.179606 i. 003 005 Total 0.6555 3.7900e- 9.000Oe- 0.7785 003 005 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 31 of 33 Date: 3/13/2022 9:46 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied CategoryNear Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e MT/yr Mitigated 4.2466 0.2510 0.0000 10.5207 Unmitigated 4.2466 0.2510 0.0000 10.5207 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated Waste Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Disposed Land Use tons MT/yr Other Asphalt ; 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces i., Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Place of Worship ; 20.92 4.2466 0.2510 0.0000 10.5207 Total 4.2466 0.2510 0.0000 10.5207 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 32 of 33 Date: 3/13/2022 9:46 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 8.2 Waste by Land Use Mitigated Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use Et MT/yr Other Asphalt 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces ------------------------------- Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 .- Place of Worship ; 20.92 4.2466 0.2510 0.0000 10.5207 Total 4.2466 0.2510 0.0000 10.5207 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumas and Emeraencv Generators IEquipment Type I Number I Hours/Day I Hours/Year I Horse Power I Load Factor I Fuel Type I Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 33 of 33 Date: 3/13/2022 9:46 PM Eternal Valley Future - Los Angeles -South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 11.0 Vegetation SxA 13 Localized Significance Thresholds* Construction At 200 Meters CO x-value y-value Area of Site LST (acerage) (mass/day) 1 2500.00 2 3108.00 5 4608.00 4.00 4099.69 NOx x-value y-value Area of Site LST (acerage) (mass/day) 1 173.00 2 204.00 5 275.00 4.00 250.77 PMI0 x-value y-value Area of Site LST (acerage) (mass/day) 1 51 2 59 5 79 4.00 72.23 PM2.5 x-value y-value Area of Site LST (acerage) (mass/day) 1 18 2 20 5 26 4.00 24.00 *based on SCAQMD localized signifcance thresholds (LST) from Appendix C of the SCAQMD's CEQA Handbook IMPACT SCIENCES APPENDIX C-1 Biological Resources Assessment CJ BIOMONITORING Eternal Valley Cemetery Biological Assessment Report FINAL Prepared for: Hunsaker & Associates 26074 Avenue Hall, Suite 23 Valencia, CA 91355 Prepared by: Courtney McCammon CJ Biomonitoring 5120 E Livingston Drive Long Beach, CA Report Date: November 7, 2020 Updated: May 9, 2022 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION I 1.1 Project Description 1 1.2 Project Site and Study Area Description 1 2.0 METHODS 4 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 5 4.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 6 4.1 Vegetation and Plant Communities 6 4.2 Plant Inventory 8 4.3 Wildlife Inventory 8 5.0 SPECIAL STATUS BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 9 5.1 Special Status Plant Communities 9 5.2 Special Status Plant Species 10 5.3 County Protected Trees 12 5.4 Jurisdictional Waters/Habitat 12 5.5 Special Status Wildlife Species 12 5.6 Habitat Linkages and Wildlife Movement 14 5.7 Significant Ecological Areas 15 5.8 USFWF Critical Habitat 15 6.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS 18 6.1 Impacts to Special Status Plant Species 18 6.2 Impacts to Sensitive Plant Communities 18 6.3 Impacts to Special Status Wildlife Species 18 6.4 Impacts to Nesting Birds 18 6.5 Impacts to Wildlife Movement 19 6.6 Impacts to Jurisdictional Habitat 19 6.7 Significant Ecological Areas 19 6.8 USFWF Critical Habitat 19 7.0 MITIGATION MEASURES 20 8.0 REFERENCES 22 FIGURES Figure 1 Project Location Map 2 Figure 2 Project Footprint Map 3 Figure 3 Generalized Plant Community Map 7 Figure 4 Significant Ecological Areas Map 16 Figure 5 USFWS Critical Habitat Map 17 PLATES Plate 1 Representative Photographs of Habitat and Site Conditions 6 Plate 2 Representative Photographs of Habitat and Site Conditions 7 APPENDICES Appendix 1 Site Plan Appendix 2 Vascular Plant Species Observed Appendix 3 Vertebrate Wildlife Species Observed Appendix 4 Special -Status Plant Species Within Region and Potential for Occurrence Appendix 5 Special -Status Wildlife Species Within Region and Potential for Occurrence 1.0 Introduction The following is a Biological Assessment for the proposed Eternal Valley Cemetery Project (project) located in the Placenta Canyon area of Santa Clarita, California. This report provides an inventory of the biological resources at the site and an analysis of those impacts to biological resources potentially resulting from implementation of the proposed project. This assessment is intended to assist the City of Santa Clarita in determining potential impacts to biological resources as part of CEQA analysis. The report first covers the literature reviewed and field survey conducted to identify the biological resources already recorded from the region of the project area, followed by a discussion of existing biological conditions including vegetation and plant communities, natural communities of special concern, observed common and special -status plant species, observed common and special -status wildlife, habitat linkages and wildlife movement. A vegetation map and representative photographs of habitat conditions at the project site are provided. This report discusses the existing biological conditions and resources within the study area that may be under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or other responsible agencies. Lists of plant and wildlife species observed, as well as an assessment of the potential for occurrence of special -status plant and wildlife species at the site are provided as appendices to the report. 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project includes an application to permit the construction of a future cemetery burial site and major grading. The Applicant intends to construct additional lawn space for cemetery burials. A proposed site plan prepared by Hunsaker & Associates dated October 14, 2020 is provided as Appendix 1. 1.2 PROJECT SITE AND STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION The project survey area encompasses a partially graded area just west of the Eternal Valley Cemetery in Santa Clarita, California. The project site is located north of the intersection of Sierra Highway and Needham Ranch Parkway. The entire project site lies within the USGS Oat Mountain quadrangle (Figure 1). The project site is partially undeveloped with sage scrub habitat. Historical imaging shows that the site was partially graded sometime at the end of 2017 to the beginning of 2018. It is unknown if this historical grading was permitted through an additional project. The site is surrounded by commercial and residential development and marginal open space to the west. There is significant open space to the south and east of the project site. An aerial image of the study area and vicinity is provided as Figure 2. v a L9 4J u Eternal o � oa ^ v d n pakle• O Co sty 6, Gac0 ' 1a paw C� V a or�a21 got e s� Ln o ja paM ex Oa�'c`��.n U� r a �a O'di �o. 126 :J r � a a4 \ vo 1�1 0 air. � ono His Little La m bs Pre- hoot Eternal Vak-v AM morel Park Park r eye vYhitney is - Canyon o Needham Ranc/t A.:,* F`ark c nk,vy 1p -r" t -j. Al v/ AIJ AV 0 3,625 7,250 14,500 Figure 1 0 Feet Project Location Biological Assessment I Eternal Valley Cemetery Project I October 2020 '�' Maetere • i ��r•� Z _ 'i Z L _ E s�nWri' - ___ • cooeq� ena �rSIC Ilk 1 2 j '� ��� �� WIII mS. H`rt., - !•_ `, r �����A~` � �!�','�i1Lw�!!L �*4 t _ ;•1- Y.+,� may` ,• � : ��•t .�.. - � _ x � Etam 1 allay -� - -. ��� ♦ Mem el Perk-�`k++��' � �K R Photo 1— Standing at the southwest corner of the site, view looking north at the graded slope and ruderal vegetation community. Photo 3 — View looking northeast onto the project site showing a disturbed vegetation community with heavy invasion of black mustard (Brassica nigra). Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Photo Plate Photo 2 — View looking northeast onto the project site showing a disturbed vegetation community comprised mostly of deerweed (Acmispon glober). i n, ✓y, i;d 4 S. Photo 4 — View looking north at the depression on the west side of the project site consisting primarily of elderberry (sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea). Photo 5 — View to the southwest showing the elderberry towards the back anc coastal sage scrub (California sagebrush dominant) habitat. Photo 7 — View to the southwest showing the upper pad with degraded, ruderal habitat and the road used to access the storage site. Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Photo Plate Photo 6 — View to the southwest showing the intact coastal sage scrub habitat consisting of sagebrush, black sage, and deerweed, primarily. Photo 8 — Southern pacific rattlesnake near the storage area toward the center of the project site. 2.0 Methods A literature review was performed in preparation for a field survey that included information available in standard biological references (e.g., Baldwin et al. 2012; Sawyer, Keeler -Wolf, and Evens 2009; Reid 2006; Stebbins 2003; and Prigge and Gibson 2013), and relevant lists and databases pertaining to the status and known occurrences of sensitive and special -status resources. Other sources of information included aerial photographs, topographic maps, soil survey maps, and relevant policy and planning documents. The following sources were among those reviewed in preparation for a field survey, or that were consulted during preparation of this report (for a complete list see the references section): • Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), data as of October 11, 2020; • California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Rarefind 5 report for the 7.5' USGS Oat Mountain quadrangle and five surrounding quadrangles, CDFW, data as of October 11, 2020; • California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California report for the 7.5' USGS Oat Mountain quadrangle and five surrounding quadrangles, CLAPS, data as of October 11, 2020; • FWS Critical Habitat Mapper for Threatened and Endangered Species, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), data as of October 11, 2020; • List of Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens, CDFW, October 11, 2020; • List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations (Natural Communities List), CDFW, October 2020; and, • Special Animals, CDFW, October 11, 2020. Senior biologist Courtney McCammon conducted biological surveys on October 8, 2020 between 0753 — 1144 hours and again on October 24, 2020 between 0949 — 1202 hours. Survey conditions ranged from 63 — 68°F, cloudy to partly cloudy, and light wind. The surveys included a search for protected and regulated biological resources, including rare, threatened, and endangered plant and wildlife species, special habitats, sensitive natural communities, jurisdictional wetlands and non -wetland Waters of the U.S., jurisdictional streambed and riparian habitat, and locally sensitive resources, as well as to evaluate the importance of the site for wildlife movement. A delineation of potential jurisdictional features was not conducted. The survey extent included all areas potentially subject to any direct impacts of construction, temporary and permanent. The surveys were performed by slowly walking several transects across the site. An inventory of vascular plants and wildlife observed was recorded during the surveys, with all species identified to the taxonomic level necessary to determine their status (Appendix 2 and Appendix 3). Vascular plant species determinations were made using The Jepson Manual. - Vascular Plants of California, 2nd edition. Plant communities were correlated with the Vegetation Classification of the Santa Monica Mountains Natural Recreation Area and Environs in Ventura and Los Angeles Counties, California (CDFW/CLAPS, January 2006) and the List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations (Natural Communities List) (CDFW, September 2010). Vertebrate wildlife species observed at and in the vicinity of the site were identified by direct observation, sign (e.g., tracks, scat, or burrows), or vocalization. Several photographs were taken as a record of site conditions at the time of the survey and are provided in the photo plate below. 3.0 Environmental Setting The study area includes a large, partially graded, multi -level site that consists of heavy non- native plant influence. Natural vegetation, consisting primarily of coastal sage scrub occurs in the northern portion of the study area. The project is accessed from Needham Ranch Road through a paved street but appears to also be accessed from the Eternal Velley Cemetery. The work area is gently sloping. Beyond the proposed work areas, natural and invasive plant communities exist up and down the canyon with single family residential homes and commercial buildings in the immediate vicinity as well as the Eternal Valley Cemetery to the east. The project site is situated within the inland foothills of the Angeles National Forest, at elevations ranging from approximately 1610 to 1653 feet (491 — 504 m) above mean sea level. The site is generally dry and exposed. The average high/low summer temperatures in the lower elevation inland foothills of the Angeles National Forest are 90/50°F, average high/low winter temperatures are 68/40°F, and precipitation is approximately 18 inches per year. The soils are of the Saugus loam association, 30 to 50 percent slopes, which are comprised of weakly consolidated alluvium, well drained soils that formed in paralithic bedrock. The project site does not appear to support any formal water features though there are some sloped canyons potentially producing canyons that could convey water in extreme weather events (refer to Figure 2). 4.0 Biological Resources 4.1 VEGETATION AND PLANT COMMUNITIES The vegetation at the site generally consists of sage brush, ceanothus shrubland, and bare/disturbed habitats. The vegetation within the project area was correlated with the Vegetation Classification of the Santa Monica Mountains Natural Recreation Area and Environs in Ventura and Los Angeles Counties, California (CDFW/CLAPS, January 2006) and the List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations (Natural Communities List) (CDFW, September 2010). These documents provide lists of plant communities occurring in Los Angeles county environs in the State of California, respectively. In each of these documents plant communities are assigned a conservation status rank (also known as "rarity rank"), which is used to determine the sensitivity of the plant community. The plant communities within the project areas are shown on Figure 3. There are no sensitive communities within the study area. Shrubland Communities Artemisia californica Salvia mellifera Shrubland Alliance This shrubland alliance occurs in the northern portion of the project site. The vegetation is thick and appears to be old -growth sage scrub habitat. Scrub species including black sage (Salix mellifera) and California sagebrush (Artemisia californica) are the primary cover in this plant community. Chaparral yucca (Hesperoyucca whipplei), Sugar bush (Rhus ovata), and bush monkeyflower (Diplacus aurantiacus) are sporadic throughout the vegetation community and present at low cover. A shrub layer of elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea) is present in the "bowl" area only. This vegetation alliance is within a USFWS Critical Habitat polygon for coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) and was determined to be intact such that it is possible the species could use the area for foraging and nesting. Ceanothus oliganthus Shrubland Alliance This shrubland alliance occurs in the center of the project site on the areas immediately surrounding the dirt access road. Thick leaf yerba santa (Eriodictyon crassifolium), chamise (Adenostoma fasciculata), and hoaryleaf ceanothus (Ceanothus crassifolius) are the predominant shrub layer in this vegetation alliance. This vegetation alliance is somewhat disturbed by the use of the area as a storage yard by the project as well as the cemetery. Other Communities Individual Trees Approximately two (2) "individual trees" exist within the project site but because of the severity with which they were burnt in the last fire, they are suspected to be eucalyptus trees but identification difficult due to the severity of the burns. These trees are in the northern portion of the project site in the "bowl" area. _ � � � ram".: ,� „-, �► �� -"� 4e "z` � . 4*0 +�.; * s 6 t ` Legend Project Site • �' , Artemisia calfornica-Salvia mellifera 4; ,Shrubland Alliance its R i Ceanothus oliganthus Shrubland Alliance CF �, Ruderal Vegetation 1 0 3,625 7,250 14,500 Figure 3 0 Feet Vegetation Communities Biological Assessment I Eternal Valley Cemetery Project I October 2020 Barren or Sparsely Vegetated Ruderal) Areas mapped in this classification are barren or consist primarily of sparse cover of non-native ruderal species. These areas have been graded or cleared of vegetation and may be mowed or otherwise disturbed on a regular basis. Within the project area, this includes the southern portion of the project site, particularly the west facing slope adjacent to Needham Ranch Road, the areas directly adjacent to the dirt access road, the area along the eastern edge of the property adjacent to the cemetery, and the proposed fill site. Selected species observed include tocalote (Centauria melitensis), bromes, deerweed (Euphorbia maculate), and black mustard (Brassica nigra). These areas generally lack native species. These areas appear to be used as storage of construction materials as well for the current project along Needham Ranch Road and the Eternal Valley Cemetery. 4.2 PLANT INVENTORY Appendix 2 provides a list of the common plant species observed during the site survey. The list is representative of the plants observed during the survey, which may not have been during the blooming period for some plants. The majority of the project site has been clear of vegetation and apparently graded with a culvert installed. Non-native species dominant the disturbed portion of the project site with species such as tocalote (Centauria melitensis) and black mustard (Brassica nigra). A majority of the intact native vegetation exists in the northern half of the project site supporting a sage scrub habitat primarily consisting of California sagebrush (Artemisia californica) and black sage (Salix mellifera). Additional discussion regarding special - status plant species and communities is provided in sections 5.1 and 5.2. 4.3 WILDLIFE INVENTORY Appendix 3 provides a list of the common wildlife species observed during the site survey. The list is representative of only a sample of wildlife species expected to utilize the site for foraging, cover, and reproduction. Though, the list is representative of wildlife most commonly seen during daytime surveys. The project site is surrounded on the southern and western sides by open space allowing for additional species to utilize the site routinely such as raptors and some mammal species including coyote, bobcat, and mule deer. Bird species observed are common year-round residents though some likely utilize the site as nesting habitat as well. Additional discussion regarding special -status wildlife species is provided in section 5.5. 5.0 Special -Status Biological Resources Habitat conditions observed at the study area were used to evaluate the potential for occurrence of special -status biological resources based on these searches and the professional expertise of the investigating biologist. The potential for each special -status species to occur in the study area was then evaluated according to the following criteria: • Not expected. Habitat on and adjacent to the site is clearly unsuitable for the species requirements (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime). It is very unlikely the species would occur at the site. • Low Potential. Few of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or the majority of habitat on and adjacent to the site is unsuitable or of very poor quality. The species is not likely to be found at the site. • Moderate Potential. Some of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or only some of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is unsuitable. The species has a moderate probability of being found at the site. • High Potential. All of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present and/or most of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is highly suitable. The species has a high probability of being found at the site. • Present. Species is observed at the site or has been recently recorded (i.e. CNDDB, other reports) from the site. The site assessment is intended to identify the presence or absence of suitable habitat for each special -status species known to occur in the vicinity in order to determine its potential to occur in the study area. The site visit does not constitute a protocol -level or focused species -specific survey. However, if a special -status species was observed during the site visit, its presence was recorded and is discussed in this Section. In cases where little information is known about species occurrences and habitat requirements, the species evaluation was based on best professional judgment of the biologist with experience working with the species and habitats. 5.1 SPECIAL -STATUS PLANT COMMUNITIES A review of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Rarefind 5 application reveals thirteen (13) Sensitive Plant Communities/Habitats have been reported by other observers in the Oat Mountain Quadrangle area, or within adjacent quadrangles. These Sensitive Plant Communities/Habitats include: • Southern California Threespine Stickleback Stream; • California Walnut Woodland; • Cismontane Alkali Marsh; • Mainland Cherry Forest; • Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub; • Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest; • Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest; • Southern Mixed Riparian Forest; • Southern Riparian Scrub; • Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland; • Southern Willow Scrub; • Valley Needlegrass Grassland; and • Valley Oak Woodland None of the CNDDB-listed communities are present on the site or nearby. 5.2 SPECIAL -STATUS PLANT SPECIES The potential for special -status plant species was assessed based upon the known occurrence(s) of the species in the area as identified from CDFW, USFWS and CNPS databases, and the presence or absence of suitable habitat within the project site based on plant community mapping. Suitable habitat was defined as areas with appropriate plant communities, soils and/or topography (elevation at MSL) to support the species based on known occurrences in those habitats and/or CDFW and CNPS documented habitat descriptions for the species. The definitions of suitable habitat were then compared against the plant community mapping conducted for the project site and local knowledge. A table of sensitive plant species for which potentially suitable habitat occurs within the project site was prepared, and the potential for occurrence for each species was determined following completion of the vegetation mapping conducted during the field survey, included in Appendix 4. Twenty-seven (27) sensitive plant species have the potential to occur in the proposed development and use areas. Fifteen (15) have a moderate or higher potential for occurrence in the project area and are discussed in detail below. The remaining species documented from within the vicinity of the study area are unlikely or have no potential to occur in the study area. Catalina mariposa lily (Calochortus catalinae) CNPS RPR 4.2 This species has been recorded from chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland habitats and ranges from 15 — 700 meters in elevation. Marginal habitat exists on site and nearby and, therefore, has a moderate potential for occurrence. None was observed during site surveys. Club -haired mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus var. clavatus) CNPS RPR 4.3 This species occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland habitats and ranges from 75 — 1300 meters in elevation. Marginal habitat exists on site and nearby and, therefore, has a moderate potential for occurrence. None was observed during site surveys. Slender mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis) CNPS RPR 4.2 This species occurs in chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland habitat and ranges from 320 — 1000 meters in elevation. This species is known from at least nine occurrences in the Santa Clarita Valley. Only marginal habitat exists on site and nearby and much of it is disturbed so it is considered to have a moderate potential of occurrence. No slender mariposa lilies were observed during site surveys. Known from nine occurrences. Plummer's mariposa lily (Calochortus plummerae) CNPS RPR 4.2 This species is typically found in chaparral, cismontane woodlands, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forests, valley and foothill grassland habitat with granitic or rocky soils and ranges from 100 — 1700 meters in elevation but is less common in the higher elevations. Only limited suitable habitat exists on site and nearby so it has a moderate potential for occurrence. None was observed during site surveys. Santa Susana tarplant (Deinandra minthornii) CNPS RPR 1B.2 This species is found in Chaparral and coastal scrub/ rocky habitats and ranges from 280 — 760 meters in elevation. Marginal habitat exists on site and nearby with no plants observed during site surveys. Paniculate tarplant (Deinandra paniculata) CNPS RPR 4.2 This species prefers coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools - usually vernal mesic. Ranging from 25 — 950 meters, there is marginal habitat on site and nearby but no plants were observed during the survey. Blochman's dudleya (Dudleya blochmaniae ssp. blochmaniae) CNPS RPR 1B.1 This species prefers coastal bluff scrub, chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland habitats ranging from 5 — 450 meters. Marginal habitat exists on site and nearby with no plants observed during site surveys. Many -stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis) CNPS RPR 1B.1 This species can be found in chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland habitats ranging from 15 — 790 meters. Marginal habitat exists on site and nearby with no plants observed during site surveys. Southern California black walnut (Juglans californica var. californica) CNPS RPR 4.2 This species occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, and coastal scrub/ alluvial habitats ranging from 50 — 900 meters. Marginal habitat exists on site and nearby with no plants observed during site surveys. Payne's bush lupine (Lupinus paynei) CNPS RPR 1B.1 This species can be found in coastal scrub, riparian scrub, and valley and foothill woodland habitats ranging from 50 — 525 meters. Marginal habitat exists on site and nearby with no plants observed during site surveys. Ojai navarretia (Navarretia ojaiensis) CNPS RPR 1B.1 This species is associated with chaparral (openings), coastal scrub (openings), and valley and foothill grassland habitats ranging from 275 — 620 meters. Marginal habitat exists on site and nearby with no plants observed during site surveys. Chaparral nolina (Nolina cismontana) CNPS RPR 1B.2 This species occurs in chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitats ranging from 140 — 1275 meters. Marginal habitat exists on site and nearby with no plants observed during site surveys. Hubby's phacelia (Phacelia hubbyi) CNPS RPR 4.2 This species prefers chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill woodland habitats ranging from 0 — 1000 meters. Marginal habitat exists on site and nearby with no plants observed during site surveys. White rabbit -tobacco (Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum) CNPS RPR 2B.2 This species prefers chaparral, cismontane woodland, riparian woodland, or coastal scrub habitat and ranges from 0 — 2100 meters in elevation. Riparian woodland occurs on site and nearby though the plant was not observed during the site visit. Chaparral ragwort (Senecio aphanactis) CNPS RPR 2B.2 This species prefers chaparral, cismontane woodland, or coastal scrub/alkali habitat and ranges from 15 — 800 meters in elevation. Marginal habitat for this species is found on site and nearby for this species though not observed on site during the survey. 5.3 COUNTY PROTECTED TREES The City of Santa Clarita defines protected trees as any oak tree of the genus Quercus, including, but not limited to, valley oak (Quercus lobata), California live oak (Quercus agrifolia), canyon oak (Quercus chrysolepis), interior live oak (Quercus wislizenii) and scrub oak (Quercus dumosa), regardless of size. No protected trees were found on the project site though they do exist nearby. 5.4 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS41ABITAT No wetlands or jurisdictional features were identified within the property. No wetland -associated plant species were detected directly on the subject property. 5.5 SPECIAL -STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES For the purposes of this assessment, special -status wildlife species are those species that are listed, proposed for listing, or that meet the criteria for listing as endangered, threatened, or rare under the FESA or CESA; and those that are listed on the CDFW's Special Animals list with a designation of SSC (California Species of Special Concern) or CFP (California Fully Protected). A total of 91 wildlife species were included in the 9-quad CNDDB search. No species listed as Endangered, Threatened, California Fully -Protected, or as a California Species of Special Concern have been observed at the project site. However, the property and surrounding area does contain federally designated Critical Habitat for a listed wildlife species. An analysis of the potential for occurrence of special -status wildlife at the sites is presented in Appendix 5, which includes the species' protected status, primary habitat associations, and an assessment of their potential for occurrence (high, moderate, low, or not expected). The potential for occurrence was considered through research of the CDFW Natural Diversity Database (CDFW 2020) using the Rarefind application for special -status "elements" on the Oat Mountain quadrangle and eight adjacent quadrangles. The potential for occurrence analysis provides a speculative assessment of the potential for the occurrence at the site of special -status animals on the basis of their known distribution and habitat requirements. In addition, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Birds of Conservation Concern, and CDFW special -status invertebrates are all considered special -status species. The potential for occurrence of these special -status species on the project site was assessed based upon the known occurrence(s) of the species in the area as identified from CDFW and USFWS databases and the presence or absence of suitable habitat within the project site. Suitable habitat was defined as areas with appropriate vegetation, soils and/or topography (elevation at MSL) to support the species based on known occurrences in those habitats and/or documented occurrences of the species. A table of sensitive wildlife species for which potentially suitable habitat occurs within the project site was prepared, and the potential for occurrence for each species was determined following completion of the vegetation mapping conducted during the field survey, included in Appendix 5. As described in Appendix 5, two (2) reptiles and eleven (11) birds have a moderate or high potential to occur on or adjacent to the site. The following special -status species have potential to occur at the site, with varying probabilities ranging from moderate to present: San Diegan tiger whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri) CDFW Species of Special Concern. This long slender lizard is most commonly associated with open grasslands, scrublands and woodlands. Some suitable habitat is present on site, but disturbance history may preclude species from occurring in project limits. California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis) CDFW Species of Special Concern Prefers and scrub, rocky washes, grassland, and chaparral habitats. Some suitable habitat is present on site, but disturbance history may preclude species from occurring in project limits. White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) CDFW California Fully Protected Prefers open vegetation for foraging and uses dense woodlands for cover and nesting. This species is known from and may periodically forage in the project area and the provides very limited suitable nesting for this species. Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperi) CDFW Waitlisted This species historically prefers dense stands of live oaks and riparian woodlands but can adapt to nest in the most urban environs. It is known from the area and the oak trees on site provide some limited suitable nesting habitat. American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) CDFW California Fully Protected Occurs most frequently along the coast and over other large bodies of water. Known to be a seasonal visitor to the area but the site does not provide suitable nesting for this species. Rufous hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus) CDFW California Special Animal Prefers open areas, yards, parks, and forests up to the tree line. Some suitable foraging habitat exists on site, though not known to nest in project vicinity. Costa's hummingbird (Calypte costae) CDFW California Special Animal This species prefers desert scrub, chaparral, and sage scrub habitats. Some suitable foraging and nesting habitat present on site. California gnatcatcher (Pohoptila californica) CDFW Species of Special Concern, Federally Endangered This species is strongly associated with coastal sage scrub in areas of flat or gently sloping terrain. The project site is within a USFWS Critical habitat polygon for this species and there is small but suitable sage scrub habitat on site that could be used to nest and forage. Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) CDFW Species of Special Concern Prefers grasslands with scattered shrubs, trees, fences or other perches. This species is uncommon in the area, but some limited foraging and nesting habitat is present. Southern California rufous -crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens) CDFW Waitlisted This species prefers coastal sage scrub habitat. It is known from the area and some suitable foraging and nesting habitat is present on site. Bell's sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli belli) CDFW Waitlisted This species prefers coastal sage scrub and chamise chaparral habitat. It is known from the area and some suitable foraging and nesting habitat is present on site. The remaining wildlife species documented from within the vicinity of the study area have low or no potential to occur in the study area. 5.6 HABITAT LINKAGES AND WILDLIFE MOVEMENT Wildlife corridors link together areas of suitable habitat that are otherwise separated by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. The fragmentation of open space areas by urbanization creates isolated "islands" of wildlife habitat. In the absence of habitat linkages that allow movement to adjoining open space areas, various studies have concluded that some wildlife species, especially the larger and more mobile mammals, will not likely persist over time in fragmented or isolated habitat areas because they prohibit the infusion of new individuals and genetic material (MacArthur and Wilson, 1967; Soule, 1987; Harris and Gallagher, 1989; Bennet, 1990). Corridors effectively act as links between different populations of a species. Corridors mitigate the effects of habitat fragmentation by: (1) allowing animals to move between remaining habitats, which allows depleted populations to be replenished and promotes genetic diversity; (2) providing escape routes from fire, predators, and human disturbances, thus reducing the risk that catastrophic events (such as fires or disease) will result in population or local species extinction; and (3) serving as travel routes for individual animals as they move within their home ranges in search of food, water, mates, and other needs (Noss, 1983; Fahrig and Merriam, 1985; Simberloff and Cox, 1987). Based on a review of the following documents the project site is not within an area that has been identified as important to wildlife movement, such as a regional -scale habitat linkage or a wildlife movement corridor: • South Coast Missing Linkages Project: A Linkage Design for the Santa Monica Mountains -Sierra Madre Connection (Penrod, K. et. al., 2006). • California Essential Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California (Spencer et al., February 2010). The study area is located in an area delineated as a "Connections with Implementation Flexibility" by the California Essential Connectivity Project map. The purpose of the map is to focus attention on large areas important to maintaining ecological integrity at the broadest scale. The map indicates that the study area is located in a low-cost area, which means it would be less permeable for wildlife to transit the site (i.e., not well suited for wildlife movement). The potential importance of the development area to wildlife movement was also evaluated both in the field and by reviewing recent aerial photographs of the site and the surrounding area. Although the study area provides vegetative cover and native habitats suitable for the movement of a diversity of species, the proposed development will not have a negative effect on wildlife movement. There is extensive open space to the immediate east and south of the project site allowing for animals to freely move without hinderance. Gates King Open Space to the west provides some refuge for wildlife in the area as well. Major freeways (I-5 and CA-14) are immediately adjacent to the project site essentially "chopping up" the natural habitat and majoring it difficult for wildlife to move to and from the site. There is no "bottleneck" that exists on the site that would keep animals from accessing large patches of open space. The work area is situated within an area that is previously disturbed and would not convert natural habitats that would otherwise contribute to fragmentation. 5.7 SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL AREAS (SEA) These areas contain resources that are considered rare or unique, critical to the maintenance of wildlife species, are relatively undisturbed habitats, and/or serve as habitat or corridors that promote species movement. The project site is not within a Significant Ecological Area. The nearest SEA is the "Santa Clara River" at 695 meters away (-2,280 feet) and the "Santa Susana Mountains/Simi Hills" SEA at 595 meters away (-1,952 feet) from the work area (Figure 4). 5.8 USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT The project is within USFWS Designated Critical Habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher and the polygon encompasses the entire site (Figure 5). Suitable sage scrub habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher exists primarily in the northern half of the project site and is approximately 3-acres in size. The vegetation is healthy enough to support foraging and nesting by coastal California gnatcatcher. 4..y. ab Santa Clara River Significant Ecological Area Aw AL Santa Susana Mountains/Simi Hills Significant Ecological Area a { , Legend ❑ Project Site 0 3,625 7,250 14,500 Figure 4 0 Feet Significant Ecological Areas Biological Assessment I Eternal Valley Cemetery Project I October 2020 0 I.XamLS& dkA I s41 �. ILI It s1 Z Legend S ❑ Project Site coastal California gnatcatcher Critical Habitat Suitable habitat on site 0 3,625 7,250 14,500 Figure 5 Feet USFWS Critical Habitat Biological Assessment I Eternal Valley Cemetery Project I October 2020 6.0 Impact Analysis This impact analysis relies on the project description and a site plan provided by Hunsaker & Associates, dated October 14, 2020, which is attached as Appendix 1. The proposed project is for the construction of an additional lawn burial area for the existing Eternal Valley Cemetery. No structures, additional landscaping, nor drainage structures are being proposed as a part of this proj ect. 6.1 IMPACTS TO SPECIAL -STATUS PLANT SPECIES This evaluation of impacts to special -status plants considers those species that require mandatory special consideration and/or protection pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act, the State Endangered Species Act, and/or CEQA. The site has the potential to support fifteen special status plant species though none were observed on site during the survey therefore the impacts are expected to be less than significant. 6.2 IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES No sensitive plant communities exist on the project site therefore the impacts are expected to be less than significant. 6.3 IMPACTS TO SPECIAL -STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES No rare, threatened, or endangered wildlife species have been observed within the study area. As described in Section 5.5 and Appendix 5, thirteen special status species have potential to forage over or to occur within the project footprint, if only temporarily, including but not limited to white-tailed kite, American peregrine falcon, San Diegan tiger whiptail, and California glossy snake. To ensure disturbance does not occur to any special status species and reduce impacts to less than significant, MM BIO-1 should be implemented. The site has been identified by the USFWS as Designated Critical Habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher and the biologist noted suitable habitat in the northern portion. Protocol - level focused surveys were initiated on October 28, 2020 and will be completed by a qualified biologist prior to any construction occurring on the project site to ensure no coastal California gnatcatchers exist on the project site and there are no impacts to the species. A formal report will be sent to the appropriate agencies following completion of the surveys. 6.4 IMPACTS TO NESTING BIRDS Should there be any vegetation disturbing activities during the nesting bird season, there could be potential to result in removal or disturbance to trees or shrubs that could contain active bird nests. Birds nesting in the vicinity of project activities may potentially be disturbed by noise, lighting, dust, and human activities associated with the project, which could result in nesting failure and the loss of eggs or nestlings. Implementation of MM BIO-2 would reduce significant impacts to less than significant. 6.5 IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE MOVEMENT The proposed project would not affect wildlife connectivity, nor would it fragment natural habitats. The proposed areas of development are already partially disturbed. There is extensive open space to the east and south of the project site providing suitable habitat for local wildlife and better opportunities for wildlife movement throughout the area. Therefore, impacts to wildlife movement would be less that significant. 6.6 IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL HABITAT No sensitive plant community exists on the project site therefore the impacts are expected to be less than significant. 6.7 IMPACTS TO SEA The proposed project would not affect any mapped Significant Ecological Areas as none are present on site and are far enough away that the impact is less than significant. 6.8 IMPACTS TO USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT A majority of the proposed project is mapped as USFWS Critical Habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher. However, in the proposed project site, only the northern -most portion is considered suitable habitat for gnatcatcher. The proposed project would result in impacts to USFWS Critical Habitat but implementation of MM BI0-3 and NM BI04 would reduce impacts to less than significant. 7.0 Mitigation Measures Potentially significant impacts as a result of the proposed project would be reduced to a less than significant level through implementation of the following mitigation measures. MM BI0-1 Biological Monitor. A biological monitor, approved by the City and CDFW, shall be present on site for the duration of the project. The biological monitor shall ensure compliance of all permit regulations as required by each agency. These include but are not limited to surveying the work area each morning prior to disturbance to ensure no special -status wildlife are present. In the event special status species are being disturbed, the Biological Monitor shall have the authority to stop work and the Biologist, City representative(s) and CDFW will confer to determine what, if any, additional action should be taken to minimize disturbance. MM BI0-2 Nesting Bird Surveys. To the extent feasible construction activities should be timed to avoid the nesting/breeding season (February 1 through August 31). If the construction activities cannot avoid starting work within the nesting season, no earlier than 14 days prior to ground or vegetation disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall perform a field survey to determine if active nests of any bird species protected by the state or federal Endangered Species Acts, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and/or the California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, or 3511 are present in the disturbance zone or within 100 feet of the disturbance zone for songbirds or within 500 feet of the disturbance zone for raptors and special -status bird species. A second nesting bird survey shall be conducted within three (3) days of the start of ground or vegetation disturbing activities. A letter report summarizing the methods and results of the surveys shall be submitted to the County prior to commencement of project activities. During the nesting season, if active nests are identified during pre -construction surveys or discovered after construction has started, they will be protected with spatial buffers. The buffer will be determined on a case -by -case basis by a qualified biologist. If a state or federally protected species are involved, the biologist shall coordinate with the CDFW and/or USFWS to determine an appropriate buffer or need for a take permit. The size of the buffer will be determined based on -site conditions, the species' life history and disturbance tolerance, the nest's distance to construction activities, and the type of construction ongoing in the vicinity of the nest. Buffers will be clearly delineated (e.g., using rope, flagging, signage); or may be defined by natural or manmade features that are deemed sufficient to prohibit access (e.g., tree rows, fences). Buffers will remain in place and will be monitored and maintained regularly during the nesting season or until the biological monitor determines that the young have fledged, or the nest failed. Construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of the area. Upon completion of the nesting bird surveys and any nest monitoring, a letter report shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Santa Clarita documenting compliance with this measure. MM BI0-3 Mitigation of Critical Habitat. The approximate 3 acres of USFWS Critical Habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher shall be mitigated at a ratio acceptable to the appropriate agencies. The site of the mitigation will be chosen with assistance from the appropriate agencies. A restoration plan shall be written by a qualified biologist and submitted to the agencies for approval. MM BIO-4 Marking of work area. Prior to construction activities, the designated work areas will be clearly marked, and no vegetation shall be removed outside of this marked area. Project personnel should stay within the designated work areas to the extent feasible. Work areas shall be marked for the entire duration of the project. Silt fencing shall be installed to ensure that no debris or dirt enters areas outside of the project area. 8.0 References Baldwin, B. G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken, editors. 2012. The Jepson manual: vascular plants of California, second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley. Baker, R. J., L. C. Bradley, R. D. Bradley, J. W. Dragoo, M. D. Engstrom, R. S. Hoffman, C. A. Jones, F. Reid, D. W. Rice, and C. Jones. 2003. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 2003. Museum of Texas Tech University Occasional Papers 229:1-23. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS), California Department of Fish and Wildlife, data as of May 24, 2020; California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Rarefind 5 Element Occurrence Report for Point Dume and the five surrounding USGS quadrangles, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, data as of May 24, 2020; California Department of Fish and Game, Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations. September 2010. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/vegcamp/natural_comm_list.asp CNPS, Rare Plant Program. 2020. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition) California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed May 24, 2020]. Evens, J. and T. Keeler -Wolf. 2006 (January). Vegetation Classification of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area and Environs in Ventura and Los Angeles Counties, California. California Department of Fish and Game and California Native Plant Society. List of Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, May 2020; National Park Service. 1998. National Park Service Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area Land Protection Plan, Parkwide GIs Analysis. MacArthur, R. M. and E. O. Wilson. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton University Press: Princeton, New Jersey. Penrod, K., C. Cabanero, P. Beier, C. Luke, W. Spencer, E. Rubin, R. Sauvajot, S. Riley, and D. Kamradt. 2006. South Coast Missing Linkages Project: A Linkage Design for the Santa Monica - Sierra Madre Connection. Produced by South Coast Wildlands, Idyllwild, CA. www.scwildlands.org, in cooperation with National Park Service, Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, California State Parks, and The Nature Conservancy. Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler -Wolf, and J. M. Evens, A Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd ed., California Native Plant Society Press, Sacramento, California, 2009. Soule, M. E. 1987. Viable Populations for Conservation. Sinaur Associates Inc., Publishers, Sunderland, Massachusetts. Special Animals, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, May 2020. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS Critical Habitat Mapper for Threatened and Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, data as of May 24, 2020. Wasner, A. 2006. Soil Survey of Santa Monica Mountains Natural Recreation Area, California. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Appendix 1 Site Plans X�, M.�P 3r x NXA a rnL� - x ar r nXLn u �dAX-Lar,v r xLrm mnx a TYPICAL CUT/FILL TYPICAL 5' OVER -EXCAVATION SECTION SECTION CUT ICY) 6RU FILL ICY) AREA NET EXPORT fIMPDRT)fGY) MASS EXCAVATION OVER_ EXCAVATION 92,A00 7.52AC ]3,300 9.58AC 100,300 100.300 19.300 0 SHRINKAGE 19.300 (19,300) TOTALS 192,900 7.52AC 192,900 9.SRAC 0 EARTHWORK %. COT DEPTH ELEVATIONS M X. FILL DEPTH Cda -20.0 0.0 ETERNAL VALLEY MEMORIAL PARK AREA 6 / MAUSOLEUM EARTHWORK xil P. leHe, SHEETC-3 ®G�KLES0.VNc10 AN S, ENIIn'vGRuss >+L»e ma9xtr .ROH! tt IW9 H19B90 1669391IIn 11Oj.- 1�10P1 Appendix 2 Plant Species Observed October 8 & 24, 2020 Eternal Valley Cemetery Plant Species Observed GROUP Family Scientific Name Common Name FLOWERING PLANTS -- DICOTS Adoxaceae Sambucus ni ra ss . caerulea blue elderberry Anacardiaceae Rhus ovata sugar bush Apocynaceae Ascle ias ascicularis narrow -leaf milkweed Asteraceae Ambrosia acanthica a annual bursa e Artemisia calf ornica California sagebrush Baccharis pilularis Co otebush Baccharis salici olio mulefat *Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle *Centauria melitensis tocalote *Cirsium vul are bull thistle Encelia arinose Brittlebush Ericameria nauseosa rubber rabbitbrush *Eri eron bonariensis flax -leaved horseweed Heterotheca grandiflora telegraph weed Malacothrix saxatilis var. tenui olia cliff aster Pseudo na halium calf ornicum California everlasting *Sonchus oleraceus common sow -thistle Ste hanomeria vir ata rod wirelettuce *Taraxacum o icinale common dandelion Bora inaceae Amsinckia intermedia common fiddleneck Eriodict on crassi olium thick leaved yerba santa Phacelia cicutaria caterpillar phacelia Brassicaceae *Hirsch eldia incana short -pod mustard Cheno odiaceae *Salsola australis Russian thistle Eu horbiaceae *Eu horbia maculate spotted spurge Fabaceae Acmis on glaber deerweed Acmis on micranthus small flowered lotus Lupin us s . lupine species Grossulariaceae Ribes aureum golden currant Lamiaceae *Marrubium vul are white horehound Salvia mellifera black sage Phrymaceae Di lacus aurantiacus bush monke flower Pol onaceae GROUP Family Scientific Name Common Name Erio onum asciculatum California buckwheat Rhamnaceae Ceanothus crassi olius Hoar leaf ceanothus Rosaceae Adenostoma asciculata chamise Heteromeles arbuti olia to on Solanaceae *L co ersicon esculentum tomato *Nicotiana lauca tree tobacco FLOWERING PLANTS - MONOCOTS A avaceae Hes ero ucca whipplei chaparral yucca Poaceae *Avena barbata slender wild oat *Bromus madritensis rubens red brome *Bromus tectorum cheat grass Appendix 3 Wildlife Species Observed October 8 & 24, 2020 Vertebrate Species Observed, Detected or Expected to Occur on the Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Area Scientific Name Common Name REPTILES uanidae I uanid Lizards Scelo orus occidentalis Western fence lizard Uta stansburiana Side -blotched lizard Vi eridae Viper Snakes Crotalus ore anus helleri Southern pacific rattlesnake BIRDS Cathartidae New World Vultures Cathartes aura Turkey vulture S Iviidae S Iviid Warblers Chamaea fasciata Wrentit Acci itridae Hawks Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk Phasianidae Grouse, Pheasants & Quails Calli e la californica California Quail Charadrilidae Lapwings and Plovers Charadrius vociferus Killdeer Cuculidae Cuckoos, Roadrunners, and Anis Geococc x californicus Greater roadrunner Columbidae Pigeons & Doves Zenaida macroura Mourning dove A odidae Swifts Aeronautes saxatalis White -throated swift Trochilidae Hummingbirds Cal to anna Anna's hummingbird Selas horus sasin Allen's hummingbird Passerellidae New World Sparrows Zonotrichia leuco hr s White -crowned sparrow Parulidae Wood -warblers Seto ha a coronate Yellow -rum ed warbler Picidae Wood eckers Cola tes auratus Northern flicker T rannidae T rant FI catchers Sa ornis sa a Sa 's phoebe Corvidae Jays & Crows A helocoma californica California Scrub -jay Corvus brach rh nchos American crow Corvus corax Common raven Ae ithalidae Bushtits Psaltri arus minimus Bushtit Tro lod tidae Wrens Thryomanes bewickii Bewick's wren Mimidae Thrashers Mimus polyglottos Northern mockingbird Toxostoma redivivum California thrasher Emberizidae Emberizids Pi ilo er thro hthalmus Spotted towhee Pi ilo crissalis California towhee Frin illidae Finches Car odacus mexicanus House finch Carduelis psaltria Lesser qoldfinch S inus lawrencei Lawrence's goldfinch MAMMALS Cervidae Hoofed Mammals Odocoileus hemionus Mule deer Cricetidae New World Rats and Mice Neotoma s . woodrat s . Le oridae Hares & Rabbits S lvila us audubonii Desert cottontail Sciuridae S uirrels S ermo hilus beeche i California groundsquirrel Sciurus ni er* Eastern fox squirrel Canidae Wolves & Foxes Canis familiaris* Domestic feral do Canis latrans Coyote KEY: Non-native or introduced species Appendix 4 Special Status Plant Species Potential for Occurrence Appendix 4 Summary of Special Status Plant Species: Eternal Valley Cemetery Status Elevation Range, Common Name Life Form, and Scientific Name mi Federal State CNPS Habitat Requirements Flowering Period Potential Occurrence Parish's oxytheca 4.2 Chaparral, Lower montane 1220-2600m Not expected [Project site is below Acanthoscyphus parishii var. parishii coniferous forest. Sandy or gravelly AH known elevation range for the species and not observed during June -September site survey.] Braunton's milk -vetch FE 113.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub valley and 4-640m Low potential [LA, Orange, Astragalus brauntonii foothill grassland/ recent burns or PH Ventura counties - occurrences in disturbed areas, usually sandstone the Simi Hills and Santa Monica with carbonate layers January —August Mountains. This species lives up to 3 yrs following fire (USFWS Jan 1997).] Nevins barberry FE CE 113.1 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, 274-825m Low potential [Marginal habitat Berberis [Mahonial nevinii coastal scrub, riparian scrub/ sandy S (e) present on site. Fewer than 1000 or gravelly plants remaining as of 1992.] March —June Catalina mariposa lily 4.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, 15-700m Moderate potential [Marginal Calochortus catalinae coastal scrub, valley and foothill PH(b) habitat exists on site and nearby. grassland. No plants were observed during February —June site surveys.] club -haired mariposa lily 4.3 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, 75-1300m Moderate potential [Marginal Calochortus clavatus var. clavatus coastal scrub, valley and foothill PH(b) habitat exists on site and nearby. grassland. No plants were observed during March —June site surveys. Known from nine occurrences.] Slender mariposa lily 113.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and 320-1000m Moderate potential [Marginal Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis foothill grassland PH(b) habitat exists on site and nearby. No plants were observed during March —June site surveys. Known from nine occurrences.] late -flowered mariposa lily 113.3 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, 275-1905m Not expected [No habitat exists on Calochortus fimbriatus riparian woodland. PH(b) site. No plants were observed during site surveys. Known from June -August nine occurrences.] Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Appendix 4 (continued) Summary of Special Status Plant Species: Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Status Elevation Range, Common Name Life Form, and Scientific Name Uh Federal State CNPS Habitat Requirements Flowering Period Potential Occurrence Palmer's mariposa lily 1B.2 Chaparral, lower montane 1000-2390m Not expected [No habitat exists on Calochortus Palmeri var. Palmeri coniferous forest, meadows and PH (b) site. No plants were observed seeps/ mesic. during site surveys. Known from April —July Kern, Los Angeles, Riverside, Santa Barbara, San Bernardno, San Luis Obispo, and Ventura counties.] Plummer's mariposa lily 4.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodlands, 100-1700m Moderate potential [Marginal Calochortus plummerae coastal scrub, Lower montane PH (b) habitat exists on site and nearby. coniferous forests, valley and No plants were observed during foothill grassland/ granitic, rocky. May —July site surveys. Known from Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura Counties. Less common at higher elevations.] Peirson's morning-glory 4.2 Chaparral, chenopod scrub, 30-1500m Low potential [Occurs from the Calystegia peirsonii cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, PH (r) northern base of the San Gabriel lower montane coniferous forest, Mountains to the Castaic Lagoon valley and foothill grassland. April —June region. The USFWS conducted a status review of this species in 1993 in which they determined that federal listing was not warranted.] White pygmy poppy 4.2 Joshua tree woodland, Mojavean 600-1460m Not expected [No suitable habitat Canbya candida desert scrub, pinyon and juniper AH present on site. Known from Kern, woodland/ gravelly, sandy, granitic. Los Angeles, and San Bernardino March —June Counties.] Mt. Gleason paintbrush CR 1B.2 Chaparral, Lower montane 665-2170m Not expected [No suitable habitat Castillejagleasoni coniferous forest, Pinyon and PH (p) present on site. Occurrences in Los juniper woodland Angeles county near marsh land at May —September lower elevation.] Southern tarplant 1B.1 Marshes and swamps (margins), 0-480m Not expected [No suitable habitat Centromadia a i ss australi P P s valley and foothill grassland AH present on site. Occurrences in Los (vernally mesic), vernal pools. Angeles county near marsh land at May —November lower elevation.] Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Appendix 4 (continued) Summary of Special Status Plant Species: Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Status Elevation Range, Common Name Life Form, and Scientific Name Federal State CNPS Habitat Requirements Flowering Period Potential Occurrence Island mountain -mahogany 4.3 Closed cone coniferous forest, 30-600m Not expected [No suitable habitat Cercocarpus betuloides var. blancheae chaparral PE(s) present on site.] February -May San Fernando Valley spineflower FC CE 113.1 Coastal scub (sandy), valley and 150-1220m Low Potential [Historically Chorizanthea i ssp fernandina p foodhill grassland. AH reported in the Newhall/Santa Clarita/Chatsworth area in. It is April —July believed to have been extirpated from the area by urbanization CNDDB, 1995. Apparently always rare, this plant has not been collected since 1940, and most historic records date from before 1920. The USFWS conducted a status review of this taxon in 1993 in which they determined that federal listing was not warranted.] Parry's spineflower 113.1 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, 275-1220m Not expected [Known from about Chorizanthe parryi ssp. parryi coastal scrub, valley and foothill AH 20 occurrences. Often grassland/ sandy or roacky, misidentified as c. procumbens.] openings. April —June monkey -flower savory 4.2 Chaparral, North Coast coniferous 305-1800m Not expected [No suitable habitat Clinopodium mimuloides forest PH present on site.] June -October small -flowered morning glory 4.2 Chaparral (openings), Coastal scrub, 30-740m Not expected [No suitable habitat Convolvulus simulans Valley and foothill grassland AH present on site.] March -July Santa Susana tarplant CR 113.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub/ rocky. 280-760m Moderate potential [Marginal Deinandra minthornii S (d) habitat exists on site and nearby. No plants were observed during July —November site surveys.] Particulate tarplant 4.2 Coastal scrub, valley and foothill 25-950m Moderate potential [Marginal Deinandra paniculata grassland, vernal pools. Usually AH habitat exists on site and nearby. vernal mesic No plants were observed during March —November site surveys.] Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Appendix 4 (continued) Summary of Special Status Plant Species: Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Status Elevation Range, Common Name Life Form, and Scientific Name Federal State CNPS Habitat Requirements Flowering Period Potential Occurrence Mt. Pines larkspur 4.3 Chaparral, Mojavean dester scrub, 1000-2600m Not expected [Project site is below Delphinium parryi ssp. purpureum pinyon and juniper woodland PH known elevation range for the species and not observed during May —June site survey.] Slender -horned spineflower FE CE 113.1 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, 200-760m Low Potential [It has recently been Dodecahema leptoceras coastal scrub (alluvial fan)/ sandy AH observed along six drainages: Lytle Creek, Santa Ana River, April —June Temescal Creek, San Jacinto River, Bee Canyon, and Big Tujunga Wash. Historic records exist from the Newhall region, but it has not been found in the area for years and is believed to have been extirpated by urbanization.] Blechman's dudleya 113.1 Coastal bluff scrub, Chaparral, 5-450m Moderate potential [Marginal Dudleya blochmaniae ssp. blochmaniae Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill PH habitat exists on site and nearby. grassland No plants were observed during April -June site surveys.] Agoura Hills dudleya 113.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland 200-500m Not expected [ no suitable habitat Dudleya cymosa ssp. agourensis PH on site.] May -June many -stemmed dudleya 113.1 Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Valley and 15-790m Moderate potential [Marginal Dudleya multicaulis foothill grassland PH habitat exists on site and nearby. No plants were observed during April -July site surveys.] Palmer's grapplinghook 4.2 Coastal scrub, chaparral, valley and 20-955m Low potential [Known from San Harpagonella palmeri foothill grassland/ clay AH Diego and San Bernadino counties. Local occurrences from Santa March —May Clara River.] Newhall sunflower 113.1 Marshes and swamps, riparian 305-305m Not expected [ no suitable habitat Helianthus inexpectatus woodland PH(r) on site.] Aug -Oct vernal barley 3.2 Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub, Valley 5-1000m Low potential [Known from San Hordeum intercedens and foothill grassland (saline flats AH Diego and San Bernadino counties. and depressions), Vernal pools Local occurrences from Santa March —June Clara River.] Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Appendix 4 (continued) Summary of Special Status Plant Species: Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Status Elevation Range, Common Name Life Form, and Scientific Name Federal State CNPS Habitat Requirements Flowering Period Potential Occurrence Mesa horkelia 113.1 Sandy or gravelly. Chaparral 70-810 M Not expected [Most occurrences in Horkelia cuneata var. puberula (maritime), Cismontane woodland, PH coastal foothills of Los Angeles coastal scrub. county. Marginal habitat present Feb —Sept on site.] Parry's sunflower 4.3 Lower montane coniferous forest, 1370-2895m Not expected [Project site is below Horkelia cuneate var. puberula pinyon and juniper woodland, PH known elevation range for the upper montane coniferous forest species and not observed during April -August site survey.] Southern California black walnut 4.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, 50-900m Moderate potential [Marginal Juglans californica var. californica coastal scrub/ alluvial T (d) habitat exists on site and nearby. No plants were observed during March —August site surveys.] Coulter's goldfields 113.1 Marshes and swamps (coastal salt), 1-1220m Not expected [No suitable habitat Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri Playas, Vernal pools. AH present on site.] February -June Robinson's pepper -grass 4.3 Chaparral, coastal scrub. 1-885m Not expected [No suitable habitat Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii AH present on site.] January —July Ocellated Humboldt lily 113.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, 30-1800m Low potential [Known occurrences Lilium humboldtii ssp. ocellatum coastal scrub, lower montane PH(b) in coastal foothill region of Los coniferous forest Angeles county. Not observed March -August during site visits.] Payne's bush lupine 113.1 Coastal scrub, riparian scrub, valley 50-525m Moderate potential [Marginal nus LuP iay nei P and foothill woodland S habitat exists on site and nearby. No plants were observed during March —July site surveys.] Davidson's bush mallow 113.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, 10-300m Not expected [Project site is above Malacothamnus davidsonii coastal scrub, riparian woodland S (d) known elevation range for the species and not observed during June -January site survey.] Spreading navarretia FT 113.1 Chenopod scrub, Marshes and 30-655m Not expected [No suitable habitat Navarretia fossalis swamps (assorted shallow AH present on site.] freshwater), playas, vernal pools. April —June Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Appendix 4 (continued) Summary of Special Status Plant Species: Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Status Elevation Range, Common Name Life Form, and Scientific Name Federal State CNPS Habitat Requirements Flowering Period Potential Occurrence Ojai navarretia 113.1 Chaparral (openings), Coastal scrub 275-620m Moderate potential [Marginal Navarretia ojaiensis (openings), Valley and foothill AH habitat exists on site and nearby. grassland. No plants were observed during May -July site surveys.] Piute Mountains navarretia 113.1 Cismontane woodland, pinyon and 285-2100m Not expected [No suitable habitat Navarretia setiloba juniper woodland, valley and AH present on site.] foothill grassland April —July chaparral nolina 113.2 Chaparral, Coastal scrub 140-1275m Moderate potential [Marginal Nolina cismontana S (e) habitat exists on site and nearby. No plants were observed during March -July site surveys.] Short -joint beavertail 113.1 Chaparral, Joshua tree woodland, 425-1800 Not expected [no suitable habitat Opuntia basilaris var. brachyclada Mojavean desert scrub, pinyon and PC on site.] juniper woodland. April —August California Orcutt grass FE CE 113.1 Vernal pools. 15-660m Not expected [no suitable habitat Orcuttia californica AH on site.] April —August Hubby's phacelia 4.2 Chaparral., coastal scrub, valley and 0-1000m Moderate potential [Marginal Phacelia hubbyi foothill woodland AH habitat exists on site and nearby. No plants were observed during April -July site surveys.] Mojave phacelia 4.2 Cismontane woodland, lower 1400-2500m Not expected [no suitable habitat Phacelia mohavensis montane coniferous forest, meadows AH found on site.] and seeps April -August White rabbit -tobacco 213.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, 0-2100m Moderate potential [Marginal Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum coastal scrub, riparian woodland PH habitat exists on site and nearby. No plants were observed during July -December site surveys.] Chaparral ragwort 213.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, 15-800m Moderate potential [Marginal Senecio aphanactis coastal scrub/ alk AH habitat exists on site and nearby. No plants were observed during January —May site surveys.] Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Appendix 4 (continued) Summary of Special Status Plant Species: Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Status Elevation Range, Common Name Life Form, and Scientific Name Federal State CNPS Habitat Requirements Flowering Period Potential Occurrence Mason's neststraw 113.1 Chenopod scrub, Pinyon and 100-1200m Not expected [No suitable habitat Stylocline masonii juniper woodland. AH present on site.] March -May Greata's aster 113.3 Broadleafed upland forest, 300-2010m Not expected [no suitable habitat Symphyotrichum greatae chaparral, cismontane woodland, PH(r) on site and not known from area.] lower montane coniferous forest, riparian woodland June -October All status listings are from the July 2020 CNPS database KEY: Federal FE: Federally Endangered CNPS Rare Plant Rank 1A: Plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elswhere 1 B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere 2A: Plants presumed extirpated in California, but common elsewhere 2B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere 3: Plants about which more information is needed 4: plants of limited distribution — a watch list State CE: State Endangered Threat Ranks 0.1 Seriously threatened in California (over 80% o foccurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat) 0.2 Moderately threatened in California (20-80% of occurrences threatened/moderate degree and immediacy of threat) 0.3 Not very threatened in California (less than 20% of occurrences threatened/low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known) LIFE FORM KEY: AH: Annual Herb (b): bulb AG: Annual Grass (d): deciduous PG: Perennial Grass(e): evergreen PH: Perennial Herb (p): parasitic PC: Perennial Cactus (r): rhizomatous S: Shrub (s): stoloniferous Ss: Subshrub T: Tree Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Appendix 5 Special Status Plant Species Potential for Occurrence Appendix 5 Summary of Special Status Wildlife Species: Eternal Valley Cemetery Common Name Status Scientific Name Habitat Potential Occurrence on the Federal State Requirements Project Site INVERTEBRATES California floater (mussel) sa Lakes, small rivers Not expected. This species requires Anodonta californiensis perennial source of water and drainage in project site is often dry. No current records in vicinity. Vernal pool fairy shrimp FT -- Vernal pools with clear Not expected. No suitable habitat on site. Branchinecta lynchi to tea -colored water in grass or mud -bottomed swales. Monarch butterfly (wintering sites) -- sa Winter roost sites Not expected. No suitable roosting Danaus plexippus located in wind- habitat on site. protected tree groves (gum trees, Monterey pine, and cypress trees), with nectar and water sources nearby. Quino checkerspot butterfly FE -- Open sage scrub & Not expected. No suitable habitat on site. Euphydryas editha quino [wrighti] grasslands containing the host plant species Plantago erecta. Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Appendix 5 (continued) Summary of Special Status Wildlife Species: Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Common Name Status Scientific Name Habitat Potential Occurrence on the Federal State Requirements Project Site Crotch's bumble bee CE Grassland and scrub Not expected. No suitable habitat on site. Bombus crotchii FISHES Arroyo chub -- SSC Slow -moving or Not expected; does not occur in this Gila orcutti backwater sections of portion of the Santa Clara River warm to cool streams watershed. with mud or sand substrates. Santa Ana speckled dace -- SSC Permanent flowing Not expected; limited to headwaters of Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 3 streams with summer Santa Ana and San Gabriel Rivers. water temps of 17- Recently extirpated from Los Angeles 20C. River drainage. Santa Ana sucker FT -- Occupies small -to Not expected; does not occur in this Catastomus santaanae medium-sized portion of the Santa Clara River perennial streams with watershed. water ranging in depth from a few centimeters to a meter or more. Steelhead rainbow trout (So. CA DPS) FE -- Cold fresh water Not expected; does not occur in this Oncorhynchus mykiss draining to ocean portion of the Santa Clara River watershed. Resident threespine stickleback sa Slow -moving and Not expected; does not occur in this Gasterosteus aculeatus microcephalus backwater areas portion of the Santa Clara River (South of Point Conception only) watershed. Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Appendix 5 (continued) Summary of Special Status Wildlife Species: Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Common Name Status Scientific Name Habitat Potential Occurrence on the Federal State Requirements Project Site Unarmored threespine stickleback FE CE, CFP Slow -moving and Not expected; does not occur in this Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni backwater areas portion of the Santa Clara River watershed. AMPHIBIANS Coast range newt -- SSC Grasslands and Not expected; no suitable year-round Taricha torosa torosa woodlands; breeds in habitat. (Monterey ponds, reservoirs, and Co. south) slow -moving streams. Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Appendix 5 (continued) Summary of Special Status Wildlife Species: Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Common Name Status Scientific Name Habitat Potential Occurrence on the Federal State Requirements Project Site Western spadefoot -- SSC Open areas in lowland Not expected; no suitable habitat on site. Scaphiopus hammondii grasslands, chaparral, and pine -oak woodlands; require temporary rainpools that last approximately three weeks and lack exotic predators. Arroyo toad FE SSC Restricted to rivers that Not expected; no suitable habitat on site. Anaxyrus californicus have shallow, gravely pools adjacent to sandy terraces that have a nearly complete closure of cottonwoods, oaks, or willows Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Appendix 5 (continued) Summary of Special Status Wildlife Species: Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Common Name Status Scientific Name Habitat Potential Occurrence on the Federal State Requirements Project Site California red -legged frog FT SSC Permanent water Not expected; no suitable habitat on site. Rana draytonii sources such as ponds, lakes, reservoirs, streams, and adjacent riparian woodlands. southern mountain yellow -legged frog FE CE; WL Permanent water Not expected; no suitable habitat on site. Rana muscosa sources such as ponds, lakes, reservoirs, streams, and adjacent riparian woodlands. REPTILES Western pond turtle -- SSC Streams, ponds, Not expected; no suitable habitat on site. Emys marmorata freshwater marshes, and lakes with growth of aquatic vegetation. Coast horned lizard -- SSC Relatively open Low potential; site disturbance and Phrynosoma blainvillii grasslands, surrounding development likely precludes scrublands, and this species from occurring. woodlands with fine, loose soil. Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Appendix 5 (continued) Summary of Special Status Wildlife Species: Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Common Name Status Scientific Name Habitat Potential Occurrence on the Federal State Requirements Project Site Coastal whiptail -- SSC Open areas in semiarid Low potential; very limited suitable Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri grasslands, habitat in upland vegetation. scrublands, and woodlands. California legless lizard -- SSC Stabilized dunes, Low potential; site disturbance and Anniella spp. beaches, dry washes, surrounding development likely precludes pine, oak, and riparian this species from occurring. woodlands, and chaparral; associated with sparse vegetation with sandy or loose, loamy soils. Northern CA legless lizard -- SSC Stabilized dunes, Low potential; site disturbance and Anniella pulchra beaches, dry washes, surrounding development likely precludes pine, oak, and riparian this species from occurring. woodlands, and chaparral; associated with sparse vegetation with sandy or loose, loamy soils. California glossy snake -- SSC Arid scrub, roacky Moderate potential. Some suitable habitat Arizona elegans occidentalis washes, grassland, present, but disturbance history may chaparral preclude species from occurring in project limits. Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Appendix 5 (continued) Summary of Special Status Wildlife Species: Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Common Name Status Scientific Name Habitat Potential Occurrence on the Federal State Requirements Project Site San Bernardino ringneck snake -- -- Woodlands, grassland, Low potential; site disturbance and Diadophis punctatus modestus chaparral, and scrub surrounding development likely habitats; often found in dissuades this species from occurring. mesic areas under rocks, logs, and debris. Coast patch -nosed snake -- SSC Shrublands with low Low potential; site disturbance and Salvadora hexalepis virgultea structure and minimum surrounding development likely density. Generally, dissuades this species from occurring. occurs with whiptails (primary prey item) Two -striped garter snake SSC Perennial and Not expected; no suitable habitat on site. Thamnophis hammondii intermittent streams -- having rocky or sandy beds and artificially - created aquatic habitats (man-made lakes and stock ponds); requires dense riparian vegetation. South Coast garter snake -- SSC Restricted to marsh Not expected; no suitable habitat on site. Thamnophis sirtalis ssp. and upland habitats near permanent water that support riparian vegetation. Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Appendix 5 (continued) Summary of Special Status Wildlife Species: Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Common Name Status Scientific Name Habitat Potential Occurrence on the Federal State Requirements Project Site BIRDS American white pelican (nesting colony) -- SSC Large bodies of fresh Not expected; no suitable habitat on site. Pelecanus erythrorhynchos or saltwater. Rests and nests on the shore, sandbars, or islands with sparse vegetation. Double -crested cormorant (nesting -- WL Inland lakes, fresh, salt Not expected; no suitable habitat on site. colony) and estuarine waters. Phalacrocorax auritus Overnight roosts on humanly inaccessible areas without vegetation. Great blue heron (nesting colony) -- sa Shallow, open water Not expected; no suitable rookery habitat Ardea herodias and open fields; nests on site. in secluded groves of tall trees. Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Appendix 5 (continued) Summary of Special Status Wildlife Species: Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Common Name Status Scientific Name Habitat Potential Occurrence on the Federal State Requirements Project Site Great egret (nesting colony) -- sa Shallow water and Not expected; no suitable rookery habitat Ardea albus along shores of on site. estuaries, lakes, ditches, and slow - moving streams, in salt ponds and mudflats, and in irrigated croplands and pastures; requires groves of trees that are relatively isolated from human activities for nesting and roosting. Snowy egret (nesting colony) -- sa Shallow water or Not expected; no suitable rookery habitat Egretta thula shores of wetlands or on site. aquatic habitats; requires dense emergent wetland or trees near water for roosting. Black -crowned night heron (rookery) -- sa Forages in freshwater Not expected; no suitable rookery habitat Nycticorax nycticorax and saltwater marsh on site. habitats, margins of lakes, and mud - bordered bays. Roosts in dense groves of trees, usually near water. Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Appendix 5 (continued) Summary of Special Status Wildlife Species: Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Common Name Status Scientific Name Habitat Potential Occurrence on the Federal State Requirements Project Site White-faced ibis (nesting colony) -- WL Feeds in freshwater Not expected; no suitable rookery habitat Plegadis chihi emergent wetlands, on site. wet meadows, and irrigated or flooded pastures. Requires large marsh areas for nesting in that are near foraging areas. California condor FIE CE, CFP Require vast expanses Not expected; no suitable habitat on site. Gymnogyps californianus of open savanna, grasslands, and foothill chaparral in mountain ranges of moderate altitude. Deep canyons containing clefts in the rocky walls provide nesting sites. Forages up to 100 miles from roost/nest. White-tailed kite (nesting) -- CFP Open vegetation and Moderate potential; known from and may Elanus leucurus uses dense woodlands periodically forage in the project area and for cover. that provides very limited suitable nesting for this species. Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Appendix 5 (continued) Summary of Special Status Wildlife Species: Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Common Name Status Scientific Name Habitat Potential Occurrence on the Federal State Requirements Project Site Bald Eagle (nesting & wintering) Delisted CE, CFP Lakes, reservoirs, Not expected; no suitable habitat on site. Haliaeetus leucocephalus rivers, offshore islands, and some rangelands and coastal wetlands in southern California; no longer breeds on the mainland in southern California. Northern harrier (nesting) -- SSC Coastal salt marsh, Low potential; could be an infrequent Circus cyaneus freshwater marsh, visitor to the area but the site does not grasslands, and provide suitable nesting habitat for this agricultural fields. species. Sharp -shinned hawk (nesting) -- WL Woodlands and Low potential; may occur as a seasonal Accipiter striatus forages over dense migrant, but not expected to nest in the chaparral and area. scrublands. Cooper's hawk (nesting) -- WL Dense stands of live Moderate potential; this species is known Accipiter cooperi oaks and riparian from the area and the nearby trees woodlands. provide some limited suitable nesting habitat. Swainson's hawk (nesting) -- CT Open riparian habitat, Low potential; known to be an infrequent Buteo swainsoni in scattered trees or seasonal visitor to the area but the site small groves in does not provide suitable nesting habitat sparsely vegetated for this species. flatlands; typical habitat is open desert, grassland, or cropland. Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Appendix 5 (continued) Summary of Special Status Wildlife Species: Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Common Name Status Scientific Name Habitat Potential Occurrence on the Federal State Requirements Project Site northern goshawk (nesting) -- SSC Coniferous, deciduous, Low potential; known to be an infrequent Accipiter gentilis and mixed forest types. seasonal visitor to the area but the site In addition to forested does not provide suitable nesting habitat areas, they may also for this species. use shrublands and open areas while foraging, migrating, or overwintering. Osprey (nesting) -- WL Can be found near Low potential; known to be an infrequent Pandion haliaetus oceans, rivers, lakes, seasonal visitor to the area but the site mangroves, coastal does not provide suitable foraging or wetlands, lagoons, nesting habitat for this species. reefs, estuaries and marshes. Golden eagle (nesting & wintering) -- CFP Mountains, deserts, Low potential; could be an infrequent Aquila chrysaetos and open country. visitor to the area but the site does not provide suitable nesting or wintering habitat for this species. Merlin (wintering) -- WL Coastlines, wetlands, Low potential; known to be an infrequent Falco columbarius woodlands, agricultural seasonal visitor to the area but the site fields, and grasslands. does not provide suitable wintering habitat for this species. Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Appendix 5 (continued) Summary of Special Status Wildlife Species: Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Common Name Status Scientific Name Habitat Potential Occurrence on the Federal State Requirements Project Site Prairie falcon (nesting) -- WL Grasslands, savannas, Low potential; known to be an infrequent Falco mexicanus rangeland, agricultural seasonal visitor to the area but the site fields, and desert does not provide suitable nesting for this scrub; requires species. sheltered cliff faces for shelter. American peregrine falcon (nesting) Delisted Delisted, Occurs most frequently Moderate potential; known to be a Falco peregrinus anatum CFP along the coast and seasonal visitor to the area but the site over other large bodies does not provide suitable nesting for this of water. species. California gull (nesting colony) -- sa Alkali and freshwater Not expected; no suitable nesting habitat Larus californicus lacustrine, riverine, and on site. cropland areas inland; along coast prefers sandy beaches, mudflats, rocky intertidal, and pelagic areas; also fresh and salt water emergent wetlands. Caspian tern (nesting colony) -- sa Nests on undisturbed Not expected; no suitable nesting habitat Sterna caspia islands, levees, and on site. shorelines. Barren sites preferred Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Appendix 5 (continued) Summary of Special Status Wildlife Species: Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Common Name Status Scientific Name Habitat Potential Occurrence on the Federal State Requirements Project Site Western yellow -billed cuckoo (nesting) FT CE Riparian forest nester, Not expected; no suitable habitat on site. Coccyzus americanus occidentalis along the broad, lower flood -bottoms of larger river systems. Nests in riparian jungles of willow, often mixed with cottonwoods, with understory of blackberry, nettles, or wild grape. Western burrowing owl (burrow sites) -- SSC Grasslands and open Low potential; suitable ground squirrel Athene cunicularia hypugea scrub. burrows and discarded pipes are present on site that could be used as nesting habitat. California spotted owl -- SSC Moist, dense Not expected; no suitable habitat on site. Strix occidentalis occidentalis coniferous old -growth forests of redwood, Douglas fir, western red cedar and other conifers. Nest in old raptor nest cavities or natural cavities in trees. Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Appendix 5 (continued) Summary of Special Status Wildlife Species: Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Common Name Status Scientific Name Habitat Potential Occurrence on the Federal State Requirements Project Site Short -eared owl (nesting) -- SSC Open areas, including Low potential; very limited habitat on site Asio flammeus grasslands, prairies, and proximity to development reduces dunes, meadows, potential. irrigated lands, and saline and freshwater emergent wetlands. Vaux's swift (nesting) -- SSC Redwood and Douglas Not expected; no suitable habitat on site. Chaetura vauxi fir forests with old snags or tall, burned - out stubs. Rufous hummingbird (nesting) -- sa Open areas, yards, Moderate potential; some suitable Selasphorus rufus parks, forests up to foraging habitat, not known to nest in treeline. project vicinity. Costa's hummingbird -- sa Desert scrub, Moderate potential; some suitable Calypte costae chaparral, sage scrub foraging and nesting habitat present. Red -breasted sapsucker (nesting) sa Coniferous forests, Low potential; very limited suitable Sphyrapicus ruber riparian, orchards habitat. Olive -sided flycatcher (nesting) -- SSC Montane coniferous Not expected; no suitable habitat on site. Contopus cooperi forest, burned or boggy areas Willow flycatcher (nesting) -- CE Willows or other Not expected; no suitable habitat on site. Empidonax traillii shrubby habitat near streams, ponds, or wet meadows. Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Appendix 5 (continued) Summary of Special Status Wildlife Species: Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Common Name Status Scientific Name Habitat Potential Occurrence on the Federal State Requirements Project Site Southwestern willow flycatcher (nesting) FE CE Riparian woodlands Not expected; no suitable habitat on site. Empidonax traillii extimus that contain water and low willow thickets. California horned lark -- WL Grasslands, disturbed Low potential; very limited suitable Eremophila alpestris actia areas, agriculture foraging habitat on site. No suitable fields, and beach nesting habitat present. areas. Oak titmouse (nesting) sa Strongly associated Low potential; limited suitable habitat Baeolophus inornatus with oak trees. present on site. Clark's marsh wren -- SSC Marshes and wetlands Not expected; no suitable habitat on site. Cistothorus palustris clarkae California gnatcatcher FT SSC Coastal sage scrub in High potential; suitable old growth coastal Polioptila californica areas of flat or gently sage scrub habitat present on a portion of sloping terrain. the project site. Loggerhead shrike -- SSC Grasslands with Moderate potential; species uncommon (nesting) scattered shrubs, in the area, but some limited foraging and Lanius ludovicianus trees, fences or other nesting habitat is present in the project perches. limits. Least Bell's vireo (nesting) FE CE Riparian vegetation Not expected; no suitable habitat on site. Vireo bellii pusillus with extensive willows below 2,000 ft. Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Appendix 5 (continued) Summary of Special Status Wildlife Species: Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Common Name Status Scientific Name Habitat Potential Occurrence on the Federal State Requirements Project Site Gray vireo (nesting) -- SSC Riparian vegetation Not expected; no suitable habitat on site. Vireo vicinior with extensive willows below 2,000 ft. Yellow warbler (nesting) -- SSC Riparian thickets and Not expected; no suitable habitat on site. Dendroica petechia brewsteri woodlands. Yellow -breasted chat (nesting) -- SSC Riparian thickets and Not expected; no suitable habitat on site. Icteria virens riparian woodlands with a dense understory. Hepatic tanager (nesting) -- WL Forests Not expected; no suitable habitat on site. Piranga flava Summer tanager (nesting) -- SSC Cottonwood -willow Not expected; no suitable habitat on site. Piranga rubra riparian habitats, especially older, dense stands along rivers and streams. S. California rufous -crowned sparrow -- WL Coastal sage scrub. Moderate potential; species occurs in the Aimophila ruficeps canescens vicinity and suitable habitat occurs within the project limits. Bell's sage sparrow (nesting) -- WL Coastal sage scrub Moderate potential; species occurs in the Amphispiza belli belli and chamise vicinity and suitable habitat occurs within chaparral. the project limits. Grasshopper sparrow (nesting) -- SSC Tall grasslands Not expected; no suitable habitat on site. Ammodramus savannarum Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Appendix 5 (continued) Summary of Special Status Wildlife Species: Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Common Name Status Scientific Name Habitat Potential Occurrence on the Federal State Requirements Project Site Gray -headed junco (nesting) -- WL Woodland from Not expected; no suitable habitat on site. Junco hyemalis caniceps montane hardwood - conifer up to alpine dwarf -shrub, coastal foothill hardwood to redwood and woodland riparian. Tricolored blackbird (nesting colony) -- SSC Freshwater marshes Not expected; no suitable habitat on site. Agelaius tricolor and riparian scrub. Lawrence's goldfinch (nesting) -- sa Open woodlands Low potential; present during the site visit Spinus lawrencei but the site does not provide suitable nesting habitat for this species. northern cardinal (nesting) -- WL Woodland edges and Low potential; known to be an infrequent Cardinalis cardinalis grassland landscapes seasonal visitor to the area but the site with thickets and does not provide suitable nesting habitat shrubbery to nest in. for this species. bank swallow (nesting) -- CT Fields, marshes, Not expected; no suitable habitat on site. Riparia riparia streams, and lakes. Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Appendix 5 (continued) Summary of Special Status Wildlife Species: Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Common Name Status Scientific Name Habitat Potential Occurrence on the Federal State Requirements Project Site MAMMALS California leaf -nosed bat -- SSC Desert riparian, desert Not expected; very limited suitable habitat Macrotus californicus wash, desert scrub, on site and species is very rare in the desert succulent scrub, region. alkali desert scrub, and palm oasis. Hoary bat -- sa Foliage of mature Not expected; very limited suitable habitat Lasiurus cinereus deciduous and nearby and species is very rare in the coniferous trees, region. typically near clearings Cave myotis -- SSC Caves, mines, rock Not expected; no suitable habitat on site Myotis velifer crevices, under bridges and very few known occurrences in the region. Townsend's big -eared bat -- SSC Variety of habitats from Not expected; no suitable habitat on site. Corynorhinus townsendii pine forests to and desert scrub. Spotted bat -- SSC Deserts, scrublands, Not expected; extremely rare in the area Euderma maculata chaparral, and and very limited suitable habitat. coniferous woodlands. silver -haired bat -- sa Reliant on old growth Low potential; very limited suitable Lassionycteris noctivagans forests for roosting habitat on or near the site. habitat. Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Appendix 5 (continued) Summary of Special Status Wildlife Species: Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Common Name Status Scientific Name Habitat Potential Occurrence on the Federal State Requirements Project Site Pallid bat -- SSC Arid habitats, including Low potential, no suitable roosting habitat Antrozous pallidus grasslands, on site, but species may occur in the shrublands, area. woodlands, and forests; prefers rocky outcrops, cliffs, and crevices with access to open habitats for foraging. Western mastiff bat -- SSC Primarily and lowlands Low potential, no suitable roosting habitat Eumops perotis and coastal basins with on site, but species may occur in the area rugged, rocky terrain, along with suitable crevices for day -roosts. San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit -- SSC Chaparral and coastal Low potential; limited suitable habitat and Lepus californicus bennettii sage scrub. very few occurrences documented in the region. Los Angeles pocket mouse -- SSC Lower elevation Low potential; limited suitable habitat and Perognathus longimembris grassland, alluvial sage scrub, and very few occurrences documented in the brevinasus coastal sage scrub. region. Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Appendix 5 (continued) Summary of Special Status Wildlife Species: Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Common Name Status Scientific Name Habitat Potential Occurrence on the Federal State Requirements Project Site Southern grasshopper mouse -- SSC Alkali desert scrub, Low potential; limited suitable habitat and Onychomys torridus ramona desert riparian areas very few occurrences documented in the and a variety of other region. desert habitats; also succulent scrub, wash, riparian, mixed chaparral, coastal scrub, and sage habitats. San Diego desert woodrat -- SSC Chaparral and coastal Low potential, known from the area but Neotoma lepida intermedia sage scrub. limited suitable habitat on site. American badger -- SSC Drier open stages of Not expected; no suitable habitat on site. Taxidea taxus shrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats with friable soils. Eternal Valley Cemetery Project Appendix 5 (continued) Summary of Special Status Wildlife Species: Eternal Valley Cemetery Project KEY: Status All status listings are from the September 2020 CDFW "Special Animals List." Federal -- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FE: Federally Endangered FT: Federally Threatened FPE: Federally Proposed Endangered FPT: Federally Proposed Threatened FC: Federal Candidate for listing as threatened or endangered (nesting) = For most taxa the CNDDB is interested in sightings for the presence of resident populations. For some species (primarily birds), the CNDDB only tracks certain parts of the species range or life history (e.g., nesting locations). The area or life stage is indicated in parenthesis after the common name. State -- California Department of Fish and Game CFP: California Fully Protected CE: California Endangered CT: California Threatened CCE: California Candidate (Endangered) CCT: California Candidate (Threatened) WL: CDFW Watch List: SSC: California Species of Special Concern sa : California Special Animal: species with no official federal or state status, but are included on CDFG's Special Animals list Eternal Valley Cemetery Project APPENDIX C-2 Biological Inventory for Extended Grading Area June 23, 2021 Hunsaker & Associates 26074 Avenue Hall, Suite 23 Valencia, CA 91355 RE: Eternal Valley Cemetery, Santa Clarita California -- Biological Inventory for Extended Grading Area To Whom It May Concern: The following is an update to the existing Biological Assessment for the Eternal Valley Cemetery due to an increased proposed grading area beyond the previously surveyed area. The proposed project includes an application to permit the construction of a future cemetery burial site and major grading. The Applicant intends to construct additional lawn space for cemetery burials, a road, and a mausoleum. A proposed site plan prepared by Hunsaker & Associates dated June 8, 2021 is provided as an appendix. The project survey area encompasses a partially graded area just west of the Eternal Valley Cemetery in Santa Clarita, California. The project site is located north of the intersection of Sierra Highway and Needham Ranch Parkway. The newly added grading area is partially undeveloped with sage scrub habitat. The site is surrounded by commercial and residential development and marginal open space to the west. There is significant open space to the south and east of the project site. Summaa Senior biologist Courtney McCammon conducted a biological survey on June 18, 2021 between 0907 — 1215 hours. Survey conditions ranged from 72 — 85°F, sunny skies, and wind from 5 — 10 mph. No rare or sensitive plants were found or expected onsite. No rare or sensitive animals were found onsite including coastal California gnatcatcher. However, various bird species were observed and may use the site for nesting. Photographs and a Vegetation Map of the site are attached. Existing Conditions The study area includes a large, partially graded, multi -level site that consists of heavy non- native plant influence. Natural vegetation, consisting primarily of coastal sage scrub occurs in the northern portion of the study area. The project is accessed from Needham Ranch Road through a paved street but appears to also be accessed from the Eternal Velley Cemetery. The work area is gently sloping. Beyond the proposed work areas, natural and invasive plant communities exist up and down the canyon with single family residential homes and commercial buildings in the immediate vicinity as well as the Eternal Valley Cemetery to the east. The project site is situated within the inland foothills of the Angeles National Forest, at elevations ranging from approximately 1610 to 1653 feet (491 — 504 m) above mean sea level. The site is generally dry and exposed. The average high/low summer temperatures in the lower elevation inland foothills of the Angeles National Forest are 90/50°F, average high/low winter temperatures are 68/40°F, and precipitation is approximately 18 inches per year. The soils are of the Saugus loam association, 30 to 50 percent slopes, which are comprised of weakly consolidated alluvium, well drained soils that formed in paralithic bedrock. The project site does not appear to support any formal water features though there are some sloped canyons potentially producing canyons that could convey water in extreme weather events. Dominate Species The vegetation at the site generally consists of sage brush, ceanothus shrubland, and bare/disturbed habitats. The vegetation within the project area was correlated with the Vegetation Classification of the Santa Monica Mountains Natural Recreation Area and Environs in Ventura and Los Angeles Counties, California (CDFW/CNPS, January 2006) and the List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations (Natural Communities List) (CDFW, September 2010). These documents provide lists of plant communities occurring in Los Angeles County environs in the State of California, respectively. In each of these documents plant communities are assigned a conservation status rank (also known as "rarity rank"), which is used to determine the sensitivity of the plant community. The plant communities within the project areas are shown on Figure 1. There are no sensitive communities within the study area. Barren or Sparsely Vegetated (Ruderal) Areas mapped in this classification are barren or consist primarily of sparse cover of non-native ruderal species. These areas have been graded or cleared of vegetation and may be mowed or otherwise disturbed on a regular basis. This includes much of the newly proposed grading area directly adjacent to the cemetery. Selected species observed include tocalote (Centauria melitensis), bromes, deerweed (Euphorbia maculate), and black mustard (Brassica nigra). These areas generally lack native species. These areas appear to be used as storage of construction materials as well for the current project along Needham Ranch Road and the Eternal Valley Cemetery. Artemisia californica Salvia mellifera Shrubland Alliance This shrubland alliance occurs in the northern portion of the project site and includes some of the newly added grading area (approximately 0.5 acres). The vegetation is somewhat thick and appears to be old -growth sage scrub habitat. Scrub species including black sage (Salix mellifera) and California sagebrush (Artemisia californica) are the primary cover in this plant community. Chaparral yucca (Hesperoyucca whipplei), Sugar bush (Rhus ovata), and bush monkeyflower (Diplacus aurantiacus) are sporadic throughout the vegetation community and present at low cover. Protected Trees The City of Santa Clarita defines protected trees as any oak tree of the genus Quercus, including, but not limited to, valley oak (Quercus lobata), California live oak (Quercus agrifolia), canyon oak (Quercus chrysolepis), interior live oak (Quercus wislizenii) and scrub oak (Quercus dumosa), regardless of size. USFWS Critical Habitat The project is within USFWS Designated Critical Habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher and the polygon encompasses the entire site. Suitable sage scrub habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher exists primarily in the northern half of the project site including the additional grading area. The vegetation is healthy enough to support foraging and nesting by coastal California gnatcatcher. Protocol -level gnatcatcher surveys were conducted by biologist, Brian Karpman, in the winter of 2021 and included the additional grading area. Therefore, we are not recommending additional protocol -level surveys at this time. Wildlife Observed or Likely to Occur Rodents common to urban areas are likely to frequent this property, including: gopher (Thomomys bottae), black rat (Rattus rattus), California mouse (Peromyscus californicus) and California pocket mouse (Perognathus californicus). Western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) and side -blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana) likely utilize the site. Birds expected to frequent the site include: red-tailed hawk, turkey vulture, California quail, Anna's hummingbird, great -horned owl, black phoebe, northern mockingbird, scrub jay, common raven, white - crowned sparrow, California towhee and lesser goldfinch. Striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), coyote (Canis lairans) and raccoon (Procyon lotor) are also expected. A complete Potential for Occurrence table can be found in the Biological Assessment submitted by CJ Biomonitoring. Impacts Should there be any vegetation disturbing activities during the nesting bird season, there could be potential to result in removal or disturbance to trees or shrubs that could contain active bird nests. Birds nesting in the vicinity of project activities may potentially be disturbed by noise, lighting, dust, and human activities associated with the project, which could result in nesting failure and the loss of eggs or nestlings. Nesting bird surveys shall be conducted prior to any of the above listed activities within the nesting bird season (February 1 through August 31). A full impact analysis is included in the Bio Assessment provided by CJ Biomonitoring. Please feel free to call with any questions. Sincerely, � Courtney McCammon attachments: Figure and Photographs References Baldwin, B. G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken, editors. 2012. The Jepson manual: vascular plants of California, second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley. Baker, R. J., L. C. Bradley, R. D. Bradley, J. W. Dragoo, M. D. Engstrom, R. S. Hoffman, C. A. Jones, F. Reid, D. W. Rice, and C. Jones. 2003. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 2003. Museum of Texas Tech University Occasional Papers 229:1-23. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS), California Department of Fish and Wildlife, data as of May 24, 2020; California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Rarefind 5 Element Occurrence Report for Point Dume and the five surrounding USGS quadrangles, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, data as of May 24, 2020; California Department of Fish and Game, Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations. September 2010. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/vegcamp/natural_comm_list.asp CNPS, Rare Plant Program. 2020. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition) California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed May 24, 2020]. Evens, J. and T. Keeler -Wolf. 2006 (January). Vegetation Classification of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area and Environs in Ventura and Los Angeles Counties, California. California Department of Fish and Game and California Native Plant Society. List of Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, May 2020; National Park Service. 1998. National Park Service Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area Land Protection Plan, Parkwide GIS Analysis. MacArthur, R. M. and E. O. Wilson. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton University Press: Princeton, New Jersey. Penrod, K., C. Cabanero, P. Beier, C. Luke, W. Spencer, E. Rubin, R. Sauvajot, S. Riley, and D. Kamradt. 2006. South Coast Missing Linkages Project: A Linkage Design for the Santa Monica - Sierra Madre Connection. Produced by South Coast Wildlands, Idyllwild, CA. www.scwildlands.org, in cooperation with National Park Service, Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, California State Parks, and The Nature Conservancy. Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler -Wolf, and J. M. Evens, A Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd ed., California Native Plant Society Press, Sacramento, California, 2009. Soule, M. E. 1987. Viable Populations for Conservation. Sinaur Associates Inc., Publishers, Sunderland, Massachusetts. Special Animals, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, May 2020. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS Critical Habitat Mapper for Threatened and Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, data as of May 24, 2020. Wasner, A. 2006. Soil Survey of Santa Monica Mountains Natural Recreation Area, California. Natural Resources Conservation Service. PHOTO # 1 Looking northeast at the existing cemetery showing the ruderal vegetation where the proposed mausoleum will be. PHOTO 92 View southeast showing ruderal vegetation in the expanded grading footprint immediately adjacent to the cemetery. PHOTO 93 Looking north at the scrub habitat in the northern portion of the extended grading footprint. ,0 AC 9 TYPICAL CUT/NI —1— VOW -EXCAVA— SEUM SECnQN W. ■ ET FRNAL VALLEY MEMORIAL PARK AREA 6 / MA USOLE UM EARTHWORK SHEET C-3 Legend ❑ Project Site Artemisia californica-Salvia mellifera Shrubland Allinace Ceanothus oliganthus Shrubland Alliance Ruderal Vegetation Coast live oak tree 0 0 3,625 7,250 R 14,500 Figure 1 Feet Vegetation Communities Biological Assessment I Eternal Valley Cemetery Project I June 2021 APPENDIX D Oak Tree Report ARBQRGATE CONSULTING, INC. AROM A KrRl A W)RIKVI WRE August 6, 2021 Mr. Michael A. Green Principal Clark & Green 15420 Laguna Canyon Rd., Ste 210 Irvine, CA 92618 Re: Eternal Valley Memorial Park Expansion Oaks Revised Report Dear Mr. Green, Thank you for asking Arborgate Consulting to check for oaks in the new area on the provided map. The City of Santa Clarita requires a report with protection measures for all oaks in the project area. Observations Two small scrub oaks, Quercus dumosa (Q. berberidifolia?) were found, naturally existing, near the northeast edge of the new area. A small Quercus agrifolia was found near the north west site of the new area. A map can be found in the appendix of this report. Both scrub oaks and the coast live oak are mixed and intertwined with other native shrubs, like Rhus integrifolia, and ruderal herbaceous plants. Without a GPS location, they would be easy to miss. Measured at 6 inches above grade, one scrub oak has two trunks, one trunk is 1.2" in diameter the other is 1.5" diameter. It is located at 34021.376 N; 118020.858 W. The overall height is about six feet and the dripline is about 5 feet wide. The two trunks are codominant with included bark, and wrapped around each other. The bark on one side is scraped. The foliage is small and sparse. Its health is fair. This oak appears to be an exception to needing a permit for removal. Under B. Oak Tree Permit.2.a "2. Exemptions. Notwithstanding the provisions of this code, a permit is not required under the following circumstances: a. For trees that do not exceed six (6) inches in circumference when measured at a point four and one-half (4 1/2) feet above the tree's natural grade...." It has no trunk at that height. The second oak has many trunks, several are 3" diameter and several others are about 2" diameter. It is located at 34021.867 N; 118020.857 W. The overall height is about 9 feet and the ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. Arboriculture & Horticulture 1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138 8/6/2021 Eternal Valley Memorial Park Expansion Oaks P a g e 12 dripline is about 10 feet across. For a scrub oak the structure is good. The leaves are small, but the health is good. The fairly smooth bark gives it the appearance of rapid growth. The coast live oak has a single trunk 8-inches in diameter, measured at 3-feet above grade. The main trunk forks at about 3.5 feet above grade. It is located at 34021'53.12 N; 118030'54.51W. The overall height is about 18 feet and dripline is about 14 feet across. The structure is fairly good (Q. The low branching and codominant trunk are the main defects. The leaves are small, and the health is fair (C) The fairly smooth bark gives it the appearance of rapid growth' Appraisal The following appraisal is a short form, but using all the fields from the 10 Edition of the "Guide for Plant Appraisal". A full set of the approach, guiding principles, and reconciliation are available on request. In this appraisal all elements are weighted equally. Tree # Species DBH Health% Structural Condition Form Average 1 Quercus dumosa 1.2+1.5 50% 40% 50% 47% 2 Quercus dumosa 3,3,312,2 80% 80% 90% 83% 3 TQuercus agrifolia 8 65% 60% 90% 72% Genetic qual Canopy Functional Root Tree Litter or Functional # DBH pest/disease invasive? space, limitations space, limitations tolerance Wires life span density 1 1.2+1.5 90% 100% 100% 90% 100% 96% 2 1 333222 90% 100% 100% 90% 100% 96% 3 1 8 90% 90% 70% 90% 70% 82% Tree # Trunk area Replace diameter Replace cost Unit cost Basic cost Condition Functional limits External limits Appraised value 1 2.9 4 $1,700 $135. $391.50 47% 96% 100% $177 2 22.12 4 $1,700 $135. 1 $2,986.11 1 83% 1 96% 100% 1 2,379 3 50.24 5.5 $1,700 $71.58 $3,596. 72% 82% 100% $2,123 The calculations for scrub oak #2 include adjustments for measuring height for each trunk and then the addition of cross -sectional areas (22.12 sq inch. Discussion of Preservation Options Due to the planned grading and future cemetery use, neither scrub oak is suitable for preservation in place, considering the planned use of this site. The smaller oak is not in good health or condition, and it is not suitable for life in the cemetery grass. The larger oak is full and round to ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. Arboriculture & Horticulture 1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138 8/6/2021 Eternal Valley Memorial Park Expansion Oaks P a g e 13 the ground. It is growing in a small narrow ravine, and grading to level it out would probably end its life. The place where they are growing has varied rough terrain. The City mandate of having a minimum 15 foot clearance would make joining the surrounding grade very difficult. Changing the surrounding conditions to turf grass culture would also eventually lead to their demise. Transplanting is not a reasonable solution either. The smaller oak is not healthy enough to survive. In my 50 years in the tree industry, I have never seen or known of any successful or even attempted transplants of scrub oaks. The low limb/trunk structure of the second oak would make boxing very difficult or impossible. Even if they could be transplanted, the shock of losing 90% of their roots would set back their health and growth for years. Transplanting the coast live oak does not make sense for the same reason. It would be much more reasonable to remove and plant mitigation tree type oaks. New nursery grown coast live oaks, Shumard oaks, holly oaks or southern live oaks would be much more suitable trees for a cemetery. But all trees suffer to some degree, including oaks, when grown in turf. Recommendations Remove both scrub oaks and mitigate the second oak, if required. Protect the coast live oak in place, providing a 20' protection radius from the trunk. Seek written permission from the Director to remove the second scrub oak. See exception B. Oak Tree Permit 2. f. "When the property owner has received written permission from the Director for the removal of a maximum of three (3) scrub oaks (Quercus dumosa)...." If required, select a City approved mitigation species, size and quantity. Mitigation Mitigation requirements appear to be up to the Director's discretion. Mitigation requirements based on trunk diameter are difficult to calculate for scrub oaks. Respectfully submitted, Arborgate Consulting, Inc. Greg Applegate, ASCA, ASLA Registered Consulting Arborist #365 Tree & Plant Appraisal Qualified Enclosures: tree map, photographs ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. Arboriculture & Horticulture 1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138 8/6/2021 Eternal Valley Memorial Park Expansion Oaks Page 14 -- 7 r Legend s- 11 1 JUG- ao ❑ Protect Site Artemisia californica-Salvia mellifera Shrubland All inace Ceanothus oliganthus Shrubland Alliance Ruderal Vegetation Coast five oak tree a The project grading is well under way and had changed since this map was prepared. Most of the area indicated as "Artemisia californica-Salvia mellifera Shrubland Allinace" (sic) is graded and mulched, except the north edge. See below. ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. Arboriculture & Horticulture 1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138 8/6/2021 Eternal Valley Memorial Park Expansion Oaks P a g e 15 Overall area at the north end. # 1 Small scrub oak. The scrub oaks are at the far right end. 42 Large scrub oak ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. Arboriculture & Horticulture 1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138 8/6/2021 Eternal Valley Memorial Park Expansion Oaks P a g e 16 43 Coast live oak structure Coast live oak foliage I believe 43 oak is slightly left of where its shown ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC. Arboriculture & Horticulture 1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138 APPENDIX E Phase I Archeological Resources Assessment ArchaeoPaleo Resource Management, Inc. A full -service Archaeology and Paleontology company Ir SBE/WBE/WOSB/DBE/UDBE/EBE/LBE/SLBE/CBE/VSBE/MicroBE Certified Phase I Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary, City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California Prepared for: Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary 23287 North Sierra Highway Santa Clarita, California, 91321 And Hunsaker & Associates 26074 Avenue Hall, Suite 23 Valencia, CA 91355 Authors: Robin Turner, M.A. Miguel A. Miguel, B.S. Edited by: Robin Turner, M.A. Date: February 2020 Updated March 2022 Key Word(s): CEQA, City of Santa Clarita, Lyons Station, Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary, USGS 7.5' Topographic Quadrangle: Oat Mountain, CA 2015 1531 Pontius Ave. Suite 200 (424) 248-3316 office Los Angeles, CA 90025 (424) 248-3417 fax CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This document contains sensitive or confidential information regarding the location of archaeological sites which should not be disclosed to the general public or other unauthorized persons. Archaeological and other heritage resources can be damaged or destroyed through uncontrolled public disclosure of information regarding their location. Therefore, information regarding the location, character, or ownership of archaeological or other heritage resources is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act pursuant to 16 USC 470w-3 (National Historic Preservation Act) and 16 USC Section 470(h) (Archaeological Resources Protections Act). This report and records that relate to archaeological sites information maintained by the Department of Parks and Recreation, the State Historical Resources Commission, or the State Lands Commission are exempt from the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq., see Government Code Section 6254.19). In addition, Government Code Section 6254 explicitly authorizes public agencies to withhold information from the public relating to Native American graves, cemeteries, and sacred places maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission. 2020-10 2 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ArchaeoPaleo Resource Management, Inc. (APRMI) was contracted by Hunsaker and Associates to perform a Phase I Archaeological Assessment of the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary burial expansion (Project). The Project proponents plan to expand the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary property, located in the western portion of the cemetery, for additional burial use. The Project is located in the City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California within Township 3 South, Range 16 West, Section 12 as denoted on the Oat Mountain, California 7.5' United States Geological Survey topographic quadrangle (2015 edition). The original pedestrian field survey of the Project area was conducted on October 18, 2020, to evaluate the presence of any cultural or tribal resources to determine if the proposed development will have any significant adverse impact on such resources. The Project area has been determined to be an open space natural environment with native oak trees, sagebrush scrub, and other flowering plants. Wildlife tracks observed included black -tailed jackrabbit, deer, coyote, and cougar. Some areas of the Project were observable and accessible, while others were covered in dense sagebrush scrub which did not allow for pedestrian access. No cultural or tribal resources were observed during the field reconnaissance, but there still exists a potential for uncovering such resources at the time of the Project related ground disturbing activities due to known Native American sites nearby. APRMI conducted an amended field reconnaissance survey on June 15, 2021, after it was determined that the Project will include an additional area for a new mausoleum situated above the current Our Lady of Lourdes section of the cemetery and will include additional areas to be developed as well. The additional areas extend the previous Project boundary limits to the north and south. Two additional plant types were observed, which were the California Scrub Oak and chaparral yucca. Additionally, a California Horn -Tailed lizard was observed as part of the local fauna in the additional area. APRMI staff observed that the neighboring development, located on the western side of Needham Ranch Parkway, has been graded and extends into the Eternal Valley Project. This work was conducted without the presence of a qualified archaeologist. On December 2, 2020, a cultural records search was conducted by the South Central Coastal Information Center to identify the presence of any previously recorded (prehistoric/tribal/historic) cultural resources that are located within the Project area or within a'/4 mile radius. The results of the record search include 1 historic structure, located within the 1/4 mile radius, which is the Southern California Edison (SCE) Big Creek East and West Transmission Line (Primary #19- 186861) constructed in 1913. On December 24, 1993, the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred that the SCE Big Creek East and West Transmission Line is a contributing element to the Big Creek Hydroelectric System Historic District listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) on July 26, 2016. This structure will not be affected by the Project. APRMI requested a Sacred Lands File Search and a Native American Contacts list for the proposed Project from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on November 4, 2020. The NAHC's search of the Sacred Lands File and information on the Native American Contact List of tribal interested parties was received by APRMI on December 7, 2020. No Native American sites were identified within the direct Project area, but a total of 4 responses were received from the tribes, individuals, and organizations contacted by APRMI from the Native American Contact List that was provided due to the proximate nature of two Native American villages nearby. 2020-10 3 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment A paleontologic assessment for the Project was not required by the City of Santa Clarita, but APRMI has extensive knowledge of the local paleontological history of the region and has added brief recommendations in this document. This amended Phase I Archaeological Assessment outlines the methods, results, and recommendations for the Project to assure the proper management of cultural resources at the time of development. 2020-10 4 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment ACRONYMS AF Artificial Fill AMSL Above Mean Sea Level APRMI ArchaeoPaleo Resource Management, Inc. ARC Archives & Resource Center BERD Built Environment Resources Directory BP Before Present CCR California Code of Regulations CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CHL California Historic Landmarks CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System CPHI California Points of Historical Interest CRHR California Register of Historical Resources CRM Cultural Resource Management GIS Geographic Information Systems HCM Historic Cultural Monument HTMC Historic Topographic Map Collection HRI Historic Resources Inventory HSC California Health and Safety Code MLD Most Likely Descendant mya Million Years Ago NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NHMLA Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NRHP National Register of Historic Places OVOV One Valley One Vision PBDB Paleobiology Database PRC Public Resources Code RPA Registered Professional Archaeologist SOI Secretary of the Interior SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center SVP Society for Vertebrate Paleontology USGS United States Geologic Service 2020-10 5 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVESUMMARY.......................................................................................................................... 3 ACRONYMS................................................................................................................................................ 5 1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 8 1.1 Project Description.............................................................................................................................. 8 1.2 Project Location..................................................................................................................................9 1.3 Natural Setting..................................................................................................................................12 1.4 Project Personnel..............................................................................................................................13 2.0 REGULATORY SETTING..................................................................................................................14 2.1 Federal Laws.....................................................................................................................................14 2.2 State Laws.........................................................................................................................................15 2.3 Local Laws and Policies...................................................................................................................21 3.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING........................................................................................................................23 4.0 CULTURAL SETTING........................................................................................................................26 4.1 Prehistoric Background.....................................................................................................................26 4.2 Ethnographic Background................................................................................................................ 30 4.3 Historic Background......................................................................................................................... 33 5.0 METHODOLOGY...............................................................................................................................43 5.1 Cultural Resources Records Search.................................................................................................. 43 5.2 Archival Research.............................................................................................................................44 5.3 Field Reconnaissance........................................................................................................................ 44 5.4 Amended Field Reconnaissance.......................................................................................................44 6.0 RESULTS OF RECORDS SEARCHES..............................................................................................45 6.1 Cultural Resources Records Search.................................................................................................. 45 6.2 Archival Research.............................................................................................................................49 7.0 RESULTS OF FIELD RECONNAISSANCE......................................................................................50 7.1 Results from the Amended Field Reconnaissance Area................................................................... 52 8.0 NATIVE AMERICAN CONTACT......................................................................................................55 9.0 ASSEMBLY BILL 52 NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION.................................................... 56 10.0 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................................56 11.0 RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................................... 57 12.0 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................60 Appendix A: SCCIC Results Letter Appendix B: NAHC Results and Correspondence Letter Appendix C: Original Field Reconnaissance Photographs Appendix D: Amended Field Reconnaissance Photographs 2020-10 6 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment List of Figures Figure 1. Topographic regional overview of the Project area that is highlighted in red. Source: Esri, 2013 United States Geological Survey, National Geographic............................................................................... 9 Figure 2. Topographic overview of the Project area that is highlighted in red. Source: Esri, 2013 United States Geological Survey, National Geographic.........................................................................................10 Figure 3. Satellite overview of Project area that is highlighted in red. Source: Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community ........................................ I I Figure 4. Satellite overview of Project area that is highlighted in red and original boundaries of the Proejct area prior to amendments is outlined in blue. Source: Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community.....................................................................12 Figure 5. 1992 Geologic Map of the Oat Mountain and North '/2 Canoga Park Quadrangles with Project outlined in red (Dibblee, T.W., and Ehrenspeck, H.E., ed. 1992)..............................................................25 Figure 6. Gabrieleno women outside the San Gabriel Mission (early 20t' century) .................................. 31 Figure 7. Tataviam territory shaded in gray and general Project vicinity circled in red (King and Blackburn, 1978)........................................................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 8. Spanish and Mexican ranchos of Los Angeles County (Eddy, Gerald A. 1937)........................ 36 Figure 9. Reconstructed image of the asistencia built on the Eternal Valley and Mortuary Park property (Kingsley and Gates, 1969)......................................................................................................................... 39 Figure 10. View toward the southeast of the Lyon/Devendorf family headstone at Eternal Valley .......... 41 Figure 11. View of the Mark T. and Margaret Gates crypt located at Eternal Valley and Mortuary Park mausoleum.................................................................................................................................................. 43 Figure 12. Historic topographic maps from 1903 to 1933 with approximate location of the Project area outlinedin red.............................................................................................................................................46 Figure 13. Historic topographic maps from 1952 to 1975 with approximate location of the Project area outlinedin red.............................................................................................................................................47 Figure 14. Historic aerial photographs from 1952 to 1975, provided by the Google Earth Pro software, with location of the Project area outlined in red.................................................................................................48 Figure 15. Historic aerial photographs from 1952 to 1975, provided by the Google Earth Pro software, with location of the Project area outlined in red.................................................................................................48 Figure 16. Map of previously existing Native American Villages in the Santa Clarita Valley by Richard F. Van Valkenburgh, 1937, with approximate Project location highlighted in red and villages outlined in green. .................................................................................................................................................................... 50 Figure 17. View north of sloped terrain and concrete gutter system......................................................... 51 Figure 18. View west of neighboring development and hill like topography ............................................ 51 Figure 19. View east of dense sagebrush scrub that limited accessibility in some areas ........................... 52 Figure 20. View north of California Scrub Oak present in Project area .................................................... 53 Figure 21. (top) View west of Needham Ranch Parkway and hill topography (outlined in green), western boundary of the Project area, prior to unmonitored excavation. (bottom) View south of same area but now excavated within Project area without the presence of a cultural resource monitor ................................... 54 List of Tables Table 1. Divisions of Recent Geologic Time (after U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Names Committee, 2007).............................................................................................24 Table 2. Results of SCCIC Built Environment............................................................45 Table 3. Results of SCCIC Cultural Reports and Studies Identified....................................46 Table 4. Mitigation Monitoring Plan for Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Project .... 55 2020-10 7 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description The Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary was founded in 1958 by Mark T. Gates, Sr. on an area of 220 acres within the City of Santa Clarita, California. Prior to the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary use, as early as 1855, the area was used as a stagecoach stop known as Lyon's Station. The stop was founded by Sanford Lyons, an early settler of the Santa Clarita Valley. This station also served as a store, stage depot, post office, telegraph office, tavern, and a cemetery for local families and passersby. Currently, the owners of the cemetery seek to expand its current burial capacity through the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary burial expansion project (Project). Development for this expansion will require grading and excavation in the western extent of the cemetery property, located east adjacent of the Needham Ranch Parkway dirt road. Amendments to this Project have been developed to now include additional areas for grading or excavation. Additionally, development of a new mortuary has been added to the scope of the Project. The new mortuary will be located on the slope directly above the current Our Lady of Lourdes section of the cemetery. To facilitate the CEQA requirements for the Project, ArchaeoPaleo Resource Management, Inc. (APRMI) was contracted by Hunsaker and Associates to perform a Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment that would determine the potential archaeological and tribal resource sensitivity of the Project area. As part of the Project CEQA generated assessment, APRMI conducted field reconnaissance to document and photograph the current state of the Project area's vegetative cover, identification of disturbed soils, record any prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, and record the built environment. An amended field reconnaissance was required and conducted after the completion of the original survey to account for the newly added areas that include the new mausoleum and burial areas that will extend the previous limits for grading/excavation. Other research required an in depth review of various archaeological and tribal resources databases. A cultural resource record search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) was conducted by the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC). This search was assessed by APRMI to identify the presence of any previously recorded (prehistoric/tribal/historic) cultural resources that are located within the direct area of the Project or within a'/4 mile radius. Additional databases which included the Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD), United States Geological Society (USGS) Historical Topo Collection, and Historic Aerial Photographs were also assessed. APRMI contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to request a search of the Scared Lands File records and to receive a Native American Contacts list. The Native American contact list was used to request information from the Native American interested parties to see if they wanted to inform us of their ancestral homeland and what information was significant to them to give us for the Project. This Phase I Archaeological Assessment report outlines the methods, results, and mitigation recommendations for the Proj ect to assure the proper management of cultural resources at the time of development. 2020-10 8 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment 1.2 Project Location The Project area is located in the City of Santa Clarita, a city in the northwestern area of the County of Los Angeles, California. Specific locality for the Project, as denoted on the Oat Mountain, California 7.5' United States Geological Survey topographic quadrangle (2015 edition) is Township 3 South, Range 16 West, Section 12 (Figure 1-3). The Project area consists of undeveloped land at the western margin of the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary property. The Project is bounded by the California State Route 14 approximately 0.4 miles to the east, Newhall Avenue approximately 0.4 miles to the north, and Newhall Ranch Parkway approximately 0.08 miles to the west and 0.4 miles to the south. Originally, the Project location boundaries were anticipated for the expansion of new burial plots, but recently in June 2021, new amendments have expanded those boundaries and added a new structure to be developed in the southwest corner of the Project area. Boundaries to the original Project may be seen in Figure 4 highlighted in blue with an overlay of the new boundaries highlighted in red. Legend Project Location f 1 6�r ;J i x a Sore d ,a 1; t r Y- 1- y. --gdfltd dafl t. AST ELOFE VAiL.s Y`_WY 4 r� H SGs TIfe Netiv nal Map' Natid R0�1]}tLD &PAGA�V _ I aivrM lion system tNerant NvnraE lH anHrtmvh euOn9dtat,and Natmn0 N Data111��d Data'Nat vnNOAANataaf$isrl Oei:EtUa t.aOSrms:. ld�oievignnns-n�; ❑H St� eNvagtrio pp sNt- ct rse= nstl��reeu e Humanitar Vadu t Yn't, an RelielM vdel. � aLr IAa�,-e.. �:. Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Project location f�' Mies 0 d_75 1.5 3 4.5 6 Figure 1. Topographic regional overview of the Project area that is highlighted in red. Source: Esri, 2013 United States Geological Survey, National Geographic 2020-10 9 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment AZ I t � roject Location � �� ..Y 1 4� '� a^r; YF Wh.ene ELI- C nyan M RSGS-heNatlonal 1.lap'. National Boundaries Bataset, 313EP Elevation Pro ram,Ge hic Names fo hon Syst N tonal Hyd ogle PhyB t 1 Natio-1L d Cover Bat base. N tb I St ctu re.s O t t, and N-t I ., ,I t' n Data . BSGS GIob.1E ystems tl S Censu B TIGE R/Lina dt.,USFS RoadB t-NaturlErih Bata, Il.S O epa rtme t f5l toHu t nln t ll lt;and N OAhNativnal Cen tern brE nviranmen [sl Info rmatio n, ti.5 Coas[al Relie Hudel t)a[ re eM,d Hay 2020. Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Project location Mffes Ir 0 0.05 0.1 02 03 04 Figure 2. Topographic overview of the Project area that is highlighted in red. Source: Esri, 2013 United States Geological Survey, National Geographic 2020-10 10 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment Figure 3. Satellite overview of Project area that is highlighted in red. Source: Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 2020-10 11 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment Figure 4. Satellite overview of Project area that is highlighted in red and original boundaries of the Project area prior to amendments is outlined in blue. Source: Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 1.3 Natural Setting The City of Santa Clarita is within the Santa Clarita Valley, by the San Gabriel Mountains to the east, the Santa Susana Mountains to the south and west, and the Sierra Pelona Mountains to the north, all part of the Transverse Ranges. Chamise Chaparral, Coastal Sage Scrub, Interior Live Oak Chaparral comprises the ecological setting of the Santa Clarita Valley (Holland 1986: 9, 22, and 29). Faunal species expected in this valley include large and small -medium sized mammals, such as rodents, rabbits, deer, mountain lions, quail, perching birds and raptors, and reptiles, to include lizards and snakes. One of the large river systems within the Santa Clarita Valley includes the Santa Clara River, which receives drainage from four ranges in the Transverse Ranges System, then flows west onto the Oxnard Alluvial Plain and into the Santa Barbara Channel of the Pacific Ocean. 2020-10 12 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment 1.4 Project Personnel Robin Turner, M.A. is the Principal Investigator and President for APRMI. She holds a Master of Arts degree in Anthropology, with an emphasis on Public Archaeology, from California State University, Northridge. Ms. Turner has over 30 years of experience in the Cultural Resource Management (CRM) and the paleontological fields and has conducted major field and technical investigations throughout southern California. She meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology and is a qualified professional paleontologist per the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology's guidelines. Ms. Turner is a Research Associate at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County and at the George C. Page Museum of La Brea Discoveries, as well as a Scientific Advisor to the Buena Vista Museum of Natural History and Sciences in Bakersfield. She is also a past Planning Commissioner for the City of Culver City and is a past museum chair for the Culver City Historical Society. Ms. Turner served as the Principal Investigator and Project Manager for this project as well as section writer and the final editor of this report. Miguel Angel Miguel, B.S. is a Staff Paleontologist with APRMI. Mr. Miguel has 3 years of experience excavating, analyzing, and monitoring archaeological and paleontological materials. His work includes conducting research on Agnostid trilobite hypostomes with use of systematics, with 3D microscopes for appendage identification of Agnostid trilobites. His field and laboratory work emphasized archaeological and paleontological contexts, such as basic map analysis, rock/mineral identification, invertebrate fossil identification, and a Bachelor of Science in Geology from California Lutheran University. Mr. Miguel has extensive experience with GIS mapping, lithic identification, and sedimentary analysis. Mr. Miguel performed the field reconnaissance, the amended field reconnaissance, and contributed to the writing of this report. John (Jack) Flynn, B.A. is a Staff Archaeologist for APRMI. Mr. Flynn has a Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology from the University of California, Merced, and has four years of experience excavating, analyzing, and monitoring archaeological and paleontological materials. His work includes participating as a student researcher in the Heritage, Interpretation, Visualization, and Experience (HIVE) lab at UC Merced, collecting historical, cultural, and natural data through archival research and fieldwork for the John Muir Geotourism Application Project, and participated in an archaeological field school in Belize, Central America, studying Maya Archaeology. His field and laboratory work emphasized archaeological and paleontological contexts, such as historic and prehistoric architecture, osteology, ceramics, lithic analysis, site mapping, and reconnaissance. Mr. Flynn performed the original field reconnaissance and contributed to the writing of this report. Viridiana M. Garcia, M.A. is a Staff Archaeologist with APRMI. She holds a Master of Arts degree in Anthropology, with an emphasis in bioarchaeology, from George Mason University. Ms. Garcia has 5 years of experience excavating and analyzing archaeological materials and human remains. Her work includes serving as an intern at the Smithsonian Department of Anthropology rehousing and cataloging Neolithic archaeological materials and was a lab assistant for the George Mason University zooarchaeological lab. Her field and laboratory work emphasized archaeological and bioarchaeological contexts such as, prehistoric architecture, human osteology, ceramics, and reconnaissance. Ms. Garcia performed the amended field reconnaissance and contributed to the writing of this report. 2020-10 13 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment WI1N-5[!li .11013 BYW_1loc!' 2.1 Federal Laws As federal funds will not be used on this Project, equivalent and often more stringent city, county, and state regulations supersede the federal regulations in this instance. However, professional standards for cultural and paleontological resources are still guided by these federal laws which is why they are included in this report as a reference. Any discovery of human remains, and Native American burials during construction may trigger the implementation of these laws. 2.1.1 Antiquities Act of 1906 The Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 USC § 431 et seq.) provides for the establishment and preservation of national monuments, historic landmarks, and historic or prehistoric structures, or other items of interest on federally owned lands. Additionally, Section 433 of this act prohibits the purposeful taking, excavation, damage, and destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments, or other objects of antiquity on federally owned lands. Other "objects of antiquity" are interpreted to include paleontological remains. 2.1.2 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, specifically P.L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 852, 42 USC §§ 4321-4327, mandates the preservation of "important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage" (§ 101.b4). In addition, NEPA is interpreted as providing for the protection and preservation of paleontological remains. 2.1.3 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) mandates the following: The head of any Federal agency having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed Federal or federally assisted undertaking in any State and the head of any Federal department or independent agency having authority to license any undertaking shall, prior to the approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds on the undertaking or prior to the issuance of any license, as the case may be, take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register [of Historic Places (NRHP)] . The head of any such Federal agency shall afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation [The Council], established under Title II of this Act, reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to such an undertaking. [16 U.S.C. § 470f] An effect, or "adverse effect," as defined by 36 CFR § 800.5 (a)(1), occurs when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register [NRHP] in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. 2020-10 14 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment To further clarify the meaning of what constitutes an adverse effect, 36 CFR § 800.5 (a)(2) identifies the following: physical destruction, alteration that is not in keeping with the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties per 36 CFR §68, removal, change of use, alteration of property setting, relocation, application of intrusive elements, neglect, and change of ownership (federal to non-federal). The NHPA (16 U.S.C. § et seq.) defines a historic resource as significant if eligible for inclusion in the NRHP as defined by one of four eligibility criteria set forth in 36 CFR § 60.4A. Determination of historic resource significance is carried out via implementation of the Section 106 process of the NHPA, as set forth by the Council per 36 CFR § 800 "Protection of Historic Properties." Such significant historic resources can include archaeological sites of pre -historic or historic context, historic buildings, structures, or objects of state, local, or federal importance that retain integrity of location, design, setting, feeling, association, material, and/or workmanship and (A) Are associated with events which have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history, or (B) Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past, or (C) Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic value, or are representative of significant and distinguishable entity of which the component may lack individual distinction, or (D) Yield, or are likely to yield, data important to our understanding of prehistory and/or history. 2.1.4 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 IISC Section 3001 et seq.) The discovery of human remains is always a possibility during construction -related disturbances. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, or NAGPRA, was enacted November 16, 1990. It states that the "ownership or control of Native American cultural items," which include human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony, that are "excavated or discovered on Federal or tribal lands" after the law went into effect is held by the lineal descendants of the Native American (or Hawaiian) to whom the objects originally belonged. If the lineal descendants cannot be found then their ownership is conferred to the "Indian" tribe or Native Hawaiian organization on whose land the objects or remains were discovered or that has the closest cultural affiliation. 2.2 State Laws 2.2.1 California Register of Historical Resources (PRC §5024.1) The California State Historical Resources Commission enacted Public Resources Code §5024.1, which established the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The statute encourages public recognition and protection of resources of architectural, historical, archaeological, and cultural significance. The register itself is a listing of all properties considered to be significant historical resources in the state. Resources are considered significant (and thus eligible for the register) if they retain integrity and meet one of the following criteria: 1) Associated with events which have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and historical heritage 2) Associated with the lives of persons significant in California's past 2020-10 15 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment 3) Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic value, or 4) Yield, or are likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. The California Register specifically provides that historical resources listed, determined eligible for listing on the California Register by the State Historical Resources Commission, or resources that meet the California Register criteria are resources, which must be given consideration under CEQA (see below). Other resources, such as resources listed on local registers or in local surveys, may be listed if they are determined by the State Historic Resources Commission to be significant in accordance with criteria and procedures to be adopted by the Commission and are nominated; their listing in the California Register is not automatic. According to the federal laws to which the State of California defers when its own laws do not apply to a situation, historical resources are evaluated if they are 50 years or older, unless they are exceptional according to a set of criteria considerations. The Instructions for Recording Historical Resources (California Office of Historic Preservation [OHP] 1995:2) states that "[a]ny physical evidence of human activities over 45 years old may be recorded for purposes of inclusion in the OUP's filing system." This five-year difference is to compensate for the amount of time that usually occurs between a resource's discovery and its official documentation as well as the implementation of any mitigation procedures. 2.2.2 California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is a statute that requires state and local agencies to identify significant environmental impacts of their actions, including damages to cultural or historical resources, in order to avoid or mitigate those adverse impacts or changes. §5020.1 of CEQA establishes "substantial adverse change" as the "demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of an historical resource would be impaired" (see below for the definition of historical resource). The "threshold of significance" is the level at which a lead agency finds the effects of a Project to be significant. The destruction of unique, non-renewable cultural resources is a significant impact on the environment that requires mitigation of the impact. Construction excavation in archaeologically sensitive deposits that underlie a Project Area is a significant impact that could be prevented, minimized, or mitigated through the development of project alternatives (e.g., avoidance of the cultural resource) or mitigation measures for the purpose of recovering data that might otherwise be destroyed (e.g. archaeological excavation prior to construction excavation and archaeological monitoring of construction excavation of a known site; or archaeological monitoring of construction excavation of an archaeologically sensitive area). Even if a historical resource, an archaeological site, or human remains cannot be identified within a project area before project implementation (i.e., if the resources are not visible on the surface during a Phase I survey, or if Extended Phase II testing does not reveal subsurface archaeological material), the area may still be archaeologically sensitive, based on the characteristics of the environmental background of the area or its current environmental setting, and that said resources are predicted to exist within the project area/remains could be present within the project area. Mitigation measures to avoid project impacts to as -yet undiscovered historical resources or human remains may be employed by the Lead Agency, even if these resources have not been identified within or adjacent to the project 2020-10 16 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment area. A study must consider a project's current baseline environmental setting and physical conditions so that the lead agency can determine whether project impacts would cause a significant change to that environment. §15091(a) and (d) of the CEQA Guidelines require the Lead Agency to adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes —that it has either required for the project or has made a condition of approval —in order to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) provides for the monitoring of mitigation measures that may be required by a project's Environmental Impact Report (EIR), if the EIR identifies potentially significant adverse impacts and mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to a less -than -significant level. An archaeological resources/built environment data recovery or monitoring plan may be part of an NMtP if archaeological resources/built environment will be affected. A significant historical resource, as defined by CEQA, is referred to as a "Historical Resource." Such Historical Resources have been determined eligible for inclusion in the CRHR per Title 14, California Code of Regulations (CCR), § 15064.5(a)(3), and include historic properties eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) per PRC §5024.1, or are historically significant at a local level, such as a city, town, community, or county. Paleontological resources are protected by Appendix G (Part V) of CEQA, which indicates that the destruction of unique, non-renewable paleontological resources is a significant impact on the environment that requires mitigation of the impact. It specifically asks whether a project would "directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature." Excavations in paleontologically sensitive deposits that underlie a project area is a significant impact that can be mitigated via the salvage and identification of excavated fossils from the deposit. 2.2.3 California Administrative Code Title 14, Section 4307 of the California Administrative Code states that "no person shall remove, injure, deface, or destroy any object of paleontological, archaeological, or historical interest or value." 2.2.4 Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 and Section 30244. of the California Public Resources Code (PRC) protects both cultural and paleontological resources. Section 5097.5 states that "a person shall not knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure, or deface, any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, rock art, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over the lands." Section 5097.5 also states that "a violation of this section is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment." This section defines public lands as "lands owned 2020-10 17 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment by, or under the jurisdiction of, the state, or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof." Section 30244 states that "where development would adversely impact archaeological or paleontological resources as identified by the State Historic Preservation Officer, reasonable mitigation measures shall be required." 2.2.5 Native American Heritage Act The Native American Heritage Act, passed by California in 1976, established the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of protecting Native American religious values on state property (PRC §5097.9). The NAHC not only protects the heritage of California Native Americans, but also ensures their participation in matters concerning heritage sites. The commission's duty is to assist both federal and state agencies in protecting Native American sacred places and provide recommendations concerning Native American heritage in accordance with environmental law and policy. As required by Government Codes §65352.3 and §65562.5, for purposes of consultation with California Native American Tribes, the NAHC maintains a list of California Native American Tribes with whom local governments and public agencies must consult. The act also protects burials from disturbance, vandalism, and accidental destruction. It stipulates what specific procedures, laid out in the California Health and Safety Code (HSC), must be implemented if a Native American burial is uncovered during project construction or archaeological data recovery. 2.2.6 Senate Bill 18 The California Senate Bill 18, passed in 2004, establishes a procedure to help California indigenous tribes and jurisdictions define tribal cultural resources and sacred areas more clearly as well as incorporate their protection into a General or Specific Plan prior to its adoption or amendment. The law also requires that California cities and counties contact and consult with California Native American tribes prior to designating land as open space. By involving tribes in local land use decisions, impacts to sites of cultural significance can be mitigated. 2.2.7Assembly Bill 52 Assembly Bill (AB) 52, was approved and passed on September 25, 2014 by California State Governor Gerry "Jerry" Brown, Jr. The act has amended California PRC Section 5097.94, and added PRC Sections 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2, and 21084.3, relating to California's Native American populations. Assembly Bill 52 applies to projects in which a Notice of Preparation (NOP) or a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) would be filed on or after July 1, 2015. This bill recognizes California Native American tribes' expertise regarding cultural resources and provides a method for agencies to incorporate tribal knowledge into their CEQA environmental review and decision -making processes. California Native American tribes can now establish a standing request to consult with a lead agency regarding any proposed project subject to CEQA in the geographic area with which the tribe is traditionally and culturally affiliated. The definition of 2020-10 18 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment tribal cultural resources, as per PRC Section 21074(a)(1) and (2), are considered as "sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe" that are included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register or included in a local register of historical resources. A tribal cultural resource may also be determined by a lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence. PRC section 21080.3. 1 (a-e) outlines and defines the initial consultation process required from the lead agency as follows: 21080.3.1(a): The Legislature finds and declares that California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with a geographic area have expertise concerning their tribal cultural resources. 21080.3.1(b): Prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report for a project, the lead agency shall begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project if (1) The California Native American tribe requested to the lead agency, in writing, to be informed by the lead agency through formal notification of proposed projects in the geographic area that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribe, and (2) The California Native American tribe responds, in writing, within 30 days of receipt of the formal notification, and requests the consultation. When responding to the lead agency, the California Native American tribe shall designate a lead contact person. If the California Native American tribe does not designate a lead contact person, or designates multiple lead contact people, the lead agency shall defer to the individual listed on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission for the purposes of Chapter 905 of the Statutes of 2004. For purposes of this section and Section 21080.3.2, "consultation" shall have the same meaning as provided in Section 65352.4 of the Government Code. 21080.3.l(c): To expedite the requirements of this section, the Native American Heritage Commission shall assist the lead agency in identifying the California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area. 21080.3.l(d): Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to the designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, which shall be accomplished by means of at least one written notification that includes a brief description of the proposed project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to this section. 21080.3.1(e): The lead agency shall begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving a California Native American tribe's request for consultation. Under PRC section 21080.3.2 (a) the following topics are potential consultation discussions: • The type of environmental review necessary • The significance of tribal cultural resources • The significance of the project's impacts on the tribal cultural resources • Project alternatives • Appropriate measures for preservation • Mitigation measures 2020-10 19 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment Consultation is considered complete if the parties agree to measure(s) to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on a tribal cultural resource, or if a party acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that a mutual agreement cannot be reached (PRC 2108.3.2(b) (1-2)). This section does not limit the ability of a California Native American tribe or the public to submit information to the lead agency regarding the significance of the tribal cultural resources, the significance of the project's impact on tribal cultural resources, or any appropriate measures to mitigate the impact. This section also does not limit the ability of the lead agency or project proponent to incorporate changes and additions to the project as a result of the consultation, even if not legally required. If the project proponent or its consultants participate in the consultation, those parties shall respect the principles set forth in this section. The City of Santa Clarita will conduct the Consultation. PRC section 21082.3(a)(b) requires any mitigation measures agreed upon in the consultation conducted pursuant to PRC section 21080.3.2 shall be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document and in an adopted mitigation monitoring and reporting program, if determined to avoid or lessen the impact of tribal cultural resources. If a project may have a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency's environmental document shall discuss both of the following: (1) Whether the proposed project has a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource. (2) Whether feasible alternatives or mitigation measures, including those measures that may be agreed to pursuant to subdivision (a), avoid or substantially lessen the impact on the identified tribal cultural resource. Any information including, but not limited to, the location, description, and the use of the tribal cultural resources, that is submitted by a California Native American tribe during the environmental review process shall not be included in the environmental document or otherwise disclosed by the lead agency or any other public agency to the public without the prior consent of the tribe that provided the information. If the lead agency publishes any information submitted by a California Native American tribe during the consultation or environmental review process, that information shall be published in a confidential appendix to the environmental document unless the tribe that provided the information consents, in writing, to the disclosure of some or all of the information to the public (PRC section 21082.3(c). If a California Native American tribe has requested consultation pursuant to PRC section 21080.3.1 and has failed to provide comments to the lead agency, failed to engage in the consultation process, or if the lead agency has complied with PRC section 21080.3.1(d) and the California Native American tribe has failed to request consultation within 30 days, the lead agency may certify an Environmental Impact Report or adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Suggested mitigation measures after lead agencies determine that a project may cause a substantial adverse change to tribal cultural resources are outlined under PRC section 21084.3 as follows: • Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including, but not limited to, planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context, or planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria. • Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following: • Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource. 2020-10 20 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment • Protecting the traditional use of the resource. • Protecting the confidentiality of the resource. • Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places. • Protecting the resource. 2.2.8 California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 of the HSC states that if human remains are found, construction and/or excavation must cease within the general vicinity, and the remains must be inspected by the county coroner. If the coroner determines that they are Native American in origin, then the coroner must contact the NAHC. The NAHC will then determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD must complete inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. Sections 8010-8011 of the HSC establish a state repatriation policy that is consistent with and facilitates implementation of NAGPRA. NAGPRA was passed in 1990 and required that museums and federal agencies document all Native American human remains within their collections, or uncovered on projects, as well as their cultural ties. These agencies must then notify any tribe that may be affiliated with the remains and provide the opportunity for their repatriation along with any associated cultural items (grave goods). The California state version (Cal NAGPRA) mandates publicly funded agencies (state and local government agencies) and museums to repatriate human remains and associated cultural items to California Native American Tribes, not just federally recognized tribes within California, and establishes penalties for noncompliance. 2.3 Local Laws and Policies 2.3.1 County of Los Angeles General Plan Los Angeles County considers its "historic, cultural, and paleontological resources [as] non- renewable and irreplaceable" (County of Los Angeles 2014:155). In order to protect these resources, the County is guided by federal and state laws regarding such resources. The County's goal (C/NR 14) is to "[m]itigate all impacts from new development on or adjacent to historic, cultural, and paleontological resources to the greatest extent feasible" and to "[e]nsure proper notification and recovery processes are carried out for development on or near historic, cultural, and paleontological resources." The County also has policies to "[s]upport the preservation and rehabilitation of historic buildings" and to "[e]nsure proper notification procedures to Native American tribes in accordance with Senate Bill 18 (2004)" (County of Los Angeles 2014:159). One method the County has employed to successfully preserve historic, cultural, and paleontological resources is maintaining a "local registry or landmarks commission" that identifies historic, cultural, and paleontological resources that are not identified by state and federal programs (County of Los Angeles 2014:158). This registry, known as the Los Angeles County Historical Landmarks and Records Commission "reviews and recommends cultural heritage resources in the unincorporated areas for inclusion in the State Historic Resources Inventory" (County of Los Angeles 2014:155). 2020-10 21 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment 2.3.2 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Review of the General Plan did not indicate specific policies, goals, or reference to ordinances with respect to paleontologic resources, therefore, Los Angeles County paleontologic policies apply. However, the City of Santa Clarita also complies with the preservation measures put forth in the CEQA for paleontologic and cultural resources. The policies, mitigation measures, and management strategies employed by the City of Santa Clarita for paleontologic and cultural resources are provided below. These policies and mitigation measures are located within Chapter 5 of the General Plan, as well as incorporated in the Preservation of Natural Resources policies and Goals of the Open Space and Conservation Element. Policy 10.1 to promote the preservation and rehabilitation of significant historic structures and architectural amenities through implementation of the Historic Preservation/Cultural Resources Ordinance. Policy 10.2 which considers relocation of valuable historic structures to Heritage Park whenever they are unavoidably endangered by incompatible development. Policy 10.3 to continue to support implementation programs established by the Santa Clarita Historical Society and others to identify and preserve historical sites. Policy 10.4 to establish development guidelines to identify and preserve significant archeological sites. Policy 10.5 to integrate historic sites with recreational and open space areas whenever possible. Policy 10.6 to incorporate historic sites into proposed development whenever possible in such a manner as to preserve the integrity of the site whenever possible. 2.3.3 One Valley One Vision General Plan The Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan is a component of the Los Angeles County General Plan and is intended to provide focused goals, policies, and maps to guide the regulation of development within the unincorporated portions of the Santa Clarita Valley (City of Santa Clarita. Municipal Code. Title 17 Zoning Section 17.15.020). This updated Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan replaces in its entirety the Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan adopted by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors on February 16, 1984 and subsequently amended on December 6, 1990, which had previously served as the basic planning tool for the unincorporated portions of the Santa Clarita Valley. Review of the proposed One Valley One Vision (OVOV) General Plan did not identify specific goals, objectives, and policies related to paleontological resources. However, the OVOV General Plan did identify goals, objectives, and policies pertaining to historical resources and archeological resources. These goals, objectives, and policies are located within Chapter 4: Conservation and Open Space Element, Section 5.2, Cultural Resources, of the OVOV General Plan and identified below. Goal CO 5: Protection of historical and culturally significant resources that contribute to community identity and a sense of history. Objective CO 5.2: Protect and enhance the historic character of Downtown Newhall. 2020-10 22 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment Policy CO 5.2.1: In keeping with the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan policies, ensure that the scale and character of new development is compatible with and does not detract from the context of historic buildings and block patterns. Policy CO 5.2.3: Ensure that all aspects of community design in Newhall, including street furniture, lighting, trash collection and storage areas, seating, and other accessory structures, are of a design and scale appropriate for the historic character of the district, while maintaining a sense of authenticity. Objective CO 5.3 : Encourage conservation and preservation of Native American cultural places, including prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, and ceremonial sites on both public and private lands, throughout all stages of the planning and development process. Policy CO 5.3.2: For any proposed development project that may have a potential impact on Native American cultural resources, provide notification to California Native American tribes on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission that have traditional lands located within the City's jurisdiction, and consider the input received in the development decision. Policy CO 5.3.3: Review and consider a cultural resources study for any new grading or development in areas identified as having a high potential for Native American resources, and incorporate 2.3.4 City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code Found within the Santa Clarita Municipal Code is the Property Development Standards for the City of Santa Clarita which includes the requirement that all historical points of interest, as identified in the Open Space and Conservation Element of the Santa Clarita General Plan. It states that any development that would detrimentally affect the historical point of interest shall comply with the requirements of city, state, and federal law and conduct a Historic Preservation Review (City of Santa Clarita. Municipal Code. Title 17 Zoning Section 17.15.020 and Section 17.03.145). The purpose of the Historic Preservation Review is to promote the economic and general welfare of the City of Santa Clarita by preserving and protecting public and private historic, cultural, and natural resources which are of special historic or aesthetic character or interest or relocating such resources where necessary for their preservation and for their use, education, and view by the general public. 3.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING Stratigraphic divisions found in rock sequences reflect geologic changes, and thus have provided the basis for determining geologic time scales. Geologic eons are divided into eras, which are divided into periods, which are divided into series or epochs. Table 1 outlines the geologic eras, periods, and series discussed in this report and is based on one created by the USGS Geologic Names Committee (2007). Geologic eras previous to those discussed in this report are not included in the table. 2020-10 23 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment Table 1. Divisions of Recent Geologic Time (after U.S. GeoloLjical Survev Geologic Names Committee. 2007) Eon Era P h Quaternary Holocene 1.5 million years ago (mya) to the 11,477 years ago (+/- 85 years) to the Present Present Pleistocene ("The Great Ice Age") 1.5 million to approximately 11,477 (+/- 85 years) years ago R+ o Tertiary Pliocene p Z 65.5 to 1.5 mya 5.3 to 1.5 mya 0 P; N Miocene g 23 to 5.3 mya Oligocene P 33.9 to 23.0 mya Eocene 5 5.8 to 3 3.9 mya Paleocene uu I u I 65. 5to58.8mya Approximately 17 to 18 million years ago in the early Miocene, the North American tectonic plate collided with the Pacific Plate due to the constant movement of plate tectonics. Prior to this collision, Los Angeles County was once above water, but the movement of the Pacific plate northward relative to the North American plate caused the area to submerge (Quinn 2001). In the middle Miocene Epoch, the Los Angeles County area was part of a deep submarine basin that quickly divided into the Ventura Basin, the San Gabriel Basin, the San Fernando Basin (now Valley), and the Los Angeles Basin. These deep, narrow, rapidly subsiding basins were formed when the tectonic blocks that make up today's Transverse Ranges rotated up to 90 degrees clockwise in response to a shear along the San Andreas Fault called the Big Bend (Luyendyk et al. 1985). The Transverse Ranges, which are oriented west to east, include the Orocopia Mountains, the San Gabriel Mountains, the Santa Ynez Mountains, the Santa Monica Mountains, and the Channel Islands, although the San Gabriel Mountains actually lie east of the San Andreas. As crustal blocks pivoted, they separated in places to create fault -bounded chasms. These steep - sided basins accumulated huge thicknesses of deep -water marine shales and sandstones, as well as deposits of siliceous shale and diatomites (formed from diatoms, or single -celled algae with cell walls made of silica) (Conrey 1967; Crowell 1981; Fritsche et al. 2001; Luyendyk et al. 1985; Schwartz and Colburn 1987; Woodford et al. 1954). Marine sediment over 6 miles deep accumulated in what is now the Los Angeles County, in only 6 million years (Luyendyk et al. 1985) and would become to be known as the Los Angeles Basin. This basin continued to subside through the early Pliocene but was still separated from the open ocean by a submarine ridge (Quinn 2001). Most of the buildup of mountains and marine sediments occurred in the last two million years, since the Pliocene (Schoenherr 1992). The sediment buildup continued through the Pleistocene, but sea level fluctuated due to the alternating glacial and interglacial episodes (Quinn 1992). During these phases, the area under water expanded and contracted, and the inland stratigraphic layers (not including the coast and the Santa Monica Plain) alternate between marine and continental sediments (Woodford et al. 1954). There was also an overall decrease in local oceanic depth over time during the interglacial periods. This decrease, coupled with increasing deposition, resulted in the eventual termination of the submarine central 2020-10 24 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment Los Angeles Basin. Continuous non -marine deposition commenced in the later Quaternary period whereby alluvial stream deposits accumulated on top of the earlier marine deposits and was only interrupted by erosion (Quinn 1992). These alluvial stream deposits originated from the floodwaters that were transported from the surrounding mountains by the Los Angeles, San Gabriel, and Santa Ana rivers (Schoenherr 1992). The Los Angeles Basin experienced one last (shallow) marine episode during the late Pleistocene prior to the most recent glaciation period. This glaciation period saw an increase in precipitation and subsequent acceleration in erosion of the Santa Monica Mountains. The resultant increased deposition of fluvial sediments in the basin constitutes the latest stage of the Pleistocene and is often referred to as the Rancholabrean age (Quinn 1992). This designation is named after the fauna recovered from Rancho La Brea and is applied to the later Pleistocene epoch of North America. The City of Santa Clarita is located in the Transverse Range Geomorphic Province of California, which is characterized by east -west trending mountains and faults. Sedimentary basins within the Transverse Range Geomorphic Province include the Ventura, Soledad, and Ridge Basins, and the San Fernando Valley that continue to accumulate alluvial sediments as a result of the continuous shifting of the San Andreas Fault and the Transverse Range fault systems. These large fault systems have highly influenced the geomorphic region of the Santa Clarita Valley such that the intricate folding of stratified rock layers has provided the necessary naturally occurring traps to allow for oil and gas production. r°. air T �•. , ' , _ s .r 42 Cf rd 1 W HA r � Tgr 1 1 F1I L.a V so 26 l Ts CI*t TS • L , r Tsr`l Figure 5. 1992 Geologic Map of the Oat Mountain and North '/2 Canoga Park Quadrangles with Project outlined in red (Dibblee, T.W., and Ehrenspeck, H.E., ed. 1992). 2020-10 25 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment As denoted on the 1992 Geologic Map of the Oat Mountain and North '/z Canoga Park Quadrangles (Figure 5), the Project site is located within a sub -anticline of the larger Pico Anticline, which is considered a down -warped folding of stratified rock layers that form an "A" shape (Dibblee, T.W., and Ehrenspeck, H.E., ed. 1992). The predominant rock and soil type underlying the surface of the Project site is considered to be part of the 1. 8 -milli on-year-ol d marine deposited Pliocene - Pleistocene aged Saugus Formation composed mostly of sandstone, conglomerate deposits, with rare occurrences of limestone and laminated mudstone (White 1985). The formation is about 2,130 feet thick and was deposited in a shallow -marine environment adjacent to a wave -dominated river delta. The Sandstone layers within the formation noted on this project are very rich in invertebrate fossils, especially shallow -marine snails and clams. Vertebrate fossilized specimens of bison, mastodon, horse, deer, and a rare species of tapir have been uncovered within this formation at various depths (Turner 2010). The extent of grading and excavation depth related to this Project is currently unknown. However, the contextual paleontological history of the general Project vicinity indicates the potential to uncover such resources within the previously mentioned geologic sediment and deposits. 4.0 CULTURAL SETTING The cultural record for Southern California has been divided into two general time periods: the prehistoric and the historic. The prehistoric period is the time prior to written documentation and colonization. The historic period represents the time from which written documentation was kept for this area: from the first Spanish explorers in the 1500s to the 1950s. 4.1 Prehistoric Background 4.1.1 Western Fluted Point Tradition or the Paleo Indian Period (f12, 000 -11, 000 BP [f10,000 - 9, 000 BCEI) Prehistoric human land use for the region of the Project area potentially dates as far back as approximately 12,000 years ago. Evidence of this early habitation comes from the neighboring City of Los Angeles, California which has two of the earliest sites that contains human remains in all of the Americas: "La Brea Woman" and "Los Angeles Man". Found in 1914, the "La Brea Woman" site is comprised of the osteological remains of a young Native American woman discovered in Pit 10 at the La Brea Tar Pits (located at the George C. Page Museum, also known as the La Brea Tar Pits) within Hancock Park. Her remains were found in association with extinct ice age fauna and a small, possibly domestic, dog (Canus sp.). Artifacts associated with her remains include shell and stone artifacts and a mano (hand grinding stone) fragment. At the time of discovery, her remains were dated to approximately 40,000 years ago based upon associated fossils (Stock and Harris 1992). The presence of the mano fragment, though, as well as the type of shell and stone artifacts, call into question this early date. Artifacts such as these are not present within the archaeological record of southern California until approximately 8,500 to 9,000 BP (see Moratto 1984: 53-54; Stock and Harris 1992: 21-23). Additionally, radiocarbon dates of treated samples (to decontaminate the bones of intrusive carbon) from her remains yielded a date of 9000 +/- 80 B.P. Another discovery at The La Brea Tar Pits, indicating the early presence of humans in the Americas, and specifically California, comes from long bones from three Pleistocene animal species. These bones include one tibia and three femora from saber -tooth cats (Smilodon fatalis), 2020-10 26 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment one radius from a bison (Bison spp.), and one femur from a California lion (Felis atrox). All of these bones appear to have cut marks and grooves on them, likely the result of human activity. They have been radiocarbon dated to 15,200 +/- 800 B.P. (Moratto 2004). The "Los Angeles Man" site contained several human skull fragments found in 1936 by Work Projects Administration (WPA) workers excavating a storm drain along a former route of the Los Angeles River, north of Baldwin Hills by La Cienega Boulevard and Jefferson Boulevard. The site is approximately 3.4 meters deep situated in an ancient streambed (Moratto 1984). Approximately, 350 meters away at the same depth as the human bone discovery, two teeth and several bones of an Imperial Mammoth (Mammuthus imperator) were also unearthed. Both the mammoth bones and the human remains were dated, using a fluorine -based dating method, to approximately 20,000 years old. Other early evidence of Los Angeles human habitation has dated the Los Angeles Man to 8,000 to 10,000 B.P. (Moratto 2004). 4.1.2 San Dieguito Tradition or Western Pluvial Lakes/Palen-Coastal Tradition (11,000 - 7,500 BP [9,000 — 5,500 BCEJ) Other prehistoric human archaeological records date to as early as 11,000 B.P. near the beginning of the Archaic Period in coastal southern California with the San Dieguito Tradition. The San Dieguito Tradition denotes an archaeological period that is found throughout Southern California, described as a generalized hunting tradition dating from 9,000 to 10,000 years ago. It has since been subsumed into the longer Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition, which is characterized by adaptations to inland lake, marsh, and grassland environments, as well as its coastal variant (Paleo- Coastal Tradition) distinguished by adaptations to estuary and bay shores. The tradition ended about 8000-7000 B.P. when the climate deteriorated and lakes started drying up. The people from this period were possibly descended from Paleo-Indians who inhabited the desert regions of southeastern California (Moratto 2004; Warren 1968). The San Dieguito people that inhabited the shores of pluvial lakes and marshes exploited the chaparral zone environments and resources, possibly depending upon a broad array of vegetative resources. They subsisted primarily on chaparral -related resources such as mule deer, rabbits, and plants, but were not known to have harvested the hard seeds of the chaparral plants and moved often as they depleted the local resources (Bean and Smith 1978; Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984; Moratto 2004). Their toolkits included foliate knives and points (Lake Mojave and Silver Lake points), lanceolate bifaces, lithic crescents, scrapers, choppers, planes, hammerstones, and several types of cores, drills, and gravers. Along the coast, diets included not only land animals and plants, but also mollusks, waterfowl, and limited amounts of sea mammals and fish. Coastal toolkits included additional items such as pitted stones, asphaltum, pointed -bone objects, and shell spoons and ornaments (Moratto 2004). Early Archaic populations consisted of small, band level in size, groups of people approximately totaling a dozen individuals, or one or two families. The artifact assemblages associated with the "La Brea Woman" and "Los Angeles Man" sites bear similarities with this small band level size groups. During the late San Dieguito Tradition, bone awls and needles became common, and used to make baskets, nets, and clothing (Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984). Evidence also suggests that the northern Channel Islands (Santa Rosa and San Miguel islands) were inhabited approximately 9,000 years ago, indicating a sophisticated means of ocean travel, perhaps via plank canoes (Raab 2020-10 27 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment and Yatsko 1990; Bean and Smith 1978; Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984; Moratto 2004). 4.1.3 Encinitas Tradition or Milling Stone Horizon, Topanga I Phase (7,500 - 5,000 BP 15,500 — 39000 BCEJ) Between 8,000 and 6,000 BP, regional exploitation of food resources in California became more systematic and efficient resulting in environmental niche specialization and greater regional difference, as evidenced by the variety in tool kit assemblages. Flourishing between 7,500 and 5,000 BP, the individuals of the Encinitas Tradition continued to exploit game and vegetation in the same traditions devised by their San Dieguito predecessors but added seasonal foraging strategies that yielded protein rich plant material, such as the hard seeds of chaparral plants, to their diet. Midden deposits evinced slightly different subsistence patterns between groups depending on local ecology. The people inhabiting the coastal shoreline harvested vast amounts of shellfish and sea mammals, although not fish. Other groups practiced seasonal exploitation of resources by moving between the coastal littoral (shoreline) and chaparral zones. As the groups became more efficient in their hunting and gathering strategies, the populations of the groups increased to two to three times as large as they had been earlier in the Archaic (Wallace 1955; Warren 1968; Moratto 2004; Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984). Encinitas Tradition tool kits became more specialized, with more regional variation than seen with their San Dieguito predecessors. Certain tool types were retained, such as basic heavy-duty choppers and scrapers (core tools). New tool forms appeared as well, including large numbers of milling slabs and handstones (metates and manos) used to grind hard seeds, and a modest number of projectile points were added, such as the Pinto Point, that were somewhat smaller than those of previous eras. The Encinitas people also manufactured enigmatic items such as gear -like "cogwheels" and stone disks, for which there is no known utilitarian purpose. These "cogwheels" or "cogstones" required great investment of manufacturing time and energy, seemingly with no relationship to subsistence. When associated with formalized (but rudimentary) differential burials, these items suggest that the Encinitas life - way was more socio-culturally complex than that of the San Dieguito Tradition (Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984; Moratto 2004; Sutton and Gardner (2006:8) characterize human burials from this phase as secondary burials often consisting only of long bones, with some inhumations but no cremations. 4.1.4 Campbell Tradition or Intermediate Horizon, Topanga H and III phases (5,000 —1, 000 BP [3,000 BCE —1000 CE (Common or Current or Christian Era)]) During the Campbell Tradition, ca. 5,000-4,500 BP, new forms of subsistence procurement and technology, as well as increasing societal changes, began to emerge throughout southern California. Core settlements increased in physical size and population. Many Native American settlements were located in transitional ecological zones, which provided these groups with a broad-spectrum of subsistence without extensive migration, resulting in village -style communities surrounded by peripheral settlements. Faunal remains and numerous projectile points (including harpoon points and arrowheads) demonstrate the renewed reliance on hunting, with both land and sea mammals that were exploited. Fish were incorporated into the diet again, though at low levels, at this time. Acorns became part of the subsistence base, as evidenced by the increased presence of the mortar and pestle. Other tools present include flake scrapers and a variety of shell and bone ornaments (Warren 1968; Wallace 1955; Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984; Moratto 2004). 2020-10 28 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment The stabilization of seasonal settlement patterns, due to the onset of a semi -sedentary residence, led to socio-cultural changes in the communities that provided new forms of social and political relationships and trade networks. These changes are seen archaeologically through the presence of exotic items, such as marine shell beads at inland archaeological sites, and the development of more formal mortuary customs that involved both cremations and various burial forms, as well as the inclusion of grave goods. These "advances" demonstrate that societies were becoming increasingly complex (Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984; Moratto 2004). Sutton and Gardner characterize human burials from this time as mostly flexed inhumations with some continuation of secondary long bone interment burials (2006:8). Cremations are present during these phases, but extremely rare. 4.1.5 Late Prehistoric (1, 000 — 400 BP /1, 000 —1542 CEJ) During the Late Prehistoric, regional differences throughout California fully developed, resulting in the tribal groups that are currently known (Wallace 1955). Populations of these culturally distinct groups continued to rise as did territorially defined sedentary settlement patterns. Resource exploitation, including fishing, intensified while large-scale hunting and gathering operations provided varied sources of subsistence on the other. The diversity and quantity of trade increased with the development of a shell -bead money system. Linked to the development of these trade networks was the establishment of non -egalitarian political systems that increased social complexity within the cultures, as evinced by marked differences in access to goods and services both within and between local Native American communities. Societies became highly stratified with hierarchies based upon wealth, occupation, and/or lineage. The increased subsistence intensification, sedentism, and complexity are documented in the archaeological record of the Gabrieleno people and their linguistically distinct Chumash neighbors to the west (Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984; Moratto 2004). Though these are two examples observed by Chartkoff and Moratto, other mission Native Americans that mirrored the similar advances of recorded complexity included the Gabrieleno Tongva, the Kizh people, the Tataviam people, the Kitnanemuk people, and the Vanyume people which also inhabited the various regions in the Project vicinity. Other changes that occurred during this period include the increased use of the bow and arrow, the application of asphaltum to various items, and the manufacture of many new types of artifacts such as shell tools (fishhooks) and ornaments (beads and pendants), stone bowls, animal effigies, bone tools and ornaments (awls, scepters, hairpins, fishhooks, whistles, and tubes), and pottery vessels in the south. Burials are formally marked and the remains face in a particular direction. While some of these practices started along the coast in earlier times, their occurrence at interior locations was a new development (Moratto 2004). Prior to the Late Prehistoric, the "Shoshonean Tradition" way of life infused (or intruded) into the southern California region, mainly through immigration but also through trait diffusion from the interior to the coast. It is theorized that the immigration originated from the environmental decline that in turn affected substance procurement in the Great Basin. Long-term droughts forced people to migrate from the Great Basin region southwestward into the southern California interior and finally towards the coast. These migrants at first inhabited the less -desirable, sparsely inhabited areas. They brought with them new traditions and artifacts including cremation, pottery, and small triangular arrow points. The result of this immigration event is often referred to as the "Shoshonean 2020-10 29 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment Wedge" (Moratto 2004; Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984). While the social complexity of these groups began to increase within these migrating populations during the Late Archaic Period [3,000 to 1500 BP (1,000 BCE to 500 CE)], it was particularly apparent during the Late Prehistoric Horizon. When the "Shoshoneans" migrated to the coast, they quickly adapted to the surroundings, their success the result of borrowing the technologies and economic practices of their new neighbors including a maritime subsistence base (Moratto 2004). Bull (1977) theorizes that the Shoshonean groups actually replaced and intermarried with the indigenous groups. This contact has resulted in a complex archaeological record, characterized by defined cultural territories for hunting and sea exploitation. 4.2 Ethnographic Background Since physical borders did not exist between tribes and other entities, the Project area and surrounding vicinity included many tribal groups. While the Chumash and Kitanemuk generally lived outside the Project area's territory, many of the people from those tribes have been listed by the NAHC as part of their ancestral homeland. The tribal groups that lived, and still do, around the Project area are listed in this section. The Project property is located in a region where prehistoric cultural history is historically minimally documented and/or understood (Kroeber 1925; Hanks 1971; Moratto 1984; King 1994; Sutton 1996). At the time of the arrival of the Spanish, the Native American people, named the Tataviam, occupied various locals in the Project vicinity which included the Santa Clara River Valley and northward to the southern Antelope Valley. However, other Native American culture groups, including the Chumash to the west, and the Gabrielino/Tongva/Kizh Nation to the south and southeast, include this area as part of their territory. The name Gabrieleno was given to the local Native Americans by the Spaniards at the time of European contact. While the Gabrieleno people have been mostly associated with the San Gabriel Mission, their territory was much larger. In fact, the name Gabrieleno was derived from the name of the first Spanish Catholic Mission established in the Los Angeles area (Figure 6) (Pitt and Pitt 1997; Street 2008). The Gabrieleno people, at the time of European contact, were regarded as the richest, largest, and most dominant group in southern California aside from the Chumash, in part due to the abundance of resources available to them in the general Los Angeles area (Figure 7). They were not agriculturists since their economy was based on hunting and gathering, including fishing and acorn processing, as well as trade. One object of trade was steatite or soapstone, an easily carved metamorphic talc -schist rock useful for cookware, containers, and art. The local Southern Californian source of steatite is located on Santa Catalina Island, part of a locally unique geological terrain. Additional tribes in the Los Angeles area lived near the watersheds of the Los Angeles, San Gabriel, and Santa Ana Rivers, along the Pacific Coast, as well as the offshore islands of Santa Catalina, San Clemente, and San Nicolas. The Gabrieleno groups that lived near the ocean were believed, along with their northwestern neighbors the Chumash, to have regularly navigated the ocean near the shore. Less frequent ocean goers included the San Diegan groups to the south. The Gabrieleno constructed ocean-going canoes, called ti'at, which were built using planks sewn together edge to edge with plant and sinew material, and subsequently caulked with either pine pitch or, more commonly, asphaltum that washed ashore from oil seeps or was imported to the coastal locations from the area associated with the present-day La Brea Tar Pits. (Blackburn 1978; 2020-10 30 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment Bean and Smith 1978). Figure 6. Gabrieleno women outside the San Gabriel Mission (early 20th century) 2020-10 31 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment :d r:, r N, t ■ Tehachapi%r r!r " N p Emigdiano Chumash Castac; r te. Kitanemuk �t r FL Tejon■Chhumash S_• -- C"d.strlk-Q F `, L a rrrJ ._ 0hwi4ahov Y 7� j{,�eantc�nr! f.. Lietwe Pr ,L�i-•.; ��,^,�_SaMrnil! �irllrp, Y r`'• tikkattsig� ~~ KUvur1q�* , 007ir} Venal ren- (l Huyung r -.�r Chl1lll'd5h Etseng`! l t asyue� �akavaivya sek'spe, - Piru J"*is a RU)►7 r, e�spe■ pf?irukug ka ■ ewhall ,5f"' !r':►„rr L,a •Tochonanga �t' } /San Fernando Mission � alCrs. Proj ct Location Gabrielina ,r , Cl ! I 1 Miles ;1 77� Kllometors p`kfh• ' 0Ci r` Figure 7. Tataviam territory shaded in gray and general Project vicinity circled in red (King and Blackburn, 1978) Kroeber states that little data exists describing the life way of the Tataviam, named after a remnant Takic language group, ethnographically identified as a Serrano division of the Shoshonean (Kroeber 1925). Originally, the anthropological literature referenced these groups as using the name that the Hokan speaking Chumash people used: Alliklik or Palliklik (Kroeber 1925). Early 20th Century ethnography Alfred Kroeber (1925) states that at some later point in their history, the name Alliklik was changed to the name Tataviam. Nowadays, much more is known about the Tataviam, and their rich history that has been documented. 2020-10 32 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment At the time of European contact Tataviam territory may have ranged east of Piru, within the entire upper Santa Clara River region, northwards to Pastoria Creek and east to Mt. Gleason (Figure 3). It appears that the Tataviam lived in close contact with their eastern-Chumash and Gabrieleno/Tongva neighbors to the south (Hanks 1971; King and Blackburn 1978; Moratto 1984) as hunter and gatherers. Like many Californian culture groups known as hunter/gatherers, the Tataviam lived in small villages and satellite camps near water sources originating in the local mountains, foothills, and adjacent desert areas. More specifically, Newhall is the general location of the Tataviam village Tochonanga, "a name linguistically associated with the Late Prehistoric Gabrielino territories" (Johnston 1962; Merriam 1968, as cited in McKenna et al. 2003: 5). Hunter/Gatherer subsistence consisted primarily of plants and animals found in the foothills, such as acorns, seeds, berries, deer and rabbit. Many other plants were also utilized, such as yucca, cactus, and screw beans (Moratto 1984; Robinson 1987; King 1994; Sutton 1996). Seasonal settlement and resource exploitation rounds may have included natural spring areas as well as the foothill creeks that drain into the Santa Clara River. These hunter/gatherer groups were prolific lithic tool manufacturers and basket makers, as evinced in the archaeological record. The Tataviam people were a socially complex hunter/gatherer group that occupied the area. Culturally, they were very similar to their Chumash and Gabrieleno/Tongva neighbors. Unfortunately, most of the culturally significant information, such as religious beliefs, traditions, oral histories, and folklore of the Tataviam and Gabrieleno/Tongva people was lost during the Mission Period. This was the result of forced cultural assimilation by the Spanish, and the decline of population due to the introduction of European diseases to the region. The Tataviam lived in various villages within the upper regions of the Santa Clara River and extended over the Sawmill Mountains to the north and included the southwestern areas of the Antelope Valley (Figure 6). The Tataviam also lived where Saugus, Agua Dulce and Lake Elizabeth are located today and those that live today are currently working with the Native American Heritage Commission to become a federally recognized tribe. Many of the tribal members live and work in the Santa Clarita area. 4.3 Historic Background The Historic Period begins when the first Spanish explorers recorded in writing their observations of the area and its inhabitants. The Historic Period in California is divided into four general phases: The Exploration Period (1542 to 1769 CE), the Spanish Period (1769 to 1821 CE), the Mexican Period (1821 to 1846 CE), and the American Period (1846 CE to Present). 4.3.1 Exploration Period (1542 to 1769 CE) European explorers made sporadic visits into the general Los Angeles area during the 16th Century. For example, Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo, an ethnic Portuguese explorer working for the Spanish crown, arrived at San Pedro Bay in 1542 (Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984), although the bay was not named until 1602 by Sebastian Vizcaino during his survey of the Pacific shore between Acapulco and Oregon (Gumprecht 1999). Extensive Spanish interaction with the Gabrieleno began in 1769 when Gaspar de Portola led an overland expedition from San Diego across southern California with Franciscan Padre Juan Crespi as part of a plan to affirm Spanish control over California that was threatened by the Russians and the British. Juan Crespi recorded this particular expedition in diaries and records. According to interpretations of these documents, the expedition party traveled through present day Elysian Park during the beginning of August and was awed by 2020-10 33 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment a river that flowed from the northwest, past Elysian Park, and southward. It was Portola who named the river El Rio de Nuestra Senora la Reina de los Angeles de Porciuncula, which translates to "The River of Our Lady Queen of the Angels of Porciuncula." (The river Porciuncula is the present-day Los Angeles River, now mainly a concrete waterway.) The expedition travelers camped in that area. It is documented that they crossed the San Gabriel and Santa Ana Rivers as well. While much of the water of the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers flows underground, the waters of the Los Angeles River were forced above the river sands at Griffith Park and Elysian Park by underground geological formations before they dropped again below the sands south of what is now downtown Los Angeles. Only during severe winter floods would there be substantial aboveground water that would appear in the riverbeds of all three rivers. Crespi described the Los Angeles River as only slightly smaller than the two other rivers. The Los Angeles River's main riverbed, downstream from the Los Angeles area and Bunker Hill, may well have been near what is now Washington Boulevard and Ballona Creek as it was during the early 1800s, though Crespi's chronicle indicates it following its more currently known southerly flow. A major flood in 1825 shifted its main course southward to join the San Gabriel River at one of that river's old course alignments (Gumprecht 1999). The Portola expedition returned to Los Angeles during the winter on its way back to San Diego from the San Francisco Bay area, having missed its initial destination, Monterey Bay. Portola would head another expedition through Los Angeles in the spring of 1770, again on the way to Monterey Bay (Starr 2005). 4.3.2 Spanish Period (1769 to 1821 CE) Twelve years after Portola's voyages, an expedition organized by the Spanish Governor of California, Felipe de Neve, established a pueblo on the coastal plain of the Los Angeles River. This new town was one day's ride north of San Pedro and was dedicated on September 4, 1781. The town, like the river, was named after St. Francis of Assisi's first church, St. Mary of the Angels, or El Pueblo de (Nuestra Senora) la Reina de los Angeles (de Porciuncula). The company of settlers was recruited by de Neve from the Mexican states of Sonora and Sinaloa and was known as Los Pobladores (the "townspeople" or "populators"). The original group was led by Captain Fernando Javier Rivera y Moncada and was comprised of eleven families made up of 11 men, 11 women, and 22 children. The settlers were of various ethnicities including those of Spanish, African, and Native American descent, as well as some of mixed race (mulattos and mestizos). Over time, the area known as the Ciudad de Los Angeles became the "City of Angels," and on April 4, 1850, it became known as the City of Los Angeles (Mason 2004; Pitt and Pitt 1997). The goal of the Spanish colonization effort was not only to create local populations of settling peasants and merchants, but also to include native peoples who already occupied the region into those populations. In order to incorporate the indigenous tribes, efforts were made to educate them and convert them to Christianity, turning them from "savages" into "intelligent beings—gente de razon" (Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984: 258). It is for this reason that religious missions became the cornerstone of colonization. Padre Junipero Serra, who founded 21 missions in 52 years, directed the missionization of California (Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984). Two of those missions were in Los Angeles: Mision del Santo Arcangel San Gabriel de los Temblores (San Gabriel Mission) now known as Mission Vieja established on September 8, 1771, by the Padres Angel Somera and Pedro Bonito Cambon, and San Fernando Rey de Espana Mission on September 8, 1797, by Padre Fermin Lasuen (Pitt and Pitt 1997). In order to support the Spanish settlements, missions did not just attempt to convert California Indians, but also used them to work on the farms 2020-10 34 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment and ranches present on mission grounds. Many of the Gabrieleno were gradually forced to move to the San Gabriel or San Fernando Missions to provide labor, and many of the Native Americans living on the coastal plains and inland valleys at the time were also transported here, though small groups did escape this confinement (Bean and Smith 1978). The forced interaction with the Spanish marked the beginning of the decline of the indigenous population, as a powerful force shaping the nature of the Los Angeles area. Their population was already declining, even before the arrival of a large number of Spanish, from diseases introduced by earlier explorers (Bean and Smith 1978). Mass conversions of the Gabrieleno people began in 1778 when certain village chiefs turned to Catholicism. These Gabrieleno assisted the Spanish, even though many other Gabrieleno resisted the colonization and started revolts. In 1796, the recruits used traditional Gabrieleno subsistence practices to feed the general population of the missions. By 1800, the original Gabrieleno villages were empty and the Gabrielenos and other Native Americans provided much of the labor for the European ranches, farms, and communities. The shift from hunting and gathering to a sort of feudal existence led to dietary deficiencies that eventually caused population reduction. The local population greatly suffered from the European epidemics as their population dwindled rapidly (Bean and Smith 1978). During this time, only fragmentary ethnographic information was recorded. Because of the lack of collected data, the Tongva, a group that once flourished in the rich Los Angeles environment, is one of the Native American groups that is least known ethnographically (Gumprecht 1999). 4.3.3 Mexican Period (1821 to 1846 CE) The start of the Mexican Period began when Mexico gained its independence from Spain in 1821. At the same time, the Mission system began to break down, and eventually, around 1834, the secularization of the Mission system in Alta California ended. After Mexico gained independence from Spain, California experienced a period of thriving ranchos between the years of 1821-1848. The word rancho was a general term covering farms, ranches, and settlements. The term was also used to denote a specific time frame (the Rancho Period) that encompassed the authorization of land grants in Alta California by King Carlos III of Spain (1784) as well as its redefinition with the acceptance of the state of California in the United States (1850). Some researchers restrict the Rancho Period to the time from 1824 to 1847 when the Mexican governors awarded some 800 land grants (Figure 8), most of which were former mission lands in which the Native Americans at the time were supposed to have some legal claim. The Spanish authorities had only made some 20 land grants before Mexico's Independence in 1821. Many of the land grants were or became cattle ranches, a major economic activity at that time. The Native American tribes supplied most of the labor (Starr 2005; Wlodarski 1998). 2020-10 35 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment aw 6AF � ..•Cir CfrY:YJ�(� V5 THE OLD SPANISH AND MEXICAN RANCHOS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY Figure 8. Spanish and Mexican ranchos of Los Angeles County (Eddy, Gerald A. 1937) 4.3.4 American Period (A.D. 1848 to Present) American military forces were present within California during the summer of 1846 as a result of the Mexican American War. Mexican resistance deteriorated, and the United States occupied Mexico City in 1848, marking the beginning of the American Period (1848 to Present). In February 1848, California became a U. S. holding with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. This treaty ended the Mexican American War and ceded much of the southwest (California, Nevada, Utah, and portions of Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming) to the United States. A month earlier, on January 24, 1848, gold was discovered along the American River, near 2020-10 36 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment Sacramento. The following year resulted in over 150,000 miners, known as "49-ers," descending upon California. That same year, 1849, California petitioned Congress for admission to the Union as a "free state." As a result of the Compromise of 1850, California was admitted to the Union as the 31st state on September 9, 1850 and was slave -free (Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984; State of California 2015b). In 1862, the Homestead Act was passed, allowing individuals to claim up to 160 acres of undeveloped federal land for freehold title, provided that the claimant filed an application, improved the land, and then filed for title within five years (U.S. Congress 1863). While the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo required the United States to grant citizenship to the Indians of former Mexican territories, the Constitution of California did not offer Indians protection under the law, considering them non -persons (Cook 1971). At the first State Constitutional Convention, California Indians' right to vote was denied, and in 1850, the Act for the Government and Protection of Indians was passed by the State Legislature that greatly reduced the rights of Indians and enacted harsh punishments for any crimes committed by Indians. The Act practically legalized Indian slavery by allowing city officials to arrest Indians for vagrancy (drunkenness) and then sell them to ranchers and other people to serve as a private "labor force." The law was not repealed until 1866 in order to comply with the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. However, Native Californians did not gain citizenship until 1917 when the California Supreme Court declared them citizens. Subsequently, the Indian Citizenship Act was passed in 1924 granting Indians the right to vote, but it would be more than 50 years before Indians were guaranteed their "constitutional right of religion" (OHP 1988). In 1851, the United States Congress authorized a commission to create treaties with California Indians with the goal of extinguishing all Indian land titles and instead establishing reservation land, as had been done in many other states. However, the State Senate objected to the treaties as the land that was to be used for reservations was good for agriculture and rich in minerals. As a result, the U.S. senators from California convinced the U.S. Senate to not ratify the treaties that were drawn. They were then filed with an injunction of secrecy that was not removed until 1905. The signed treaties became known as the "Lost 18 Treaties of 1852" (Castillo 1978; Johnston 1962; OHP 1988). Reservation land was still set up in California, under the leadership of Edward F. Beale and Benjamin D. Wilson, superintendent and sub -agent of Indian Affairs for California, but no new treaties were negotiated. In addition, after the treaties were "rediscovered," legislation was passed to purchase small tracts of lands, later known as rancherias, in central and north central California for "landless Indians" in those areas. Therefore, some California Indians did manage to obtain reservation land by agreeing to move to specific locations. The quality of life on reservations, though, was sometimes poor because of limited resources. There was often a lack of water, and squatters were sometimes allowed to graze their cattle on reservation land, thereby destroying crops that were supposed to feed and support the Indians (OHP 1988). The General Allotment Act of 1887, or the Dawes Act, was meant to provide California Indian families or individuals with lands. These lands were held in trust by the Bureau of Indian Affairs for 25 years, and if, after 25 years, the Indians had cultivated the land and become self-sufficient, they would gain title to the land. While the act appeared to benefit the Indians, it was designed to weaken the power of tribal governments. Many California Indians recognized the Act's ultimate goal and instead chose to either purchase land or fight for the lands they believed to be theirs in the courts. Most court cases eventually sided with American settlers, though, and most Indians 2020-10 37 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment were evicted (OUP 1988). As for the lands of which Indians did manage to gain ownership, most of them were taken away by laws enacted since 1900 (Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984). The California Indian Jurisdictional Acts, or Lea Act, was passed in 1928 that allowed California Indians to either lay claim to certain lands in court or gain recompense, however Indians gained few victories and were often left homeless (OUP 1988). One of the reasons that it was difficult for California Indians to obtain land was due to the arrival of the railroads in the late 1800s and early 1900s, which brought in a new influx of immigrants. The rail lines initially only connected the Los Angeles area to the Pacific Ocean, but California would be connected to the rest of the country when Central Pacific and other major railroad companies started working on a southern transcontinental route across the United States known as the Sunset Route. This route was completed in 1883 and connected San Francisco to New Orleans. The portion of the route built through the Los Angeles area was constructed by Southern Pacific in the 1870s (see below). The Southern Pacific enjoyed a railroad monopoly in California until 1885 when the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe (AT&SF) completed a line into southern California. The two railroads then "engaged each other in a fierce rate war" that drove passenger ticket prices to as low as one dollar (Tang 2003:5). This competition resulted in significant immigration to southern California, which was a large factor in the southern California land boom in the 1880s. New towns emerged on newly acquired land and on former cattle ranches both along the coast and in the valleys. With the advent of refrigerated cars, the railroads were able to transport perishable produce, including fresh fruit, to distant eastern cities. This development enabled southern California to become a major agricultural center (Tang 2003, 2009), thus further depleting the land available to California Indians. Native Americans faced dangers beyond what they had experienced through missionization and loss of territory. Vigilante groups and militias were established to kill Indians and to kidnap their children. As a result, close to 100,000 Californian Indians perished and much of the tribal continuity throughout the state was extinguished (Castillo 1978). The last comprehensive survey of the Gabrielino occurred in 1852. It found that most of the traditional communities had disappeared, the use of the indigenous language had declined, and many traditional ceremonies and practices had been abandoned (McCawley 1996). By 1900, they had "ceased to exist as a culturally identifiable group" (Bean and Smith 1978:540). 4.3.5 History of the Project Vicinity A 1769 expedition, led by Father Junipero Serra led to the observation of the Native American villages that once existed near what would become the Eternal Valley and Mortuary Park property and the surrounding regions (Kingsley and Gates, 1969). As previously mentioned, in section 4.2 various Native American tribes did not have physical borders therefore the Project area and surrounding vicinity included many tribal entities. At the time of the arrival of the Spanish, the Native American people, named the Tataviam, primarily occupied various locals in the Project vicinity which included the Santa Clara River Valley and northward to the southern Antelope Valley. Though it is important to note that various other Native American people lived in this same region which included the Chumash to the west, and the Gabrieleno/Tongva/Kizh Nation to the south, and also the Kitanemuk, as stated in the last section. 2020-10 38 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment Father Juan Crespi, a spiritual leader in the expedition led by Father Serra, observed and recorded the property that is now the Eternal Valley and Mortuary Park property and considered it a 'very suitable site for a mission." However, Father Serra's vision did not come to be since the San Fernando Mission was established in 1797 in another location instead (Kingsley and Gates, 1969). This mission quickly sought to force cultural assimilation among all the Native American people of the area which led to the decline of population due to the introduction of European diseases to the region. After the establishment of the mission, many of the California Missions began developing extensions, sub -missions (asistencias), or ranchos (estancias), intended to extend their reach and provide more areas for livestock and agriculture (Worden 1996). In 1804, an asistencia was established for the San Fernando Mission, at the junction of Castaic Creek and the Santa Clara River (Figure 9). This asistencia served as a headquarters for local activities of the mission and a training school for local trade students who provided labor force for the mission's maintenance and operation. Cap— - .,�. ►. + 1 \ I `vat w` ! IMP — Artiste reconstrartt in of the Aatsteneta or Mission San Fernando, buUt la 1804. near the ':Lstalc Jumtlon. It was later "cWied bj the itsl Palls after Grant of Rancho San franclecc. hone b7 Adolph Henkel, of Nertul.l 1957 Figure 9. Reconstructed image of the asistencia built on the Eternal Valley and Mortuary Park property (Kingsley and Gates, 1969). The mission system quickly begun to decay upon Mexico's independence from Spain in 1821. Soldiers, rancheros, and farmers desired the coastal lands that the missions controlled, but between 1834 and 1836, the Mexican government confiscated these California mission properties. This quickly began the efforts to secularize the missions by breaking up the properties through selling or given away to private citizens. Secularization was started with the goal to return the land to the Native Americans that occupied the mission properties. In actuality, most Native Americans were 2020-10 39 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment put to work on ranchos or went to live among Native American people in the interior of the state. Lieutenant Antonio del Valle was commissioned by the Governor of California, Jose Figueroa, to oversee the San Fernando Mission inventory, in 1834 in order to begin secularization proceedings. He was then appointed as administrator for the mission and urged Governor Figueroa that a military presence was necessary to stop ex -mission Native Americans from stealing horses and cattle (Kingsley and Gates, 1969). By 1839, California's new governor, Juan B. Alvarado granted Antonio del Valle the rights and property of Rancho San Fernando consisting of the western Santa Clarita Valley and portions of Ventura County. This decision quickly angered the Native Americans (stated in local literature as the Tataviam) since this land was not returned under their ownership. Under this grant, Antonio del Valle's family was the first to own Rancho San Fernando, but upon his death in 1841, it was divided among his children. Francisco Lopez, a cousin of Antonio del Valle, made the first discovery of gold in California which ultimately led to the first gold mining camp located at Placenta Canyon. The discovery also led to interest from people in all parts of California and Mexico to visit the region in search of gold and by 1849, the California Gold Rush was in full effect. Pioneer merchants in the neighboring Pueblo de Los Angeles quickly received notice of the opportunities that existed north of their area and then sought a way to travel between the pueblo, gold mining areas, and the newly established Fort Tejon. A toll road, known as the San Fernando Pass, was being developed over the hills that divided the gold mining camps from the southern regions of Pueblo de Los Angeles. The road was not opened until 1855 but constant road improvements were required such that in 1861, the California State Legislature hired Andres Pico's franchise to make major improvements to the road. Eventually, General Edward F. Beale was granted the rights for road improvements after a storm in 1862 washed away Pico's infrastructure. Beale was charged with collecting tolls for this road and his men deepened the cut of the road using only shovels and pickaxes. With the advent of this new pass and gold mining still prominent, traffic quickly increased between Los Angeles and the northern territories which meant there was a higher need for stage stops. As a result, Henry C. Wiley and Jose Ygnacio del Valle established the first stage depot on what would eventually become the Eternal Valley and Mortuary Park property. Two twin pioneer brothers known as Sanford and Cyrus Lyons were so enticed to leave the east coast by the talk of the California Gold Rush that they emigrated to the west in 1849. They settled down in Los Angeles and worked as clerks in a mercantile store to save money to buy a business. In 1855, the brothers quickly purchased the stage depot from Wiley and del Valle and renamed it Lyons Station. Remnants of this old stop can still be seen near the entrance of the Eternal Valley and Mortuary Park property and has been recognized as California Registered Historical Landmark No. 688. The station included a main building which contained a store, post office, and tavern that served all pioneers who visited. There was also a large stable for horse care and a cottage home. Within the same property of Lyons Station, the first burial grounds for deceased locals and pioneers were developed. This location became the first burial plots of what would later become the Eternal Valley and Mortuary Park. In honor of these first pioneers that worked in the gold mines and visited Lyons Station, the early burials were moved to a garden within the Eternal Valley and Mortuary Park property and named it "The Garden of the Pioneers". Sanford Lyon and some of his family members can be found in this section of the Eternal Valley and Mortuary Park property as seen in Figure 10. 2020-10 40 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment Figure 10. View toward the southeast of the Lyon/Devendorf family headstone at Eternal Valley Henry Mayo Newhall, an early pioneer of Santa Clarita, emigrated from Saugus Massachusetts to the area in 1850 after selling his auction firm to join the Gold Rush in California. However, when reaching the State of California, he realized that most of the gold mining sites had already been claimed, so he proceeded to focus on railroad manufacturing. Through his financial success, he invested in rail companies, specifically in 1857, for the rail systems that would connect San Francisco to other cities. Through this work he became president of the San Francisco and San Jose Railroad, but then decided to resell the railroad company to the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1868, where he joined its Board of Directors. After much success in his railroad investments, Newhall returned to auctioneering and began to focus on real estate. Newhall's largest purchase in the area was the acquisition of Rancho San Francisco which was later renamed after his death as Newhall Ranch. At that time of the Rancho San Francisco acquisition, construction had begun for the San Fernando railroad tunnel through the Newhall Pass. This construction effort of the railroad tunnel was met with cave-ins and explosions which led to a number of victims to be buried in the early Lyon Station Cemetery. Additionally, this construction also led to approximately 1,500 workers to establish a new town near the Southern Pacific Railroad construction and near the mouth of Soledad Canyon. However, upon completion of the railroad, many of this new town's occupants departed and left a gap in the town's economy. As a result, this forced the preliminary workers town to move in 1878 three miles south and officially became known as the town of Newhall in 1878. Of additional interest, Henry Newhall named the town of Saugus after his Massachusetts birthplace. This location was where the first station that was built on the rail line. 2020-10 41 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment The Kentuckian native Henry Clay Needham began to establish the prohibition Kansas laws that he wrote, enacted by then Kansas governor John St. John, when he arrived in downtown Newhall in 1888. In order to expand on and achieve their ideas of prohibition, St. John, along with George B. Katzenstein of Sacramento and James Yarnell of Los Angeles, combined their finances in 1887 to purchase 10,000 acres of land from the town of Newhall. Their goal was to establish a subdivision of the Newhall property as a "dry" colony, so they hired Henry Needham to supervise the establishment of the St. John Subdivision. Needham plotted out the subdivision and, in his design, the area included Lyons Station and Lyons Station Cemetery and ran all the way north through the present Circle J tract to Soledad Canyon Road. Needham also decided to settle on approximately a 700 acre lot, known as Needham Ranch, within this subdivision. The property is located southwest of today's intersection of Newhall Avenue and Sierra Highway. As part of his 700 acre lot, the property for the Lyons Station and Cemetery was included, in which the Lyons Station Cemetery became known as the Needham Family Cemetery. Under the terms of the grant deeds, anyone caught in possession of alcohol in the property was subject to foreclosure. Under his leadership, Needham attempted to build up the area through land sales by attracting people from the Los Angeles area. Most of the settlers were chicken ranchers, fruit tree growers and vineyard keepers. One of Needham's supporters was Alex Mentry, famous of his own right regarding the Pico Canyon oil field. Alex Mentry would not allow liquor in his own town of Mentryville. The penalty for drinking was the loss of the individual's land and property deed. In 1957 Needham's heirs sold the property to Louis Visco, known as the San Fernando Valley trash king. Visco proposed plans to turn the Railroad Canyon into a large landfill. However, the town officials of Newhall placed a moratorium on constructing on any unclassified land which would impact Viscos plans so, he sold the property to Mark T. Gates Sr., a renown funeral director. Born on December 29, 1907, in Nebraska, Mark T. Gates Sr. eventually become a prominent businessman in Los Angeles. He established Gates, Kingsley, and Gates Funeral Home in Santa Monica and even served as mayor of Santa Monica from March 1947 to April 17, 1951, after the Santa Monica city charter reform switched to a council-manager form of government. Previously, the city was run by three elected commissioners. As part of his mortuary business, Gates Sr. eventually purchased the 750-acre Needham Ranch in 1957 to develop the Eternal Valley Memorial and Mortuary Park within the northeastern corner of the property. The cemetery was originally established as a non-profit by leaders in the community in the same location as Lyons Station and was established on a 220 acre section of the property that included the old Pioneer Cemetery. Since the cemetery was established in the same local as Lyons Station, developers of the cemetery decided to pay tribute to the earlier pioneers that were laid to rest at the station by moving all headstones into one central area known as the "The Garden of the Pioneers". In the early 20th Century, Mark Gates Jr., son of Mark Gates Sr., together with the new cemetery owner and local landowner Hank Arklin, developed part of the old Needham Ranch property and part of Arklin's own property into the Gate -King Industrial Park. The crypt of Mark T. Gates Sr. and his wife Margaret is located inside the mausoleum at Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Park (Figure 11). When he had died in 1972, his company sold most of the Eternal Valley property, but retained 584 acres of the ex -Needham Ranch. 2020-10 42 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment Figure 11. View of the Mark T. and Margaret Gates crypt located at Eternal Valley and Mortuary Park mausoleum. 5.0 METHODOLOGY 5.1 Cultural Resources Records Search On December 16, 2020, APRMI requested a cultural resource records and literature search from the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), the local repository for the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), located on the campus of California State University Fullerton, in Fullerton, California, to identify any cultural resources on or near the Project site. A quarter -mile search radius was utilized around the Project. This records search reviews current inventories of the NRHP, California Historical Landmarks (CHL), California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI), Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD), for Los Angeles County, and the CRHR to determine any local resources that have been previously evaluated for historic significance. The National Map's Historical Topographic Map Collection (HTMC) provides a digital repository of USGS 1:250,000 scale and larger maps printed between 1884, the inception of the topographic mapping program, and 2006. This database was used to observe the historic land uses of surrounding Project vicinity and to observe the development of the built environment within the Project area itself. Analysis of the Historic Aerial Photographs provided by the Google Earth Pro software were also used to conduct a similar assessment of the Project area. 2020-10 43 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment For the purposes of this assessment, the OUP's definition of historic resources was used in that any building or object that is 45 years of age or older is considered historic (OHP 1995). 5.2 Archival Research Additional research was conducted through different inventory databases and/or historic societies to acquire more information or knowledge of cultural resources within the Santa Clarita Valley. The Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society is a nonprofit volunteer organization dedicated to preserving the heritage of the Santa Clarita Valley. Archival records of the Project site found within the Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society data base were reviewed for additional background information of cultural resources. 5.3 Field Reconnaissance On October 18, 2020, Ms. Robin Turner, Mr. John Flynn, and Mr. Miguel Miguel conducted a field reconnaissance of the Project area to evaluate the presence of any cultural resources to determine if the development of the Project would have any significant direct or indirect adverse impacts on such resources. The survey began atop the highest elevation point of the Project area and continued down to the lower elevations for further evaluation. Pedestrian survey methods were conducted in undeveloped areas with clear brush access and high ground visibility. The Project area was surveyed in transects approximately 10 feet (3 m) apart towards a northern direction. Vegetation, topography, and fauna observations were photographed and noted for any potential significant adverse impacts that may be caused by the development of the Project. All photos, and field notes are stored in the APRMI office. 5.4 Amended Field Reconnaissance On June 15, 2021, APRMI was requested to conduct an amended field reconnaissance of the Project area due to amended plans of the areas that will be graded/excavated and the addition of a proposed development for a new mausoleum servicing the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary. Ms. Robin Turner, Ms. Viridiana Garcia, and Mr. Miguel Miguel conducted this second amended field reconnaissance to assess if the new additions to the Project will have any significant direct or indirect adverse impacts on cultural or tribal resources. This survey began at the northern most areas that would slightly extend the boundary of the original Project and then extended to the southeast and eastern boundaries of the Project area that will include the new mausoleum. Surveyors walked only in areas that were accessible due to vegetation absence in transects approximately 10 feet (3 m) apart towards a southern direction. Some areas were not accessible due to an adjacent development that was conducting mass grading along the Needham Ranch Parkway road that serves as the western most boundary for the Project area. Other areas were not accessible due to dense vegetation and topography that restricted APRMI surveyors. New vegetation and fauna not observed in the previous field reconnaissance were noted. Updated photographs of this amended field reconnaissance are stored in the APRMI office. 2020-10 44 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment 6.0 RESULTS OF RECORDS SEARCHES 6.1 Cultural Resources Records Search Results of the cultural records search are discussed in detail below as catalog numbers assigned by the SCCIC. Any building assessment discussed below that state NRHP, CRHR, or HCM criterion determinations are made by the author or investigators of the report studies or site record and not made by APRMI. Criterion requirements may be viewed in Regulatory Setting section. 6.1.1 Prehistoric Sites and Isolate(s) No previously recorded prehistoric archaeological sites or isolates were identified within the Project property or within a quarter -mile radius of the Project alignment. 6.1.2 Historic Sites and Isolate(s) No previously recorded historic sites or isolates were identified within the Project property or within a quarter -mile radius of the Project alignment. 6.1.3 Built Environment Historic property results include 1 primary record for the Southern California Edison (SCE) Big Creek East & West Transmission Line located outside of the Project area but is still within a quarter mile radius. The SCE Big Creek East & West Transmission Line consists of two parallel electrical transmission lines, labeled as the West Line and East Line. Construction for this structure occurred between 1912-1913 which makes it approximately 107-108 years old. The original purpose for this structure is known as a 241-mile long electric transmission line that was originally used to transfer power from the Big Creek Powerhouses in the Sierra National Forest to the Eagle Rock Substation in Los Angeles, California. Initially constructed by the Pacific Light and Power Company (PLPC), in 1917, PLPC conveyed all Big Creek rights and property to SCE. Once construction was complete, the transmission lines were regarded as the longest spanning and highest voltage transmission line at 150kV in the world. The structure is considered as a contributing element to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) listed district of the Big Creek Hydroelectric System Historic District (BCHSHD). The BCHSHD was listed on the National Register on July 26, 2016. Despite this structure to be located within a quarter -mile radius of the Project, it will not be directly or indirectly affected by the Project. Primary Records and the results of the SCCIC records search can be viewed in Table 2 and Appendix B. Table 2. Results of SCCIC Built Environment DescriptionPrimary Resource i ,. Location Number Type and P-19- Historic SCE's Big Creek 2002 (June A. Listed in the National Outside of 186861 Structure East & West Schmidt) Register as Contributor Project area Transmission Line to a listed district Upon independent review of the California Historical Landmark registry, it has been determined that the Lyons Station Stagecoach Shop is considered a significant historical landmark. This site 2020-10 45 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment was the location of a store, post office, telegraph office, tavern, and stage depot that accommodated travelers during the California Gold Rush in the early 1850s. A regular stop for Butterfield and other early California stage lines, it was purchased by Sanford and Cyrus Lyons in 1855, and by 1868. Only one building remains is marked by a plaque with the California Historical Landmark No. 688, sited in front of the Eternal Valley Memorial and Mortuary Park. Though this landmark is registered as a California Historical Landmark, it is located a quarter mile outside of the actual Project area and will not be directly or indirectly affected by Project development. 6.1.4 Historic Topographic Maps APRMI's independent review of the USGS HTMC did not identify any buildings or structures within the immediate property of the Project area between 1903 to 1933 (Figure 12). Development of the surrounding community did include the San Francisco and New Orleans Rail line that extended on a north to south trend, west of the Project area. By the year 1933, this rail line was observed in topographic maps as the Southern Pacific Railroad. This rail line is still actively in service and operated by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Amtrak. Suburban sprawl was also observed in the vicinity, but no buildings or structures were located within the Project boundaries at this time. The SCE Big Creek East & West Transmission Line, discussed in the previous section, can be seen in the 1929 topographic map and onwards. It is located approximately southwest of the Project area as indicated by the dashed lines that intersect the railroad. 1903 1929 �' 1933°- - i 9 f �y P ' Flag a I k ' F1 �I Al' 2 ' � f x ; . Figure 12. Historic topographic maps from 1903 to 1933 with approximate location of the Project area outlined in red. 2020-10 46 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment 1952 -- `_3; w �' .:h 1969a�';neF1 ' ` 1975 � •' � t q �-��y vas 41 ,•�\ fry. -,' �i �Y� 1� n C a Al ' # •¢o �\ Tri V ,� •• _ F . ti j BM �- Figure 13. Historic topographic maps from 1952 to 1975 with approximate location of the Project area outlined in red. Per the historic topographic maps, from 1952 to 1975 there were no buildings or structures identified in the Project area, but urban development of the surrounding vicinity rapidly increased (Figure 13). The 1952 topographic map revealed a "historic refinery" located northwest of the Project area near the intersection of San Fernando Road and the Southern Pacific Railroad. This refinery is known as the Pioneer Oil Refinery that was located on Pine Street beginning in 1877 and first encountered by oil driller Alex Mentry. The City of Santa Clarita acquired this property as a gift from Chevron USA in 1997. The city intended to restore the property into a public park for the community in conjunction with the development of the Gate -King Industrial Park, also known as Needham Ranch business park. In early 2021, while grading for Phase II of the Needham Ranch business park was underway, the City of Santa Clarita began physical work on the restoration of the refinery, beginning with temporary removal of original refinery features to proceed their soil stabilization. Additionally, roads for the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary are visibly present in the 1969 topographic map. Upon conclusion of this review, no buildings or structures were observed directly on the Project property. It is important to note that the scale of these maps can affect the observed built environment as some may not meet the criteria for structures to be observed. 6.1.5 Historic Aerials Photographs Historic aerial photographs provided by the Google Earth Pro software spans the timeline between 1985 to 2022 (Figure 14 and Figure 15). From 1985 to 2008, no buildings or structures were observed within the Project boundaries. Over this span of years, no disturbance of the Project area was observed except for minimal fire road maintenance associated with the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary property. However, the neighboring development of the Needham Ranch business park that began in 2017, located directly west adjacent of the Project area, did 2020-10 47 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment cause land disturbance. It was observed that the lower southern portion of the Project area was slightly graded to allow for construction staging. This type of work typically involves surficial grading and minor excavation. Therefore, cultural resources that were present on the surface may have been lost, but buried resources may still be present and encountered at the time of earth disturbing activities related with the development of the Project. Figure 14. Historic aerial photographs from 1952 to 1975, provided by the Google Earth Pro software, with location of the Project area outlined in red. Figure 15. Historic aerial photographs from 1952 to 1975, provided by the Google Earth Pro software, with location of the Project area outlined in red. 2020-10 48 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment 6.1.5 Reports and Studies Two studies and assessments (see Table 3) were conducted within a quarter -mile radius from the Project area, but no significant cultural resources were documented that would be directly or indirectly be affected by the proposed Project development. A list of identified Cultural Reports and Studies can be viewed in Appendix A. Cultural Reports and Studies that state NRHP, CRHR, or HCM criterion determinations are made by the author or investigators of the reports and studies and not determined by APRMI. Table 3. Results of SCCIC Cultural Reports and Studies Identified LA-02317 McKenna, 1991 A Class I Cultural Resources Investigation for the Within 1/4 Jeanette A. Proposed Elsmere Canyon Solid Waste mile radius Management Facility, Newhall, Los Angeles County, California LA-03829 Metcalf, Neil 1996 Archaeological Reconnaissance Report: Tanbark Within11/4 Fuelbark_ LA Countv mile radius 6.2 Archival Research Research obtained from the Santa Clarita Historical Society archival database, determines that the Project area was first established in the year 1888 by Mark T. Gates Senior. This extensive historic context is described in detail in section 4.3.5 History of the Project Vicinity. After careful examination of the history of the Project area, it is important to mention that early cemeteries often would exclude certain members from the community to be buried on their premises. This exclusionary tactic forced some community members to bury their deceased on the outskirts of the fenced cemetery boundaries specifically in the back of these properties, due to lack of funds that were needed to bury their family/associates within the cemetery boundary, or to bury people considered "undesirables" to be buried within the cemetery. Some of these people may have been buried at these locations in secrecy and without the knowledge of cemetery officials. The Project area studied is in the western most extent of the larger cemetery property, but the date of acquisition of this portion of the property is unknown. Therefore, there is a potential to uncover these informal burials at the time of Project related earth disturbing activities. APRMI recommends that full time on -site archaeological construction monitoring be conducted. Additional research identified two potential Native American village sites, north of the Project area, as denoted on the Map of Indian Villages in the Santa Clarita Valley by Richard F. Van Valkenburgh, 1937 (Figure 16). The two villages identified are known as Nuhubit to the east and Apebit to the west. No extensive information could be recovered regarding the significance, origin, or type of villages identified, due to the confidentiality that the Native American tribes hold regarding their ancestral homeland. Van Valkenburgh's identification of village locations are considered approximations by the Santa Clarita Historical Society and therefore more information regarding the exact location of these villages is required by the Native American tribal Chairmen/woman themselves. 2020-10 49 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment ..Mrr.• •� r'/9i4LlL UJ AW��11`.°il I, °prr�xlirr• r iw ,tr•rlrrq. �'t i/LIIClYLL1i MIf6Nw' �r wou Pic') �r� A:MI:#P'1Ft4;/� 41 Air 01 g1f�M1M° 1 4r r+. +�,+ r + 'r�♦ ♦r \1 vf1-'71r �r.+r• a 3nie 9 �•` ., r 1 ••.r° • OIL,4 "r� �f.;,r3�P tE : ApEDINt�NUd/T,°'"a.°�y *th jy E P�`�'" � i •sti.v� y�r f rMf 'rPf M 'MrhNM• •+: �.°'• / ,'kMl f � � , _ � i� r� ,�. 'f fi,, •"'• iihlf'. °r ,trrl yM1 •.,+'1�; Jay �' r•,`,ti\,y / A "4r°ri '�'• ?. �°'° /0.°4 r °r �r f 111• LA ETERNAL VAIIEY1, I w .l.,• M �lrj, ' f,• +,.. ;.. ` MEMORIAL PARK -li � :jr V w 'fl"',11i1-„f •rir•• I ..' y �� yF ra4r t►+..f 6FlAN04AKM M•� .t M +a rn` y,riSRRd• elr ' aw+'` '. {/�► r�'kj. FrgpS,J�(tq it+r Rt,t . 111Ii// � Mr'�lir� MNt �reia,�t,�InP;�.rrr,t �,. aril\4�' .'iY,��1 rye1^^rim . n r r.,••' - .full: h.,•• •° 1 " ! 1, rMh i i'IX, {{ � I "is �rk '"Jjfrsvp2 w+ p4 ♦ 11 � «pahrr i� '�' •ha4� Tr .1i11�1 A.. �r � rilfr- •rir . M I •:, �, 1 � r �t, ;fit, 4'; k'•'r�ir;;>r tip. ylll�it ' Syrh/1{�,i {r1�Si M Figure 16. Map of previously existing Native American Villages in the Santa Clarita Valley by Richard F. Van Valkenburgh, 1937, with approximate Project location highlighted in red and villages outlined in green. 7.0 RESULTS OF FIELD RECONNAISSANCE Results of the original field reconnaissance, as seen in Figures 13-15, has determined the area to be sloped terrain, and covered in naturally occurring native oak trees, sagebrush scrub, and other flowering plants. Wildlife tracks observed included black -tailed jackrabbit, deer, coyote, and cougar. Some areas of the Project area were observable and accessible, but other areas were covered in dense sagebrush scrubs which did not allow for easy pedestrian access and/or observation. These areas were still noted and photographed but ground visibility was considered low within these sections. In areas where ground visibility was high, sediments observed on the surface included unconsolidated, light brown to tan colored, alluvial silts, and sand with gravels of various origin. No cultural or tribal resources were observed or identified on the current surface of the Project area. Despite these negative results for finding significant cultural or tribal resources, there is the potential, during Project related ground disturbing activities, for unknown cultural resources to be uncovered. No known paleontological sites were found on the surface during the field reconnaissance of the of the Project. However, in conjunction with the analysis for the uncovering of cultural resources, there is potential for older alluvium and sediments from the fossiliferous Saugus Formation (see geologic setting) to be present at greater depths that may yield significant fossil remains. 2020-10 50 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment ys�F" �0 Figure 17. View north of sloped terrain and concrete gutter system Figure 18. View west of neighboring development and hill like topography 2020-10 51 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment Figure 19. View east of dense sagebrush scrub that limited accessibility in some areas 7.1 Results from the Amended Field Reconnaissance Area Updated information from the amended field reconnaissance completed in the expanded areas of the Project include the observation of two new vegetation specimens, the California Scrub Oak and chaparral yucca plants, that were not observed or noted in the previous survey. The California Scrub Oak is a small oak that can grow up to 6 meters in height and has yellow flowers. Most importantly, the California Scrub Oak (Figure 16) can produce solitary or paired brown acorns that are 1-3 centimeters long and 1-2 centimeters broad, and pointed or egg -shaped with thin caps when mature. It is a native tree in the scrubby hills throughout California. Oaks are considered an important tool used by many Native American cultures due to the acorns they produced and the various materials it provided. Not only were the acorns an essential food source, but Native Americans carved bows, wove baskets, derived medicines for treating illnesses, and built fires for warmth, cooking, and firing pottery from the wood these trees provided. Chaparral yucca plants were observed throughout the amended Project area within the dense sagebrush. These plants produce a stemless cluster of long, rigid leaves which end in a sharp point. This plant can also grow elliptically with (bell shaped) white to purplish flowers about 3 cm in diameter. The plant can take several years to reach maturity and flower. Native Americans used this plant in their daily lives too. The new fauna that was observed during the amended field reconnaissance which included a California Horn -tailed lizard that is roughly 3.4 inches from snout to vent and very flat and wide with a long, broad tail and a dark stripe running down the middle of the back. 2020-10 52 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment Figure 20. View north of California Scrub Oak present in Project area The newly added Project areas expanded the western boundary to include the section outlined in green in Figure 17, which shows the original undisturbed hill topography covered in dense vegetation. However, APRMI made note that the western margin of the Project boundary, the same area outlined in green in Figure 17, has now been graded by the neighboring development. This work could have potentially damaged, altered, or destroyed possible cultural or tribal resources because no qualified on site archaeological construction monitor or Native American monitor was present to assess this work. Additionally, since grading was currently being conducted along Needham Ranch Parkway, we were not able to survey this location due to safety concerns. 2020-10 53 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment M1� OR r� t Figure 21. (top) View west of Needham Ranch Parkway and hill topography (outlined in green), western boundary of the Project area, prior to unmonitored excavation. (bottom) View south of same area but now excavated within Project area without the presence of a cultural resource monitor. Upon conclusion of the amended field reconnaissance, APRMI did not observe or identify and cultural or tribal resources within the newly surveyed areas of the Project. As previously stated, despite these negative results for finding significant cultural or tribal resources, there is still a potential, during Project related ground disturbing activities, for unknown cultural resources to be uncovered. No known paleontological sites were observed on the surface during the amended field reconnaissance. Similar to the initial field reconnaissance, a potential still exists for older alluvium and sediments from the fossiliferous Saugus Formation (see geologic setting) to be present at greater depths below the current surface grade that may yield significant fossil remains. 2020-10 54 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment 8.0 NATIVE AMERICAN CONTACT APRMI requested a Sacred Lands File Search and a Native American Contacts list for the proposed Project area from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on November 4, 2020. The NAHC's search results were received on December 7, 2020, and it stated negative results for known sites in the Project area. The NAHC also provided APRMI with a Native American Contacts list to obtain further tribal knowledge of the Project area from associated tribe members of those associated with the larger Santa Clarita area (see Appendix Q. APRMI contacted the tribes, individuals, and organizations listed on the Contact List by phone to confirm that the mailing information is correct and to let them know that an informational package regarding the Project, including a project description, will be sent to them for comment. The Project informational package along with an accompanying letter was sent to them by mail, on December 10, 2020. All letters sent to Native American correspondents and accompanying responses can be viewed in Appendix C. On December 24, 2020, Chairperson Kenneth Kahn of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians responded to APRMI through personal letter communication and states he is interested in consulting with the City of Santa Clarita regarding the state of tribal resources sensitivity near the Project area. On December 28, 2020, Jairo F. Avila, Tribal Historic and Cultural Preservation Officer for the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians responded to APRMI through personal email letter of communication, states he is interested in the opportunity to provide tribal resources sensitive information for the proposed Project. The Tribal Historic and Cultural Preservation Department will provide cultural information for this Project during consultation with the City of Santa Clarita and Eternal Valley. On January 8, 2020, Chairperson Robert Dorame of the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council responded to APRMI through personal (verbal telephonic) communication with Robin Turner and stated he wants to be involved in all Project related updates and interested in being a Native American monitor for the Project regarding any Native American resources within the Project area. On January 22, 2020, Chairperson Anthony Morales of the Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians responded to APRMI through personal (verbal telephonic) communication with Robin Turner and stated he wants to be involved in all Project related updates and interested in being a Native American monitor for the Project regarding any Native American resources within the Project area. On January 29, Chairperson Andrew Salas of the Gabrieleno Band Of Mission Indians — KIZH Nation, responded to APRMI through personal (verbal telephonic) communication with Robin Turner and stated he wants to be involved in all Project related updates and interested in being a Native American monitor for the Project regarding any Native American resources within the Project area. 2020-10 55 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment 9.0 ASSEMBLY BILL 52 NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION The City of Santa Clarita will conduct the consultation process with the individuals listed in the previous section, and/or through their own consultation list, as required by Assembly Bill 52, and prepare the documentation that takes place between the City of Santa Clarita and Native American interested parties. APRMI will help in the process if requested by the City of Santa Clarita. Both field reconnaissance's of the Project area yielded negative results for archaeological and paleontologic resources, but there still is the potential to uncover subsurface sites or features. The Project area is considered to be an open space natural environment, that consists of native oak trees, sagebrush scrub, and flowering plants. Part of the surveyed areas were highly accessible, but other areas were covered in dense sagebrush scrub which did not allow for pedestrian access or observation. In areas where ground visibility was high, the soil type that was observed included unconsolidated, light brown to tan colored alluvial silts, and sand with gravel presumably deriving from the fossiliferous Saugus Formation. The development changes and additions to the original Project required an amended field reconnaissance that was conducted eight months after the initial reconnaissance. During the amended field survey, APRMI only observed the newly added areas and noted additional vegetation and faunal species that included the California Scrub Oak, Chaparral yucca plants, and the California Horn -Tailed Lizard. The California Scrub Oak trees was considered a valuable resource to local Native Americans for its acorns, an essential food source, and raw materials to make bows, baskets, medicine, and to build fires for warmth, cooking, and firing pottery. The presence of California Scrub Oak within the Project area suggests that local Native Americans may have traveled through these areas in search of this this highly valuable resource, especially since it is close to the two village sites nearby. APRMI also noted that the area along the western margins of the Project was graded without the presence of a cultural or tribal resource construction monitor. The neighboring developmental work on the Needham Ranch property to the west of our Project has excavated an area of an unknown depth, and graded part of our Project hillside to widen the roadway, which could have potentially contained significant cultural or tribal resources. During both reconnaissance surveys, no cultural, tribal, or paleontologic resources were identified surficially. Despite these negative results, there is still the potential to encounter cultural resources during Project related grubbing, grading, and excavation activities. During the cultural resource's records search, one historic structure was identified within a quarter - mile of the Project area. This structure, known as the SCE Big Creek East & West Transmission Line, was built between 1912-1913 and consists of two parallel electrical transmission lines that extends 241-mile long. The NRHP qualifications, this structure is considered as a contributing element to the historic district of the Big Creek Hydroelectric System Historic District. Despite this structure to be located within a quarter -mile radius of the Project, it will not be directly or indirectly affected by the development of this Project. The historic structures and cemetery in general that is part of the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary property is currently not listed as California Historical Landmarks, but they may fit the Criteria for consideration by the City of Santa Clarita as a local Landmark or Points of Interest. 2020-10 56 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment The Project location has an unknown potential for paleontological resources since no paleontological assessment was required for this Project. APRMI has extensive knowledge of the paleontological history of the region, therefore provided some background information in this document regarding such resources. The predominant rock and soil type underlying the surface of the Project site is part of the 1. 8 -milli on-year-ol d marine deposit of Pliocene -Pleistocene age named the Saugus Formation, which is composed mostly of sandstone, conglomerate deposits, with rare occurrences of limestone and laminated mudstone (White 1985). Sandstone layers within this formation are very rich in invertebrate fossils especially producing shallow -marine snails and clams. Vertebrate fossilized specimens of bison, mastodon, horse, deer, and a rare species of tapir have been uncovered within this formation at various depths (Turner 2010). Although the field reconnaissance yielded negative results for paleontological resources, this does not preclude the possibility to uncover paleontological sites or fossil remains within the Project area. 11.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The following mitigation measures are recommended by APRMI to reduce the impacts to cultural resources at the time of Project development and is summarized in Table 4. Prior to the onset of construction, a qualified archaeologist and should be retained for the Project. Project archaeologist should provide a construction personnel training classes and develop a procedure and protocol pamphlet, known as a Worker's Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP), which will be provided at each class. The training classes will include examples of cultural resources (i.e., prehistoric, Native American, and historical) to be aware of what could be found on site and what protocols and procedures are required to follow if discoveries are made. The Contractor or Subcontractor(s) will ensure that all construction personnel are made available for and attend the training and retain documentation demonstrating attendance. Under the direction of the qualified Project archaeologist, archaeological monitoring will be required during any construction -related activities (excavation) within native soil to help assure that if any archaeological resources are uncovered, or historic properties are impacted, each will be mitigated to a less -than -significant effect. If archaeological resources (i.e., isolated artifacts, sites, features, and historic burials outside of current cemetery use) are located during Project construction, all activity within fifty (50) feet of the find will stop and the qualified Project archaeologist will assess the significance of the find to determine the appropriate avoidance measures and mitigation. For any archaeological resources found at the time of monitoring, laboratory preparation, analysis, cataloging, curation, and final acceptance to a legal repository will be required. Once archaeological resource construction monitoring is completed, and the resources found have been processed in the laboratory, a final Report of Findings or Negative Findings document (if no resources are collected or observed) that summarizes the monitoring efforts, will be submitted to the implementing agency. The final report will be submitted to the City of Santa Clarita and the South Central Coastal Information Center. As determined by the qualified Project archaeologist, a qualified local Native American monitor should also be retained during ground disturbing activities, per the list of tribal contacts provided by the Native American Heritage Commission and the Native American responses to initial contact, for any sensitive Tribal cultural resources that may be uncovered. If Tribal cultural 2020-10 57 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment resources are found at the time of monitoring, all construction related excavation activity within fifty (50) feet of the find would stop, and the qualified Project archaeologist with the Native American monitor will assess the significance of the find to determine the appropriate avoidance measures and mitigation. Upon completion of cultural resource construction monitoring, a compliance report that summarizes the monitoring efforts will be prepared. This report will be submitted by the qualified Project archaeologist. Table 4. Mitigation Monitoring Measures for Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Project Impact Mitigation Measure Impact after Mitigation Measure CR-1 Construction associated No known historically significant buildings and Less than Significant. with the proposed Project would properties have been identified within or adjacent to result in the destruction or the project site. Therefore, impacts would be less than alteration of the character of significant an no mitigation is required. If building known historically significant foundations are uncovered, this Mitigation Measure buildings and properties. will become effective. CR-2 Ground disturbing MM-CR-2a Prior to the commencement of Less than Significant activities associated with construction, a qualified archaeologist shall create a Project construction could Worker's Environmental Awareness Program uncover significant prehistoric (WEAP) pamphlet that will be provided as training to or historic archaeological construction personnel to understand regulatory deposits that qualify as cultural requirements for the protection of cultural resources. resources as defined in Section This training shall include examples of cultural 15064.5 of the CEQA resources to look for and protocols to follow if Guidelines. Damage or discoveries are made. The archaeologist shall develop destruction of such resources the training and any supplemental materials necessary would be a potentially to execute said training. significant impact. MM-CR-2b Archaeological resources monitoring shall be conducted by an archaeological resource monitor, during Project related earth -disturbing activities, per OHP standards, under the supervision of a qualified Lead Archaeologist. Monitoring will entail visual inspection Project related earth - disturbing activities (i.e. trenching, shoring, mass grading, utility installation, etc.) MM-CR-2c An approved Native American monitor(s), with documented ancestral ties to the area consistent with the standards of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be present for all ground disturbing activities that involve excavation of previously undisturbed soil. Monitoring will entail visual inspection Project related earth -disturbing activities. MM-CR-2d If an archaeological resource is encountered during construction when an archaeological monitor is not on site, all construction shall cease within at least 50 feet of the discovery and the Principal Investigator and Lead Archaeologist must be notified. Work cannot resume in the direct area of the discovery until the it is assessed by the Principal Investigator and/or Lead Archaeologist and 2020-10 58 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment indicates that construction may resume. MM-CR-2e If an archaeological discovery cannot be preserved in situ and requires an excavation team or requires additional time to collect cultural resources, a Discovery and Treatment Plan (DTP) will be developed and the area will be cordoned off and secured so that an archaeological resources excavation team, led by the Principal Investigator and Lead Archaeologist, may recover the cultural resources out of that contained area. Once the Principal Investigator has determined that the collection process is complete for a given area or locality, construction activity will resume in that localized area. If human remains are encountered at any point during Project construction, the local Native American most likely descendent (MLD) must be notified if not already on site and the procedures dictated by law must be implemented. MM-CR-2f All significant cultural resources collected will be prepared in a properly equipped laboratory to a point ready for curation. Following laboratory work, all cultural resources will be identified, catalogued, analyzed, and delivered to an accredited museum repository for permanent curation and storage. Any cultural resources collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. Accompanying notes, maps, and photographs shall also be filed at the repository. The cost of curation is assessed by the repository and is the responsibility of the Project proponent. At the conclusion of laboratory work and museum curation, a final report will be prepared describing the results of the cultural mitigation monitoring efforts associated with the project. The report will include a summary of the field and laboratory methods, an overview of the cultural background within the project vicinity, a list of cultural resources recovered (if any), an analysis of cultural resources recovered (if any) and their scientific significance, and recommendations. A copy of the report will also be submitted to the designated museum repository if applicable). CR-4 Native American human MM-CR-4a In the event of Native American human Less than Significant remains may be inadvertently remains being inadvertently uncovered during Project uncovered during project construction, the Project proponent would construction. immediately cease activity in the vicinity of the discovery and notify the local Native American most likely descendent (MLD) if not already on site and the procedures dictated by law must be implemented. 2020-10 59 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment I Iall 01WD1 01 4ml Academia 2013 Metabolic Seam, Combinatorial Space in the Whitnall High -Tension Power Line Corridor. Available at http://www.academia.edu/4104886/Metabolic_Seam_Combinaton*al_Space_in the Whit nall High -Tension_ Utility Corridor, accessed January 2020. Arnold, J.E. 1995 Transportation Innovation and Social Complexity among Maritime Hunter -Gatherer Societies. American Anthropologist 97: 733-747. Bailey, Thomas L. and Richard H. Jahns 1954 Geology of the Transverse Range Province, Southern California. In Geology of Southern California, edited by Richard H. Jahns, Chapter II: Geology of the Natural Provinces, pp. 83-106. State of California, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mines, Bulletin 170 Volume 1. Bean, Lowell J. and Charles R. Smith 1978 Gabrielino. In Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 8: California, edited by Robert F. Heizer (volume editor) and William C. Sturtevant (general editor), pp. 538-549. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Bearchell, Charles A. and Larry D. Fried 1988 The San Fernando Valley: Then and Now, An Illustrated History. Windsor Publications, Inc., Northridge. Blackburn, T.C. 1963 Ethnohistoric Descriptions of Gabrieleno Material Culture. UCLA Archaeological Survey Annual Report 5: 1-50. Bolton, Herbert Eugene (editor, translator) 1930 Anza's California Expeditions. Volume IV: Font's Complete Diary of the Second Anza Expedition. University of California Press, Berkeley. Braje, Todd J., Julia G. Costello, Jon M. Erlandson, Michael A. Glassow, John R. Johnson, Don P. Morris, Jennifer E. Perry, and Torben C. Rick 2010 Channel Islands National Park Archaeological Overview and Assessment. Compiled and edited by Michael A. Glassow. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Bull, Charles Stuart 1977 Archaeology and linguistics: coastal Southern California. M.A. thesis. Department of Anthropology, San Diego State University, San Diego. Bureau of Land Management 2013 Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Arizona. National System of Public Lands. Available at http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/progiblm_special_areas/hist trails/anza.html, accessed March 30, 2015. 2020-10 60 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment California State Parks 2010 Santa Susana Pass State Historic Park. Brochure. Available from http://www.parks.ca.gov. Castillo, Edward D. 1978 The Impact of Euro-American Exploration and Settlement. In Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 8: California, edited by Robert F. Heizer (volume editor) and William C. Sturtevant (general editor), pp. 99-127. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1998 Short Overview of California Indian History. California Native American Heritage Commission. Available at http://www.nahc.ca.gov/califindian.html, accessed November 4, 2014. Chartkoff, Joseph L. and Kerry Kona Chartkoff 1984 The Archaeology of California. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. City of Glendale 2018 Glendale Design Guidelines for Residential Buildings in Adopted Historic Districts. https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showdocument?id=12904, accessed August 20, 2018. City of Los Angeles 2001 Conservation Element of the City of Los Angeles General Plan. City Planning Commission. Available at http://planning laciiy.or /g cwd/gnlpin/ConsvElt.pdf. City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning 2014 Historic -Cultural Monument (HCM) List: City Declared Monuments. City of Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks 2014 Sepulveda Basin Wildlife Reserve. Available at http://www.laparks.org/dos/horticulture/sepulvedabasin.htm, accessed March 23, 2015. Cook, Sherburn F. 1971 The Aboriginal Population of Upper California. In The California Indians: A Sourcebook, 2" d ed., edited by R.F. Heizer and M.A. Whipple. University of California Press, Berkeley. Conrey, B.L. 1967 Early Pliocene Sedimentary History of the Los Angeles Basin, California. California Division of Mines and Geology, San Francisco. County of Los Angeles 2014 Chapter 9: Conservation and Natural Resources Element. Los Angeles County General Plan 2035 Public Review Draft. Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning. Available at hiip://planning.lacoupiy.gov/generalplan/draft20l4, n�eralplan/draft20l4, accessed January 23, 2015. County of Los Angeles Public Library 2015a Agoura Hills: Frequently Asked Questions. Available at http://www.colapublib.org/history/agourahills/faq.html, accessed March 30, 2015. 2015b San Fernando: Frequently Asked Questions. Available at http://www.colgpublib.org/history/sanfemando/fag.html, accessed March 26, 2015. 2020-10 61 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment Dibblee, T.W., and Ehrenspeck, H.E. 1996 Geologic map of the Newhall quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California, Dibblee Geological Foundation Driver, H. E. 1969 Indians of North America, 2nd ed., rev., University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Dumke, Glenn S. 1944 The Boom of the Eighties in Southern California. Huntington Library, San Marino. Elliot, John F. 1979 Part IL History. In Historical Report on the Encino Roadhouse — Privy by Scientific Resources Survey, pp. 11-32. Available at SCCIC. Ewing -Toledo, Kelly 2007 Historic Resources Evaluation Report for the Southbound Interstate 405 Freeway (San Diego Frwy) to US Highway 101 (Ventura Frwy) Connector Improvement Project, Los Angeles County, California. In Historic Property Survey Report for the Southbound Interstate 405 (San Diego Fwy) to US Highway 101 (Ventura Fwy) Connector Improvement Project, Los Angeles County, California. Available at SCCIC. Fritsche, A. Eugene 1998 Miocene Paleogeography of Southwestern California and Its Implications Regarding Basin Terminology. International Geology Review 40(5):452-470. Gates, Kingsley 1969 Eternal Valley Memorial Park: California's Pioneer Cemetery, 1969. Gazzar, Brenda 2014 Campo de Cahuenga re-enactment recalls pact that helped create California. Los Angeles Daily News, January 12, 2014. Available at http://www.dailynews. com/lifestyle/20140112/cafnpo-de-cahuenga-re-enactment-recalls- pact-that-helped-create-califomia. Gumprecht, Blake 1999 The Los Angeles River: Its Life, Death, and Possible Rebirth. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, Ethel Grace Rensch, and William N. Abeloe 2002 Historic Sports in California, 5t' edition. Revised and updated by Douglas E. Kyle. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Johnson, John 1997 The Indians of Mission San Fernando. In Mission San Fernando Rey de Espana, 1797- 1997: A Bicentennial Tribute, edited by Doyce B. Nums, Jr, pp. 249-290. Historical Society of Southern California, Los Angeles. Johnston, Bernice Eastman 1962 California's Gabrielino Indians. F.W. Hodge Anniversary Publication Fund: VIII. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles. Reprinted 1964. Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1999 Cultural Resources Inventory Report for Williams Communications, Inc. Proposed Fiber 2020-10 62 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment Optic Cable System Installation Project, Los Angeles to Anaheim, Los Angeles and Orange Counties, California. Prepared for Williams Communications, Inc. Report LA-4834 and OR-2094 at SCCIC. Jorgensen, Lawrence C. (editor) 1982 The San Fernando Valley: Past and Present. Pacific Rim Research, Los Angeles. KCET 2013 Phantom Fast Lanes: Whitnall Highway and the Footprint of Best Laid Plans. Available at https://www.kcet.org/history-society/phantom-fast-lanes-whitnall-highway-and-the- footprint-of--best-laid-plans, accessed January 10, 2019. Kielbasa, John R. 1997 Historic Adobes of Los Angeles County. Dorrance Publishing Company. Kroeber, A.L. 1925 A Handbook of the Indians of California. Republished 1976 by Dover Publications, Inc., New York. Las Pilitas Nursery 1992 The Southern Oak Woodland. Updated 2013. Available at https: //www.laspilitas. com/nature-of-califomia/communities/southern-oak-woodland, accessed January 10, 2019. Laylander, Don 2000 Early Ethnography of the Californias: 1533-1825. Coyote Press Archives of California Prehistory, no. 47. Logan, W. B. & Ochshom, S. 1998 The Smithsonian Guide to Historic America: The Pacific States. Stewart, Tabori & Chang. Los Angeles Times 1903 Romantic Day, Pathetic End: Sad Burial of Once Wealthy Scion of Spain. Mass Intoned for Sr. De Cells, Who Died in Poverty. Los Angeles Man Who Once Loaned Sixty Thousand Dollars to Mexico. Los Angeles Times, 26 May 1903, p. 7. Available at ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times (1886-1922), Los Angeles Public Library, accessed March 27, 2015. Los Encinos State Historic Park 1942 San Fernando Valley: Ex Mission de San Fernando. Title insurance map archived by Los Encinos Docents Association. Electronic document available at http://historicparks.org/data/title-mW. Lozano, Carlos V. 1990 Stage Trail Has Dust of History: Santa Susana Pass: The 1861 road followed a rocky Indian footpath that ran from Chatsworth to Simi Valley. It served as the main overland commercial route to San Francisco. Los Angeles Times, June 18, 1990. Available at http://articles.latimes.com/1990-06-18/local/me-20 1 _santa-susana-pass. Luyendyk, B.P., M.J. Kamerling, R.R. Terres, and J.S. Homafius 1985 Simple Shear of Southern California during Neogene Time Suggested by Paleomagnetic 2020-10 63 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment Declinations. Journal of Geophysical Research 90(B14): 12454-12466. Mayers, Jackson 1976 The San Fernando Valley. John D. McIntyre, Walnut, CA. Mayflower Club 2018 Welcome Mayflower Club. (2018, December 04). Accessed December 2018, from http://mayflowerclub.com/welcome/ McCawley, William 1996 The FirstAngelinos: the Gabrielino Indians ofLos Angeles. Malki Museum Press (Novato, CA) and Ballena Press (Banning, CA). Mision Vieja 2012 The Kizh/Gabrieleno People and Mision Vieja. La Mision Vieja: First LA European Settlement. Posted December 21, 2012. Available at http://misionviej a.blogspot.com/2012/ 12/the-kizhgabrieleno-people-and-mision.html, accessed October 24, 2014. Moratto, Michael J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando. Reprinted 2004 by Coyote Press, Salinas. Nadeau, Remi A. 1965 The City Makers: The Story of Southern California's First Boom. Trans-Anglo Books, Corona del Mar. National Park Service 2015 EXPLORE — Follow the Anza Expedition. Juan Batista de Anza National Historic Trail. Available at http://www.anzahiston*ctrail.org/visit/explorer, accessed March 30, 2015. Neuerburg, Norman 1997 The Indian Via Crucis from Mission San Fernando: An Historical Exposition. In Mission San Fernando Rey de Espana, 1797-1997: A Bicentennial Tribute, edited by Doyce B. Nunis, Jr, pp. 329-382. Historical Society of Southern California, Los Angeles. Nunis, Doyce B., Jr. 1997 The Franciscan Friars of Mission San Fernando, 1797-1847. In Mission San Fernando Rey de Espana, 1797-1997: A Bicentennial Tribute, edited by Doyce B. Nunis, Jr, pp. 217-248. Historical Society of Southern California, Los Angeles. OHP (Office of Historic Preservation) 1988 Five Views: An Ethnic Site Survey for California. California Department of Parks and Recreation. On-line book available at http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/5views/5views.htm. 1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Electronic document, http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/ 1054/files/manual95.pdf. Pitt, Leonard and Dale Pitt 1997 Los Angeles A to Z: An Encyclopedia of the City and County. University of California Press, Berkeley. 2020-10 64 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment Quinn, James P. 1992 Rancho La Brea: Geologic Setting, Late Quaternary Depositional Patterns and Mode of Fossil Accumulation. In The Regressive Pleistocene Shoreline: Coastal Southern California. South Coast Geological Society Annual Field Trip Guide Book No. 20, pp. 221-232. 2001 The Geologic Setting of Rancho La Brea. In Rancho La Brea: Death Trap and Treasure Trove, edited by John M. Harris, Terra 38(2): 46-49. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. Raab, L.M., and A. Yatsko. 1990 Prehistoric Human Ecology of Quinquina: A Research Design for Archaeological Studies on San Clemente Island, Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 26(2 & 3):10-37. Rand McNally 2008 The Thomas Guide: Los Angeles & Orange Counties street guide. Rand McNally & Company, Chicago. Reid, Hugo and Robert F. Heizer (editor, annotator) 1968 The Indians of Los Angeles County: Hugo Reid's Letters of 1852. Southwest Museum Papers Number Twenty-one, Los Angeles. Roberts, L. and J. Brock 1987 Cultural Resources Archival Study: Whittier Narrows Archaeological District, Report prepared by Archaeological Advisory Group, Newport Beach, for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles district. Robinson, W.W. 1961 The Story of San Fernando Valley. Title Insurance and Trust Company, Los Angeles. Roderick, Kevin 2003 The San Fernando Valley: America's Suburb. Second Edition. Angel City Press, Santa Monica. Rozaire, Charles E. 1960 The Archaeology at Encino, California. Annual Report, Archaeological Survey, Department of Anthropology -Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles. Report LA-2408 at SCCIC. Ruby, J. W. 1970 Culture Contact between Aboriginal Southern California and the Southwest, Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, CA. Ruzicka, Denise M., and Turner, Robin D. 2018. Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Phase I Assessment Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant Lease Renewal Project, Sepulveda Dam Basin, City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California. Scott, Eric and Kathleen Springer 2003 CEQA and Fossil Preservation in California. The Environmental Monitor, Fall 2003, AEP 2020-10 65 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment 2004 Conference: AEP Spring 2004 CEQA Workshop Series, pp. 4-10. Association of Environmental Professionals. Schoenherr, Allan A. 1992 A Natural History of California. University of California Press, Berkeley. Schwartz, D.E. and Colbum, I.P. 1987 Late Tertiary to Recent Chronology of the Los Angeles Basin, Southern California. In Geology of the Palos Verdes Peninsula and San Pedro Bay, edited by P.J. Fischer, pp. 5- 16. Pacific Section SEPM (Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists). Signor, John R. 2003 History of Construction and Operation of the former Pacific Electric Santa Monica Air Line and a Survey of the Physical Plant from Alameda St. to Vermont Ave. in the City and County of Los Angeles, California. On file at APRMI. Starr, Kevin 2005 California: A History, The Modern Library (Random House), New York. State of California 2015c Los Encinos State Historic Park. California Department of Parks and Recreation. Available at http://www.parks.ca..gov/?page_id=619, accessed March 11, 2015. Stewart, Marie 1958 History of Los Encinos State Historic Monument. Encino Historical Committee, Inc. Street, Nick. 2008 Heavenly Bodies and the People of the Earth. Search Magazine, July/August issue. Supernowicz, Dana 2010 Architectural Study of the 405 Freeway/Victory Boulevard Project, AT&T Site No. LAT026, 15900 Victory Boulevard, Van Nuys, Los Angeles County, California 91406. Prepared for ATC Associates, Inc. Available at SCCIC. Sutton and Gardner 2006 Sutton, Mark Q. and Jill K. Gardner. 2006. Reconceptualizing the Encinitas Tradition of Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, 42(4):1- 64. SVP (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology) 1995 [2014] Assessment and mitigation of adverse impacts to nonrenewable paleontological resources: standard guidelines. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology News Bulletin 163. Conformable Impact Mitigation Guidelines. Available at http://vertpaleo.org/The- Society/Governance-Documents/Conformable-Impact-Mitigation-Guidelines- Committee.aspx. 2009 Members Ethics: Member Bylaw on Ethics Statements, Article 12 — Code of Ethics. Available at http://vegpaleo.org/Membership/Member-Ethics/Member-Bylaw-on-Ethics- Statement.aspx. 2010 Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee. 2020-10 66 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment Tang, Bai "Tom" and Josh Smallwood 2009 Historical Resources Evaluation Report: Third Main Track and Grade Separation Project, Segments 6, 7, and 8, Pico Rivera (MP 150.7) to La Mirada (MP 158.8), BNSF/Metrolink East-West Mainline, Los Angeles County, California. Prepared for Caltrans District 7. Report LA-10391 on file at SCCIC. Tang, Bai "Tom" and Teresa Woodard 2003 Historical Resources Evaluation Report: Third Main Track and Grade Separation Project Hobart (MP 148.9) to Basta (MP 163.3), BNSF/Metrolink East-West Main Line Railroad Track, Vernon to Fullerton, Los Angeles and Orange Counties, California. Prepared for Caltrans District 7. Report LA-7871 and OR-3298 on file at SCCIC. Tobar, Christian n.d. The Pacific Electric Railway and Its History in the San Bernardino Valley. Pacific Electric Railway: Arrowhead Hot Springs Line Archive updated 2008. Electronic document, http://www.00cities.org_/_ate ewaycilyca/Histoly of PE in SB.html. Turner, Robin 2005 RE: MWD West Valley Feeder No.1 Repair Project Findings Letter, City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California. Turner, R., Loren -Webb, B., and Ruzicka D. 2009 Cultural and Paleontological Research and Survey Report for Jensen Solids Handling Facility Project, In the Community of Granada Hills, In the City of Los Angeles, California Underwood, Todd 2000 Butterfield Overland Stage Route. Frontier Trails of the Old West. Available at http://www.frontiertrails.com/oldwestibutterfield.htm, accessed March 30, 2015. U.S. Congress 1851 Acts of the Thirty-first Congress of the United States. Statute II-1850-1851. In The Statutes at Large and Treaties of the United States of America from December 1, 1845 to March 3, 1851. Edited by George Minot. Vol. IX. Charles C. Little and James Brown, Boston. 1863 Acts of the Thirty-seventh Congress of the United States. Statute II-1861-62. In The Statutes at Large, Treaties, and Proclamations, of the United States of America from December 5, 1859 to March 3, 1863. Edited by George P. Sanger. Vol. XII. Little, Brown and Company, Boston. USGS (United States Geological Survey) 1896 California (Los Angeles Co.): Santa Monica Sheet. Scale 1/62500. 1898 California (Los Angeles Co.): Santa Monica Sheet. Scale 1/62500. 1902 California (Los Angeles County): Santa Monica Quadrangle. Reprinted 1906. Scale 1/62500. 1903 California: Calabasas Quadrangle. Scale 1/62500. Reprinted 1937. 1921 Santa Monica Quadrangle, Grid Zone "G." Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, Tactical Map. Scale 1/62500. 1924 California: Van Nuys Quadrangle. Scale 1/24000. 1926 California (Los Angeles County): Van Nuys Quadrangle. Reprinted 1932 and 1949. Scale 1/24000. 1928 California (Los Angeles County): Reseda Quadrangle. Scale 1/24000. 1952 Canoga Park Quadrangle, California —Los Angeles Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series 2020-10 67 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment (Topographic). NE/4 Calabasas 15' Quadrangle. Photorevised 1967. Scale 1:24000. 1953 Van Nuys Quadrangle, California —Los Angeles Co., 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic). NW/4 Santa Monica 15' Quadrangle. Scale 1:24000. 1966 Van Nuys Quadrangle, California —Los Angeles Co., 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic). Photorevised 1972. Scale 1:24000. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Geologic Names Committee 2007 Divisions of Geologic Time — Major Chronostratigraphic and Geochronologic Units. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2007-3015. Vintage LA 2016 The Victory Drive -In North Hollywood California. Available at https: //employeelawca.com/vintagela/victorydrivein accessed January 10, 2019. W & S Consultants 1996 Phase I Archaeological Survey/Class III Inventory, San Fernando Valley East-West Transportation Corridor Study Area, Los Angeles, California. Prepared for Myra L. Frank & Associates, Inc. Report L-3789 at SCCIC. Wallace, William 1955 Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11:214-230. Walker, Jim 2006 Images of Rail: Pacific Electric Red Cars. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston. Warren, Claude N. 1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, edited by C. Irwin -Williams, pp. 1-14. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology No. 1. Portales. Woodford, A.O., J.E. Schoellhamer, J.G. Vedder, and R.F. Yerkes 1954 Geology of the Los Angeles Basin. In Geology of Southern California, edited by Richard H. Jahns, Chapter II: Geology of the Natural Provinces, pp. 65-81. State of California, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mines, Bulletin 170 Volume 1. Yerkes, R.F. (compiler) 1996 Preliminary Geologic Map of the Van Nuys 7.5' Quadrangle, Southern California. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 2020-10 68 Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment APPENDIX F Fuel Consumption by Construction Phase Worksheet Eternal Valley Fuel Consumption by Construction Phase Worksheet Demolition diesel off road hauling Subtotal MT CO2 0 0 0 gasoline worker trips Subtotal MT CO2 0 0 Grading diesel MT CO2 gasoline MT CO2 off road 82.4633 worker trips 2.7452 hauling 0 Subtotal 82.4633 Subtotal 2.7452 Paving diesel MT CO2 gasoline MT CO2 off road 20.1888 worker trips 1.3358 hauling 0 ,Subtotal 20.1888 Subtotal 1.3358 MT CO2 Ibs CO2 Ibs per gallon Total Diesel CO2 515.4573 1,136,389 22.4 (assumes vendors use diesel) Total Gasoline CO2 57.0061 125,677 19.6 Total Diesel Gallons 50,732 Total Gasoline Gallons 6,412 Site Preparation diesel MT CO2 gasoline MT CO2 off road 16.8549 worker trips 0.8236 hauling 0 Subtotal 16.8549 Subtotal 0.8236 Building Construction diesel MT CO2 off road 349.7272 vendor 43.666 Subtotal 393.3932 Architectural Coatings diesel MT CO2 off road 2.5571 Subtotal 2.5571 gasoline MT CO2 worker trips 51.3891 Subtotal 51.3891 gasoline MT CO2 worker trips 0.7124 Subtotal 0.7124 MTCO2 emissions for each phase as reported in Cal EEMod "Annual" output sheets from Cal EEMod.2020.4.0 for Eternal Valley Expansion Project from Impact Sciences, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report, September 2021. Ibs per gallon factors from U.S. Energy Information Administration, Environment Carbon Dioxide Emissions Coefficients, Released ate: February 2, 2016. APPENDIX G Geotechnical & Geological Investigation Page I Geotechnical Soilutions, Inc. Eternal Valley ProjectNo. GS 8324 July 26, 2021 GEOTECHNICAL & GEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION FOR PROPOSED LAWN BURIAL AREAS, WEST AND SOUTHEAST OF MEMORIAL PARK (KNOWN AS AREAS 6 W/ LOOP ROAD & 7) ETERNAL VALLEY MEMORIAL PARK SANTA CLARITA CALIFORNIA Prepared for Clark & Green Associates 15420 Laguna Canyon Road, Suite 210 Irvine, CA 92618 11080 Tuxford Street, Sun Valley, CA 91352 - Phone (323) 93 7-109 7 Page 2 Eternal Valley ProjectNo. GS 8324 July 26, 2021 Table of Contents Introduction:........................................................................................................................................ 3 ProposedDevelopment: ...................................................................................................................... 3 SiteDescription: .................................................................................................................................. 3 Purpose and Scope of Services: .......................................................................................................... 4 FieldExploration: ............................................................................................................................... 4 Regional Geology/Site Soil Conditions: ............................................................................................. 4 Earthquake Induced Landslides: ......................................................................................................... 5 LaboratoryTesting: ............................................................................................................................. 5 StabilityAnalyses: .............................................................................................................................. 5 Conclusions: ........................................................................................................................................ 6 Area 6 (West of Memorial Park)........................................................................................................7 Area 7 (Southeast of the Memorial Park)...........................................................................................7 Recommendations: .............................................................................................................................. 7 LawnBurial Sites Grading:................................................................................................................7 FillPlacement in Areas 6&7:.............................................................................................................7 ExistingFills in Area 6: ...................................................................................................................... 8 LoopRoadway:...................................................................................................................................8 PavementDesign: ............................................................................................................................... 8 TemporaryExcavations: ..................................................................................................................... 8 Flatworkand Walkways: .................................................................................................................... 9 SiteDrainage: ...................................................................................................................................... 9 UtilityTrenches: ................................................................................................................................. 9 Limitations: ....................................................................................................................................... 10 References: ........................................................................................................................................ I I GradingSpecifications: ..................................................................................................................... 12 11080 Tuxford Street, Sun Valley, CA 91352 - Phone (323) 93 7-109 7 Eternal Valley Page 3 PrcjectNo. GS 8324 July 26, 2021 Introduction: This report presents the results of a geotechnical and geologic investigation performed at Eternal Valley Memorial Park in the Santa Clarita area of Los Angeles, California. The study contemplates an expansion of the existing memorial park into undeveloped areas west and southeast of existing lawn burial sites. The site location is shown on Figure 1 and the area investigated is shown on Figure 2. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate existing geologic and soil conditions at the site and to provide recommendations for the planned grading and development. Our investigation was based on grading plans prepared by Hunsaker & Associates. The following plans have been utilized as base maps for our Geotechnical Maps, Plates 1-3: Plate 1 — Geologic Map, Existing & Proposed Topographic Contours with Loop Road for Area 6, Plate 2 — Geologic Cross Sections, Plate 3 — Geologic Map, Existing & Proposed Topographic Contours for Area 7, with Cross Sections; Proposed Development: Area 6: Area 6 is west and adjacent to the existing Eternal Valley Memorial Park and will represent an expansion to re -contour the property for construction of lawn burial sites, loop road, and a water feature. Grading will include creation of cut slopes with slope ratio of 5:1, except for a small section along Needham Ranch Parkway and downhill side of the loop road where the slope ratio is 2:1. Existing and proposed topographic contours are indicated on the Geologic Map on Plate 1, and Cross Sections on Plate 2. As indicated on the plans, the memorial park expansion will adjoin a proposed industrial project to the west that will include construction of Needham Ranch Parkway near the memorial park property line, as well as building pads and related improvements. The memorial park grading will co-ordinate with the industrial park grading primarily at a west -facing slope above the proposed Needham Ranch Parkway, and at other graded slopes in areas to the south where the projects adjoin. Area 7: Area 7 is southeast of Eternal Valley Memorial Park, and represents an expansion to re -contour the area for construction of lawn burial sites. This area was previously graded as part of Needham Ranch Development. The memorial park is proposing to raise the grade by maximum of approximately 15 feet with fill slopes with gradient of 7:1, except along its south boundary adjacent to Needham Ranch building pad, where the slope ratio will be 2:1. Existing and proposed topographic contours are indicated on the Geological Map and Cross Section on Plate 3. Site Description: The area to be developed is bordered on the north, west, and south by natural and graded, hillside terrain with a few dirt roads and a water tank on the highest portion of the ridgeline to the west. The existing memorial park borders the site to the east. Much of the area to be developed has been previously graded by placement of fill soils from memorial park grading, which apparently took place over the course of 11080 Tuxford Street, Sun Valley, CA 91352 - Phone (323) 93 7-109 7 Eternal Valley Page 4 PrcjectNo. GS 8324 July 26, 2021 many decades. The remainder of the area consists of natural hillside terrain with native, chaparral type vegetation. Area 7 southeast of the Memorial Park was part of Needham Ranch Development and consists of a large graded pad area with a slight gradient to the east. Purpose and Scope of Services: The purpose of our investigation was to explore and evaluate the existing soil and geologic conditions at the site, and based on our findings, provide our conclusions and recommendations regarding grading and construction of the proposed improvements. The scope of services utilized to conduct our investigation included the following tasks: 1 Review of published and unpublished maps and reports pertinent to the site including Needham Ranch Development by RTFA reports (see References at the end of text). 2 Field investigation including 12 backhoe pits and 4 bucket auger borings to evaluate soil and bedrock conditions. 3 Laboratory testing of representative soil and bedrock samples to evaluate the stability of proposed slopes, the characteristics and depths of existing fill soils, and provide recommendations for proposed lawn burial areas. 4 Geologic and geotechnical analyses. 5 Preparation of the following report to present our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Field Exploration: Our field investigation was performed in 2008 for Area 6, and consisted of excavation of 12 backhoe pits, to depths ranging from 3 to 17 feet, and drilling and downhole logging of 4-bucket auger borings ranging in depth from 20 to 45 feet. The locations of the test pits and borings are indicated on the Geological Map, Plate I. Logs of the test pits and borings are presented in Appendix B. The test pits and borings were logged by an engineering geologist. Samples were obtained of representative soil and bedrock for laboratory testing. We did not perform field exploration for Area 7, since it was part of the Needham Ranch development. This area is addressed in the referenced reports. Regional Geology/Site Soil Conditions: The project site is located in hilly terrain near the western margin of the Santa Susana Mountains, just west of Sierra Highway and the Antelope Valley Freeway (See Figure 1 and 2). Published geologic maps (Dibblee, 1992), indicate that the site is underlain by Quaternary age, terrestrial sedimentary rocks of the Saugus formation (See Figure 2, Regional Geologic Map). The rocks consist primarily of sandstone, conglomerate, and conglomeratic sandstone that strikes nearly north -south and dips homoclinally to the west at moderate inclinations. Our subsurface investigation encountered sandstone and conglomeratic sandstone generally consistent with the published geologic maps. Previous grading at the site, which apparently occurred over the span of several decades, resulted in a significant volume of fill soil being placed on the native slopes and in canyon areas in the expansion area 11080 Tuxford Street, Sun Valley, CA 91352 - Phone (323) 93 7-109 7 Eternal Valley Page 5 PrcjectNo. GS 8324 July 26, 2021 and the offsite area to the west. Based on our and RTFA's field investigations, the fill deposits are up to 69 feet thick and generally consist of silty sand with varying amounts of fine to coarse gravel and cobbles. The fills were generally placed over native residual soil and colluvium, apparently without benefit of benching or removals. The limits of the existing fill soils are shown on Plate 1. More recently, gravesite spoils and a limited amount of construction debris has been placed in an area of hummocky terrain labeled as a stockpile fill on the enclosed Plate 1. Area 7 was graded as a cut in Saugus Formation bedrock during grading of the Needham Ranch Project. As a result, the pad and slope areas are underlain by Saugus Formation bedrock as indicated on Plate 3. Earthquake Induced Landslides: According to the map entitled "State of California Seismic Hazard Zone, Oat Mountain 7.5 Quadrangle" the site is not within a zone requiring an evaluation of earthquake induced landslides. Laboratory Testing: Laboratory tests were performed in 2008 on selected soil and bedrock samples to determine their relative physical and engineering properties. The results of these tests are presented in Appendix C. Laboratory testing consisted of the following tests: 1. Maximum Dry Density 2. Direct Shear, undisturbed and remolded 3. Consolidation 4. Moisture Density Determination Stability Analyses: The following are shear strength parameters of the bedrock and soil taken from our laboratory tests. The locations of the borings and test pits are shown on Plate 1 in Appendix A. Material Cohesion Friction Location (psf) (deg.) Fill 0 39 B-1 @ 5' Fill Evaluation Area (Remolded) Fill 700 27 B-1 @ 5' Fill Evaluation Area Fill 200 39 B-1 @ 10' Fill Evaluation Area Fill 0 44 B-1 @ 20' Fill Evaluation Area Fill 220 43 B-1 @ 15' Fill Evaluation Area Fill 720 37 B-1 @ 25' Fill Evaluation Area Fill 330 37 B-1 @ 35' Fill Evaluation Area Bedrock 200 38 Maintenance Area Bedrock 572 33 Adjacent property on Site Bedrock 310 43 Adjacent property on Site 11080 Tuxford Street, Sun Valley, CA 91352 - Phone (323) 93 7-109 7 Page 6 Eternal Valley ProjectNo. GS 8324 July 26, 2021 The following are shear strength parameters taken from RTFA Report dated January 30, 2020 (see reference). Material Cohesion Friction (psf) (deg.) Compacted Fill 300 32 Terrace Deposits 300 32 Alluvium 250 30 We selected the following shear parameters for the stability analyses: Material Cohesion (ps f) Fill 200 Bedrock 200 Friction Angle (Degrees) 30 38 Stability analysis of the proposed 5:1 fill slope (with a small section of 2:1 slope along Needham Ranch Parkway and downhill side of the loop road) was performed along section A -A. The analyses were performed using the GEOSTASE Program. The critical surfaces having the lowest safety factors and the print outs are included in Appendix D. The Modified Bishop Method was used to compute the safety factor of circular failure surfaces. The following analyses were performed: EternalValleyArea6A1: Gross rotational analysis which initiates at Needham Ranch Parkway / the toe of the proposed 2:1 slope, and terminates on the 5:1 slope at the lawn burial area. A safety factor of 3.41 was calculated. Eterna1ValleyArea6A2: Localized rotational analysis within the proposed 2:1 slope along Needham Ranch Parkway. A safety factor of 2.49 was calculated. Eterna1ValleyArea6A1Q: Similar to Eterna1ValleyArea6A1 but using pseudo -static analysis. A safety factor of 1.9 was calculated. The results of the stability analysis including the proposed slopes have a minimum safety factor of 1.5 against static failure, and 1.1 against pseudo -static failure, the minimums acceptable by the Building Codes. Conclusions: The proposed grading is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations in this report are implemented in design and construction. Our gross slope stability analysis indicates that the proposed slopes have a minimum gross safety factor of 1.5 for static conditions. 11080 Tuxford Street, Sun Valley, CA 91352 - Phone (323) 93 7-109 7 Page 7 Eternal Valley ProjectNo. GS 8324 July 26, 2021 Area 6 (West of Memorial Park) Needham Ranch Parkway Grading: Grading of the Needham Ranch Parkway adjacent to the west margin of the memorial park was already done by others, see references. Trimming the toe of the slope (west -facing slope shared by the memorial park) to 2:1, as shown on Plates 1 and 2 will be performed as part as the Needham Ranch development. Existing Fill Slopes: Our laboratory testing indicates that the existing fill soils have a relative compaction ranging from 85 percent to 93 percent, except for the upper few feet which has a relative compaction of 80 percent. Laboratory testing also shows that the existing fill soils have a medium to low potential for consolidation. The existing fill soils are suitable for lawn burial and memorial park roadways and slopes, except for the upper about 5 feet of the existing soils which should be removed and recompacted. The 5:1 grading will remove much of the upper 5 feet of the existing fill soils, exposing denser material. Since the memorial park fill is undocumented, settlement may occur, however these settlements would not be detrimental to the lawn burial areas. Proposed roadways should be supported on at least 5 feet of compacted fill. Existing Stockpile Fill: Stockpile fills, as indicated on the Geological Map, are end dumped fills placed with no compaction effort. These fills should be removed and recompacted, if not removed by the planned grading. Area 7 (Southeast of the Memorial Park) Newly Constructed Pad: This area was previously graded as part of Needham Ranch Development. The memorial park is proposing to raise the grade by a maximum of approximately 15 feet with fill slopes with gradient of 7:1, except along its south boundary adjacent to Needham Ranch building pad, where the slope ratio will be 2:1. The existing pad (recently cut) exposes bedrock, and is suitable to receive compacted fill to create lawn burial areas and slopes. Recommendations: Lawn Burial Sites Grading: Fill Placement in Areas 6 &7: All fill materials must consist of clean soils that are free of vegetation and other debris. The compaction standard for fill materials placed in cemeteries can be less than the 90 percent relative 11080 Tuxford Street, Sun Valley, CA 91352 - Phone (323) 93 7-109 7 Page 8 Eternal Valley PrcjectNo. GS 8324 July 26, 2021 compaction standard used for other engineered grading. Accordingly, fill placed in lawn burial and other such areas must be compacted to at least 85 percent of the maximum dry density. Fill placed to construct 2:1 slopes and roadways, should be compacted to 90 percent relative compaction, see the following sections for detailed recommendations. All fill must be placed in 6 to 8-inch-thick lifts at near optimum moisture content and compacted. Existing Fills in Area 6: The relative compaction of the existing fill averages above 85 percent, except in the upper 5 feet which is less than 80 percent and is dry and loose. The relative densities of the fill materials are shown in Appendix C. Since the relative compaction of the fill is 85 percent relative compaction or above, the minimum for cemeteries, the existing fill could be left in place. The existing fill soils are suitable for lawn burial and memorial park roadway and slopes, except for the upper about 5 feet of the existing soils which should be removed and recompacted to 85 percent relative compaction, if not removed by the planned grading. Some settlement of the existing fill may occur; however, these settlements would not be detrimental to the lawn burial areas. Loop Roadwa: Fill below proposed roadways to a depth of 5 feet, and to a distance of 5 feet beyond the edge of pavement should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. The subgrade (the upper 2 feet) and the base should be compacted to 95 percent. Pavement Design: For preliminary design purposes we suggest an R-Value of 25. The pavement section should not be less than 4 inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over 4 inches of aggregate base (AB). During grading of the site R-Value tests should be performed for various types of soils within the upper 5 feet of the roadways. If the R-Value is less than 25 as assumed in this report, the section of the pavement must be revised accordingly. Temporary Excavations: All temporary excavations should be observed by the geologist to evaluate the possible hazard posed by adverse conditions. Temporary excavations in soil may be made up to 4 feet in height. Excavation over 4 feet in height should be laid back to 1:1. Earthen berms or other methods should be used during wet weather construction in order to prevent runoff water from entering the excavations. All runoff water should be collected and disposed of outside the construction limits to appropriate drainage systems. All excavations must comply with applicable local, state, and federal safety regulations including the current OSHA Excavation and Trench Safety Standards. Construction site safety is the sole responsibility of the Contractor, who shall also be solely responsible for the means, methods, and sequencing of construction operations. Excavations and temporary slopes should be protected from surficial erosion and the effects of inclement weather by the project contractor. Protective measures such as plastic or jute mesh may be used to protect against the potential for surficial sloughing 11080 Tuxford Street, Sun Valley, CA 91352 - Phone (323) 93 7-109 7 Page 9 Eternal Valley ProjectNo. GS 8324 July 26, 2021 Flatwork and Walkway Flatwork and walkways should be supported either on native soil and/ or at least two feet of compacted fill to 90 percent relative compaction. As a minimum, flatwork and walkways in areas with heavy traffic, should be 4 inches thick, and reinforced with No. 3 bars placed at mid -height at 18 inches on -center. Exterior flatwork should be kept a minimum of 5 feet from nearby slopes. Walkways and slabs should be provided with joints. These joints and separations should be filled with plastic joint filler and should be maintained. Site Drainage: Water should not be allowed to sheet flow freely over the slope surfaces. All surface and drainage water should be collected and drained to a suitable location using non -erodible drainage devices. Utility Trenches: All utility trenches should be backfilled and compacted to 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D1557-91, depending on the compaction of the area the trench traverses. 11080 Tuxford Street, Sun Valley, CA 91352 - Phone (323) 93 7-109 7 Page 10 Eternal Valley PrcjectNo. GS 8324 July 26, 2021 Limitations: This section describes the limits of our liability and warranties for data contained in this report. The report, exploration logs, and other materials resulting from Geotechnical Soilutions Inc., efforts were prepared exclusively for use by Clark & Green Associates and his consultants in designing the proposed development. The report is not intended to be suitable for reuse on extensions or modifications of the project or for use on any project other than the currently proposed development, as it may not contain sufficient or appropriate information for such uses. If this report or portions of this report are provided to contractors or included in specifications, it should be understood that they are provided for information only. This report cannot be utilized by another entity without the express written permission of GSI. This report is an instrument of our services and remains the property of GSI. This office shall be promptly notified if any conditions substantially differing from those exposed by the exploratory excavations are encountered during construction. Soil deposits may vary in type, strength, and many other important properties between points of exploration due to non -uniformity of the geologic formations or to man-made cut and fill operations. While we cannot evaluate the consistency of the properties of materials in areas not explored, the conclusions drawn in this report are based on the assumption that the data obtained in the field and laboratory are reasonably representative of field conditions and are conducive to interpolation and extrapolation. Our recommendations were developed with the assumption that a proper level of field observation and construction review will be provided during excavation and foundation construction by GSI. If construction phase services are performed by others, they must accept full responsibility (as Project Geotechnical Engineer of record) for all geotechnical aspects of the project including this report. Our investigation and evaluations were performed using generally accepted engineering approaches and principles available at this time and the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable Geotechnical Engineers practicing in this area. No other representation, either express or implied, is included or intended in our report. Respectfully Submitted, Geotechnical Soilutions, Inc., Mesrop A. Mesrop Tom Hill RGE 2561 CEG 1100 ,�~ THCMAS/k r Hll GCE �NGINEERIM'G 11080 Tuxford Street, Sun Valley, CA 91352 - Phone (323) 93 7-109 7 Page 11 Eternal Valley ProjectNo. GS 8324 July 26, 2021 References: Dibblee, T.W.Jr., 1992 Geologic Map of the Oat Mountain and Canoga Park (North'/z) Quadrangles. Dibblee Geotechnical Foundation Map # DF-36. Scale 1:24,000. D.M.G February, 1, 1998 Seismic Hazard Zone, Oat Mountain Quadrangle. Scale 1:24,000. CDMG Seismic Hazard Zone Report 005, entitled ASeismic Hazard Zone Report for the Oat Mountain 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California, @ dated 1998. RTFA; Geotechnical Review of Rough Grading Plan for Tentative Tract No. 50283-01 Santa Clarita, California for Gate -King Partners, Volume I of IV, dated May 26, 2006, Job No. 99-500-21. RTFA; Geotechnical Plan Review — Grading Plan, Needham Ranch, Phase 2, Tract Nos. 50283-03, - 04, Santa Clarita, California, for TC LA Industrial Development, Inc., A Delaware Corporation. Dated January 30, 2020, Job No. 99-506-021R. 11080 Tuxford Street, Sun Valley, CA 91352 - Phone (323) 93 7-109 7 Page 12 Eternal Valley PrcjectNo. GS 8324 July 26, 2021 Grading Specifications_ 1.1 General Description 1.11 These specifications have been prepared for the grading and site development of the proposed structures. The geotechnical engineer should be consulted prior to any site work connected with site development to ensure compliance with these specifications. 1.12 The geotechnical engineer should be notified prior to any site clearing or grading operations on the property in order to coordinate the work with the grading contractor in the field. 1.13 This item shall consist of all clearing, excavating or grubbing, preparation of land to be filled, filling of the land, spreading, compaction and control of the fill, and all subsidiary work necessary to complete the grading of the filled areas to conform with the lines and grades, as shown on the accepted plans. The geotechnical engineer is not responsible for determining line, grade elevations, or slope gradients. The property owner, or his representative shall designate the person or organizations that will be responsible for these items of work. 1.14 Contents of these specifications shall be integrated with the geotechnical report of which they are a part, therefore, they shall not be used as a self-contained document. 2.1 Tests 2.11 The standard test used to define maximum densities of all compaction work shall be the ASTM Procedure D1557-91. All densities shall be expressed as a relative compaction in terms of the maximum dry density obtained in the laboratory by the foregoing standard procedure. 3.1 Clearing, Grubbing, and Preparing Areas to be Filled 3.11 All fill, roots, and debris shall be removed from all structural areas. The depth of the excavations will be determined in the field by the geotechnical engineer. 4.1 Materials Used for Fill 4.11 The soils existing on the site are suitable for use as compacted engineered fill after removal of the debris and after the approval of the geotechnical engineer. 4.12 Should import material be required, it must be approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to transporting it to the project and should meet the following requirements. 1. R-Value not less than 25 2. Should not contain rocks larger than 8 inches maximum size 3. Expansion index less than 20. 11080 Tuxford Street, Sun Valley, CA 91352 - Phone (323) 93 7-109 7 Page 13 Eternal Valley ProjectNo. GS 8324 July 26, 2021 5.1 Placing, Spreading and Compacting Fill Material 5.11 The fill materials shall be p laced in uniform lifts of not more than 8 inches in uncompacted thickness. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly blade mixed during the spreading to obtain uniformity of material in each layer. Before compaction begins, the fill shall be brought to a water content that will permit proper compaction by either (i) aerating the material if it is too wet; or (ii) spraying the material with water if it is too dry. 5.13 Compaction shall be by sheepsfoot rollers, multiple pneumatic tired rollers or other types of acceptable compacting rollers. Rollers shall be of such design that they will be able to compact the fill to the specified density. Rolling shall be accomplished while the fill material is within the specified moisture content range. Rolling of each layer shall be continuous over its entire area and the roller shall make sufficient trips to ensure that the required density has been obtained. No ponding or jetting will be permitted. 5.14 Field density tests shall be made in each compacted layer by the geotechnical engineer in accordance with ASTM Test Procedure D1556-91. When sheepsfoot rollers are used for compaction, the density tests shall be taken in the compacted material below the surface disturbed by the roller. When these tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill, or portion thereof, is below the required compaction, the particular layer, or portion thereof, shall be reworked until the required compaction has been obtained. 5.15 No soil shall be placed or compacted during periods of rain nor on ground which is not drained of all free water. Soil which has been soaked and wetted by rain or any other cause, shall not be compacted until completely drained and until the moisture content is within the limits herein before described or approved by the geotechnical engineer. Prior approval by the geotechnical engineer shall be obtained before continuing the grading operations. 6.1 Trench Backfill 6.11 Trench backfill should be compacted to the same relative compaction as the fill. 11080 Tuxford Street, Sun Valley, CA 91352 - Phone (323) 93 7-109 7 Page 14 Eternal Valley ProjectNo. GS 8324 July 26, 2021 APPENDIX A FIGURES AND PLATES 11080 Tuxford Street, Sun Valley, CA 91352 - Phone (323) 93 7-109 7 For: Eternal Valley Memorial Park, Santa Clarita, California Dated: 7/1/08 1 Location Map No. GS 8324 IGeotechnical Soilutions, Inc. 323-937-1097 1 Figure 1 501 S. Fairfax Avenue. ##101 Los Anjeeles. CA 90036 Cats - Saugus Formation For: Eternal Valley Memorial Park Job Address: Santa Clarita, California Scale: 1 "=24000' Date: 7/03/08 Drawn By: MAK Regional Geologic Map, by Thomas Dibblee, 19992 Geotechnical Soilutions, Inc. 323-9371097 501 S. Fairfax Avenue, #101, Los Angeles, CA 90036 FIGURE 2 TAKEN FROM RTFA REPORT JANUARY 30, 2020 SECTION A - A' a C A F A' HS-3 (RTFA REPORT JANUARY 30, 2020) o U m LOOP ROAD N c LOOPROAD n 1650 taw EXISTING GRADE 1640 ________ _____ --z--- 1a40 1630 PROPOSED GRADE. -� 641.0 / 16 1610 PKOPOSED 2:1 _ -- -' FG �/ FG / �. PROPOSED 5:1 ---- ____-------- EXISII BADE / / /- 1a20 4,10 1610 _ _ ------5:1 / Ia10 1600 —,w 2:1 _ / / / 1a00 1590 � �R/\V C AF / QTS / / / / / / / / / / 1590 1580 C/L �' � / / / / / / 1580 15-0 I1 1570 1560 ti0 I1150 1 AF —��� / / / / / / / / 1550 / 1540 — — / 1540 — 1530 — 1530 CEF ---- i 1520 — / / 1520 ---- 1510 1500 __ QTS / / / 1510 1560 / 1490 / 490 1480 / 1480 14?0 1470 SECTION A - A' ETERNAL VALLEY MEMORIAL PARK LAWN BURIAL AREA (6) SANTA CLARITA, CA SCALE: 1— 50' F DATE: 7 - 20 - 21 JOB No. GS 8324 ® 025' 50' CROSS SECTION SCALE: F' = 50' Geotechnical SOIIUt10riS. IIIe. 11080 TUXFORD STREET, PLATE NO. 2 SUN VALLEY, CA 91352 Page 15 Eternal Valley ProjectNo. GS 8324 July 26, 2021 APPENDIX B LOGS OF BORINGS & TEST PITS 11080 Tuxford Street, Sun Valley, CA 91352 - Phone (323) 93 7-109 7 Project Name: Eternal Valley Conceptual Grading Study Date: 4/15/2008 Project No: GS 8324-A Equipment: Backhoe Test Pit No: 5 Location: Santa Clarita Logged By: Tom Hill GEOTECHNICAL SOILUTIONS, INC. 0 — 17' Fill Yellow gray, silty sand with gravel, cobbles, scattered boulders, moist, appears relatively dense. Trench Pr u Ground Surface (TP-5 ) W Project Name: Eternal Valley Conceptual Grading Study Date: 4/15/2008 Project No: GS 8324-A Equipment: Backhoe Location: Santa Clarita 0 --- 14' Fill Logged By; Tom Hill Test Pit No: 6 GEOTECHNICAL SOILUTIONS, INC.I Yellow gray, silty sand with gravel, cobbles, scattered boulders, moist, appears relatively dense. 14-15' Native: Bedrock: Saugus Formation Bright yellow brown conglomeratic sandstone, moist, dense. Ground Surfac Trench Prof (TP-G) W I renclh Depth 15' Project Na1ne: Eternal Valley Conceptual Grading Study Date: 4/15/2008 Project No: GS 8324-A Equipment: Backhoe Test Pit No: 7 Location: Santa Clarita Logged By: Tom Hill GEOTECHNICAL SOILUTIONS, INC. 0 — d' Native: Bedrock: Saugus Formation Yellow brown, interbedded sandstone, and conglomerate sandstone, damp -moist, very dense. B: NS 24W micaceous layers in sandstone and conglomerate beds. 7° Ground Surface _ Native Trench Profile---[: 0 } Trench Depth G' (TP-7) 6' Project Name: Eternal Valley Conceptual Grading Study Project No: GS 8324-A Location: Santa Clarita 0-8' Native: Bedrock: Saugus Formation Date: 4/15/2008 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: Tom Hill Yellowish gray sandstone to 4', then conglomeratic sandstone. Damp, very dense. B: NS 20W micaceous layers in sandstone and conglomerate beds. 10� Sandstone _ Ground Surface, Trench Profile---[ Trench Depth 41 (TP-8) Test Pit No: 8 GEOTECHNTCAL SOILUTIONS, INC. I N70W Gravelly sandstone Project Name: Eternal Valley Conceptual Grading Study Date: 4/15/2008 Tcst Pit No: 10 Project No: GS 8324-A Equipment: Backhoe Location: Santa C[arita Logged By: Tom Hill 0-15' Native: Bedrock: Saugus Formation GEOTECHNICAL SOILUTIONS, INC. Yellowish gray, sandstone and conglomerate sandstone, with scattered cobbles and boulders, moist, relatively dense. Groun (TP- 10) Boring No. 1 Sheet 1 4f 1 Geotechnicacl Soilutions Inc. Date: 4/1612008 Drilling Contractor: Al Roy Client: Eternal Valle E ui ment: 24" Bucket Auger Project No. GT 8324-A DrivinQ Weight: 0-24', 2150#, 25-44', 13504 Location: Fill Evaluation/Santa Clarita Elevation: Logged by: Tom Hill � � o _ V � Q L U � W 00 W co �01 G C I— 0 a- R -0 O.. 7 U) a l` N p .5 �, Co p p m ( tp (% (� Visual Descrl tion 0 Fill 2' Yellow brown and gray, silty sand fine, with gravel„ moist. 1/2 - 5 5' As above 2/2 10 10' as above 2/4 15 15' as above, sampler hit rock in 2nd 6" 4/6-3" 20 20' as above, slight increase in silt 2J4 21' Few root fragments 25 25' Dark gray, organic silty sand with many roots. Smells 8/11 like rotted organics_ Bedrock: Saugus Formation Orange brown sandstone with cobbles, boulders. 30 Total Depth = 29'_ — Refusal on large rocks Geotechnical Soilutionas Inc, Boring No. 2 ISheet 1 of 2 Date: 4/16/2008 Drillinq Contractor: Al Roy Client: Eternal Valley Equipment: 24" Bucket Auger Pro[ect No. GT 8324-A Driving Weight: 0-24', 2150, 25-44,1350# Location: Fill Evaluation/Santa Clarita Elevation: Logged by: Tom Hill (n 0_ a O Q3 a) u_ OL 43 F= CL fi CD 0 a U 0 2� p cz E v _ _ u ri .2 E - Q m E o En r a m U) rn U Visual Description 0 0-32.5' Fill 3/5 Yellow -brown, mottled with gray, silty sand with fine -coarse gravel, moist 5 5' As above aye 10 1/1 10' As above, more silt and very moist 15 2J2 15' As @ about 20 20' yellow -brown, silty sand, moist 315 22' - 23' Brown mottled with dark gray, slightly organic, with few branch fragments. 25 25' Yellow -brown silty sand mottled with gray, slightly organic, 8/15 with branch fragments, very moist 30 6112 Boring No. 2 Sheet 2 of 2 Geotechnical Soilutions Inc. ©ate: 4/16/2008 Drilling Contractor: Al Roy Client: Eternal Valley E ui ment: 24" Bucket Auger Project No. GT 8324-A Driving Weight: 0-24', 2150, 25-44, 1350# Location. Fill Evaluation/Santa Clarita Elevation: SEE PLAN Logged by: Tom Hill Q a u- E a� CL y co U o c [L N � (J U) a cn � -0 Vy 0 0 m U1 L m I n 0 cn U Visual Description 30 30' in gray, slightly organic silty sand, smells of Hydrocarbons. 31.5 ' Dark gray organic silty sand with strong organic color. 32.5' Bedrock: Saugus Formation Yellow -brown sandstone 35 2o/s° Total Depth = 35' No water or caving Backfilled with cuttings 40 45 Boring No. 3 ISheet 1 of 2 Geotechnical Soilutions Inc. Date: 4/16/2008 -Drilling Contractor: Al Roy Client: Eternal Valley Memorial Park Equipment: 24" Bucket Auger Project No. GT 8324-A Drivingeight: 0-24', 2150, 25-44, 1350# Location: Fill Evaluation/Santa Clarita Elevation: Logged by: Tom Hill w ° d � a U � o � °a) 1 W E 0 >4 co L C Q C W E 2 +- U C N [� m c+roi m in cn U Visual Description 0 0-43' Fill - Yellow brown, silty sand with gravel, moist 5 215 5' Fill - Yellow -brown silty sand, moist, with gravel 10 212 10' Qlive-gray, silty sand, very moist 15 Z/2 15' Mottled olive gray and yellow -brown silt, silty sand, very moist 20 tie 20' As above, mottled with gray, slightly organic silty sand 25 7120 25' Yellow brown silty sand with gravel, very moist 30 BorinQ No. 3 JSheet 2 of 2 Geotechnical Soilutions Inc. Date: 4/16/2008 Drilling Contractor: AI Roy Client: Eternal Valley Memorial Park E ui went: 24" Bucket Au er Project No. GT 8324-A DrivinQ Weight: 0-24', 21509, 25-44, 1350# Location: Fill Evaluation/Santa Clanta Elevation: Logged by: Tom Hill � 4 _ s CJ LL E a i U Cll Q) _ O fj +- a� E o o E D o m cn m n cn U Visual Descri tion 30 7110 Mottled yellow -grown and gray silty sand, moist with gravel Few pieces of wood in cuttings, slightly organic 35 BIB Bluish gray silty sand with gravel, moist, very moist. 37.5' Dark gray, organic silty sand with plant fragments. Organic odor, moist -very moist. 40 4/8 40' Mottled gray and yellow brown, silty sand, organic odor, few plant fragments, very moist. 43' Bedrock: Saugus Formation 45 21/6" Yellow -brown sandstone with gravel moist, hard 101i" Total Depth = 45' No water or caving Backfilled Boring No. 4 ISheet 1 of 2 Geotechnical Soilutions Inc. Date: 4/16/2008 Drilling Contractor: Al Roy Client: Eternal Valley Memorial Park Equipment: 24" Bucket Auger Project No. GT 8324-A Drivin Wei ht: 0-24', 2150, 25-44, 1350# Location: Fill Evaluation/Santa Clarita Elevation: Logged by: Tom Hill N � o U CL G3 Q) Li 2 CL >. CO 4 U (D � p :. a� U) 4 E COQ o o l N Ca a a MI v> (n n I r) U Ivisual Description 0 0-34' Fill Yellow and light olive brown, silty sand with gravel damp to 12" than moist 5 1/2 5' Yellow brown silty sand with gravel, moist 10 P+1 10' As above, very moist, increase in silt, soft 15 213 15' As above, olive gray 20 1/2 20' Olive gray, silty sand, very moist. 25 5/10 25' As above 30 Geotechnical Soilutions Inc. Boring No. 4 Sheet 2 of 2 Date_ 4/16/2008 Drilling Contractor: Al Roy Client: Eternal Valley Memorial Park Equipment: 24" Bucket Auger Project No. GT 8324 Drivin Wei ht: 0-24', 2150#, 25-44, 1350# Location: Fill Evaluation/Santa Clarita Elevation: Logged by; Tom Hill � � U o � Q Q) OL N cO p uj w d- .� � Q Q> cn c� 1= rn o o E o m CO m d Ca rn p Visual Descri tion 30 1516 As above, sampler hit rock! Dark brown with organics, plant stems 34' Bedrock: Saugus Formation 35 Yellow brown sandstone with large rocks, refusal Total Depth = 34' Refusal on Rocky Bedrock 40 Page 16 Eternal Valley ProjectNo. GS 8324 July 26, 2021 APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING 11080 Tuxford Street, Sun Valley, CA 91352 - Phone (323) 93 7-109 7 Page 17 Eternal Valley ProjectNo. GS 8324 July 26, 2021 LABORATORY TESTING Maximum Density - Optimum Moisture Content: A bulk soil sample was tested in the laboratory to determine the dry density and optimum moisture content using the ASTM D1557-02 compaction test method. This test is made on the minus four (4) fractions of the sample in a four -inch diameter mold having 1/30-cubic foot volume, with 25 blows of a ten -pound hammer falling 18 inches on each of five layers. The results of the test are presented below and on the following Plates. Soil Sample Maximum Optimum tested description dry density moisture content (pcf) (% of dry weight) B-5 at 2'— 3' Sandstone 129.5 9.5 Maintenance Area B-1 at 2'— 5' Fill 128.5 9.0 Fill Evaluation B-2 at 2'— 5' Fill 128.0 9.5 Fill Evaluation Direct Shear: Direct shear tests (ASTM D 3080) were performed on relatively undisturbed and remolded 2.5-inch diameter samples to determine the strength of the soils. The samples were placed in water for at least 24 hours before testing and then sheared under normal loads. Direct shear tests were also made on remolded 2.5-inch diameter samples of the fill to determine the strength at 90 percent relative compaction. The samples were sheared at a rate of 0.01 inch per minute. The test results were plotted on the following plates. Consolidation: The apparatus used for the consolidation tests is designed to receive relatively undisturbed specimens in the field condition. Porous stones were placed in contact with the top and bottom of the specimen to permit the ready addition and release of water. Successive load increments were applied to the top of the specimen, and progressive final settlements under each load increment were recorded to an accuracy of 0.001 inch. The maximum stress during testing was nine ksf The sample was unloaded to one ksf to check the rebound characteristics. The test was performed to the (ASTM D 2435). The final settlements obtained were plotted to determine the curves shown on the following plates. 11080 Tuxford Street, Sun Valley, CA 91352 - Phone (323) 93 7-109 7 Page 18 Eternal Valley ProjectNo. GS 8324 July 26, 2021 Moisture -Density: The moisture -density information provides a summary of soil consistency for each stratum. The dry unit weight and field moisture content were determined for selected undisturbed samples. The results of the moisture -density tests are shown on the shear graphs. The results of the relative densities of the existing fill are presented in the table below: Sample location Density (pc / Moisture % Max. Dry Density c Relative Compaction % B-1 5' 103 / 11 128.5 80 B-1 10' 118 / 9.2 128.5 92 B-1 15' 109 / 17 128.5 85 B-1 20' 109 / 14 128.5 85 B-1 25' 120 / 11.8 128.5 1 93 B-1 35' 108.7 / 7.3 128.5 1 85 11080 Tuxford Street, Sun Valley, CA 91352 - Phone (323) 93 7-109 7 GEOTECHNICAL SOILUTION, INC Moisture Density ASTM D1557 Project: Eternal Valley Address Ref. No.: Fill Evaluation Lab./Field Sample No.: Depth: 2-5' Material Source: Sample Location; 8-1 Sample Description: Yellow Brown Silty Gravelly Sand Remarks: % Passing 318" = 95 Volume of Mold 0.0333 0.033 Weight of Wet Soil + Mold Weight of Mold Weight of Wet Soil Wet Density Moisture Content Determination: Wet Weight + Tare Dry Weight + Tare Weight Loss Weight of Tare Weight of Dry Soil Moisture Content, Dry Density, pcf 133 132 131 130 129 128 127 C, 126 a; 125 124 0 123 0 122 121 120 119 118 117 116 115 0 1 2 3 ♦ Moisture -Density Curve 5p, Gr. 2.65 Sp. Gr. 2.70 Job No.: GS-8324 Date 5/5/2008 Date Sampled: Date Tested: 4/29/2008 Tested By: V.D. Sampled By: G.S.I. 10.04 10.02 9.92 9.72 5.35 5.35 5.35 5.35 4.69 4.67 4.57 4.37 140.7 140.1 137.1 131.1 416.0 406.7 413.3 417.9 404.5 394.0 404.2 411.0 11.5 12.7 9.1 6.9 284.7 284.7 284.7 284.7 119.8 109.3 119.5 126.3 9.6 11.6 7.6 5.5 128.4 125.5 127.4 124.3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 114 15 Moisture Content, % PLATE 1 GEOTECHNICAL SOILUTION, INC Moisture Density ASTM D1557 Project: Eternal Valley Address Ref. No.: Fill Evaluation Lab./Field Sample No.: Depth: 2-5' Material Source: Sample Location: B-2 Sample Description: Fill, Sandy Silt Remarks: % Passing 318" = 97 Volume of Mold 0.0333 Weight of Wet Soil + Mold Weight of Mold Weight of Wet Soil Wet Density Moisture Content Determination: Wet Weight + Tare Dry Weight + Tare Weight Loss Weight of Tare Weight of Dry Soil Moisture Content, % Dry Density, pcf 133 1 132 - 131 130 129 1 128 127 c 126 +� 125 ....... 124 0n 123 O 122 121 120 119 118 117 11B I I 115 0 1 2 3 ♦ Moisture -Density Curve Sp. Gr. 2.65 Sp. Gr. 2.70 Job No.: GS-8324 Date 5/5/2008 Date Sampled: Date Tested: 4/29/2008 Tested By: V.D. Sampled By: G.S.I. IIX#TCk3 10,04 9.98 9.80 9.96 5.35 5.35 5.35 5.35 4.69 4.63 4.45 4.61 140.7 138.9 133.5 138.3 437.3 408.2 413.8 427.0 422.5 398.4 405.8 411.1 14.8 9.8 8.0 15.9 284.7 284.7 284.7 284.7 137.8 113.7 121.1 126.4 10.7 8.6 6.61 12.6 127.1 127.9 125.21 122.8 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Moisture Content, % PLATE 2 GEOTECHNICAL SOIL UTION, INC Moisture Density ASTM D1557 Project: Eternal Valley Address Maintenance Area Ref. No.: Lab./Field Sample No.: Depth: 2-3- Material Source: Sample Location: B-5 Sample Description: Fill Remarks: % Passing 318" = 96 Volume of Mold 0.0333 Weight of Wet Soil + Mold Weight of Mold Weight of Wet Soil Wet Density Moisture Content Determination: Wet Weight + Tare Dry Weight + Tare Weight Loss Weight of Tare Weight of Dry Soil Moisture Content, % Dry Density, pcf 118 117 116 115 Job No.: GS-8324 Date 5/5/2008 Date Sampled: Date Tested: 5/5/2008 Tested By: V. D. Sampled By: G.S.I. n_n3:i 9.89 10.08 10.08 9.65 5.35 5.35 5.35 5.35 4.54 4.73 4.73 4.30 136.2 141.9 141.9 129.0 421.6 409.3 420.4 422.7 411.8 398.3 406.2 415.4 9.8 11.0 14.2 7.3 284.7 284.7 284.7 284.7 127.1 113.6 121.5 130.7 7.7 9.7 11.7 5.6 126.5 129.4 127.1 122.2 d 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Moisture -Density Curve Moisture Content, % Sp. Gr. 2.65 - )K- Sp. Gr. 2.70 PLATE 3 Geotechnical Soilutions, Inc. 501 S. Fairfax Ave, # 101 Los Angeles, CA 90036 DIRECT SMEAR TEST Client Eternal Valley/'Fill Evaluation Job No. GS-8324 Soil type: Fill, Silty sand Technician RT Boring s-1 Depth s Undisturbed Remolded X Date 05/13/2008 Max Density 128.5 Pcf, 'Opt Moisture 9.0% W 12 % Peak Ws 15.3 % Cohesion s 0 Dry Density 115 pcf Friction Angle de 39 2500 I I I ■ F500 � ■Peak — Peak c v' O Residual v ■ i Residual ■ i 500 i I � I 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Vertical Load (psf) PLATE 4 Geotechnical Soilutions, Inc. 501 S. Fairfax Ave, 4 101 Los Angeles, CA 90036 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Client Eternal Valley/Fill Evaluation Soil type: Fill, Silty sand Technician RT Undisturbed X Remolded W 11 % Ws 23 % Dry Density 103 pcf Job No. GS-8324 Boring B-1 Depth 51 Date 04/23/2008 Peak Cohesion s 700 Friction Angle (de 27 2500 I I i I I I a ■ Peak Peak b v p Residual ResiduW loon ...... ---- -- -- _-_ ---- _ - — - i I E i 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Vertical Load (psf) PLATE 5 Geotechnical Soilntion>s, Inc. 501 S. Fairfax Ave, # 101 Los Angeles, CA 90036 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Client Eternal Valley/ Till Evaluation Soil type: Fill, Silty sand Technician RT Undisturbed X W Ws Dry Density Remolded 9.2 % 20 % 118 pcf Jab No. GS-8324 Boring B-1 Depth 10, Date 04/23/2008 Peak Cohesion s 200 Friction Angle de 39 2500 2000 I -------..v.._._..._...._.{�_ ! I ■ 150p-- n ■ Peak n — Peak v�' © Residual ■ Residual 1DOD I � I I i i D 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Vertical Load (pso PLATE 6 Geotechnical Soilutions, Inc, 501 S. Fairfax Ave, ## 101 Los Angeles, CA 90036 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Client Eternal Valley/Fill Evaluation Soil type: Fill, Silty sand Technician RT Undisturbed X Remolded W 17.6 % WS 22 % Dry Density 109.1 Pcf Job No. GS-8324 Boring B-1 Depth 15' Date 05/09/2008 Peak Cohesion s 220 Friction Angle de 43 2500 � I 2000 T I 1500 i ■ Peak ■ — Peak O Residual �„ • Residual 1000 -- 1T f 500 0 I I I I I 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Vertical Load (psf) PLATE 7 Geotechnical Soilutions, Inc. 501 S. Fairfax Ave, # 101 Los Angeles, CA 90036 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Client Eternal Valley/ Fill Evaluation Soil type: Fill, Silty sand Technician RT Undisturbed X Remolded W 14 % Ws 1s % Dry Density 109 pcf Job No. GS-8324 Boring B-1 Depth 20' Date 05/01/2008 Peak Cohesion S 0 Friction An le de 44 3 I I � i 2 _ ... ..... -... _.... .... .. ■ � ■Peak u ■ — Peak m V) p Residual � I N -- Residual i ■ i I I D D l 2 3 Thausauds Vertical load (pst) PLATE 8 GeotechnicaI Soilutions, Inc. 501 S. Fairfax Ave, # 101 Los Angeles, CA 90036 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Client Eternal Valley/'Fill Evaluation Soil type: Fill, Silty sand Technician RT Undisturbed X Remolded W 11.8 % Ws 14.5 % Dry Density 120 pcf Job No. GS-8324 Boring B-1 Depth 25t Date 04/23/2008 Peak Cohesion s 720 Friction Angle de 37 2500 ■ 2000 I ■ 1500 - — -- --------- --i-- - A, I ■Peak — Peak w O Residual Residual 1000 500 — -- — -. __ f 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Vertical Load (psf) PLATE 9 Geotechnical Soilutions, Inc. 501 S. Fairfax Ave, # 101 Los Angeles, CA 90036 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Client Eternal Valley /Fill Evaluation Soil type: Sandstone Technician RT Undisturbed X Remolded W 7.3 % W5 12.5 % Dry Density 108.7 pcf Job No. GS-8324 Boring s-2 Depth 35, Date 04/23/2008 Peak Cohesion s 330 Friction Angle de 37 3 I i I I i ■ 2 - —--__....---- ---- ----- __ ■ Q. ■ Peak — Peak "D o O Residual r -- Residual I I 0 a z Thousands Vertical Load (psf) PLATE 10 Geotechnical SoiIutions, Inc. 501 S. Fairfax Ave, # 101 Los Angeles, CA 90036 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Client Eternal Valley/ Maintnance Area Soil type-. Sandstone Technician RT Undisturbed X Remolded W 6.3 % Ws 17.7 % Dry Density 107.6 pcf Job No. GS-8324 Boring B-5 Depth 10, Date 05/12/2008 Peak Cohesion s 200 Friction Angle de 38 z I I 4�- ■ Peak Peak n o Residual Residual l ■ a q l 2 3 Thousands Vertical Load (psf) PLATE II Geotechnical Soilutions, Inc. 501 S. Fairfax Ave, # 101 Los Angeles, CA 90036 LOAD - PERCENT CONSOLIDATION TEST Job No. GS8324 Boring no B-1 Date Client Eternal Valley Depths 5' Tested By RT 0 -2 c 0 b c 0 -4 V a� a� -8 100 1000 10000 Vertical Load (psi PLATE 12 Gcotechnical Soilutions, Inc. 501 S. Fairfax Ave, # 101 Los Angeles, CA 90036 LOAD - PERCENT CONSOLIDATION TEST Job No. GS8324 Boring no B-1 Date 04/23/08 Client Eternal Valley Depths 10' Tested By RT 0 -2 0 .a o -4 U U 7�J a -s 100 1000 10000 Vertical Load (psf) PLATE 13 Geotechnical Soilutions, Inc. 501 S. Fairfax Ave, # 101 Los Angeles, CA 90036 LOAD - PERCENT CONSOLIDATION TEST Job No. GS8324 Boring no B-1 Date 05/13/08 Client Eternal Valley Depths 15' Tested By RT 1 0 i -1 O ,y LC 0 -2 U t+ C' Cu -3 -4 -5 100 1000 10000 Vertical Load (pso 1 PLATE 14 Geotechnical Soilutions, Inc. 501 S. Fairfax Ave, # I0 f Los Angeles, CA 90036 LOAD - PERCENT CONSOLIDATION TEST Job No, GS8324 Boring no B-1 ©ate 05/01/08 Client Eternal Valley Depths 20' Tested By RT 1 0 _1 a 0 -2 0 U U N -3 -4 -5 l00 1000 10000 Vertical Load (psf) 19 WM i R Geotechnical Soilutions, Inc. 501 S. Fairfax Ave, # 101 Los Angeles, CA 90036 LOAD - PERCENT CONSOLIDATION TEST Job No. GS8324 Boring no B-1 Date 05/01/09 Client Eternal Valley Depths 25' Tested By RT 1 0 o -1 'c3 0 C U c a� c� a., -2 -3 -4 100 1000 10000 Vertical Load (pso PLATE 16 Page 19 Eternal Valley ProjectNo. GS 8324 July 26, 2021 APPENDIX D STABILITY ANALYSES 11080 Tuxford Street, Sun Valley, CA 91352 - Phone (323) 93 7-109 7 Eternal Valley Sec Al GROSS STATIC ANALYSIS 5.1 & 2.1 WITH PROPOSED ROAD Geotechnical Soilutions Inc 375 \Eternal Valley Sec A1.gsd ---- -375 300- ------------------------ --- - 300 225 ------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------- 225 B7 Bs '150 --------------------------------- ---------------------------- ------------. , --- S1B . ---------- - '150 ® S1 B4 B3 1 S1 S1 B1 � i B S1 Sz 75-.--.---.s B - --.. .1. �75 B9 2 i i i i 0 0 Segment 75 50 225 300 375 450 525 600 GEOSTASE Slope Stability Ana'lvsis GEOSTASE PROFILE PREVIEW Simplified Bishop Method GEOSTASE® by GREGORY GEOTECHNICAL SOFTWARE PLATE C.1 Eternal Valley Sec Al GROSS STATIC ANALYSIS 5.1 & 2.1 WITH PROPOSED ROAD Geotechnical Soilutions Inc \Eternal Valley Sec A1.gsd 375 375 No. FS Soil Moist Wt Sat Wt c Phi ru Pconst Piez Surf Soil 1 3.41 No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) (ratio) (psf) No. Options 2 3.43 ❑ 1 Fill 120.0 120.0 200.0 30.0 0.000 0.0 0 3 3.43 ❑2 Bedrock 126.0 126.0 200.0 38.0 0.000 0.0 0 4 3.44 5 3.46 300 6 3.46 -- -- - ----------------- 300 7 3.46 8 3.46 9 3.47 10 3.47 225-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 225 8691054731 150-------------- ---------------------------------------------- --- 150 DL1 B6 B3 S1 B B - 7 01 10 0 75 150 225 300 375 450 525 600 GEOSTASE FS = 3.41 GEQ$TASE Simplified Bishop Method Slope Stability Analysis GEOSTASE® by GREGORY GEOTECHNICAL SOFTWARE Eternal Valley Sec Al GROSS STATIC ANALYSIS 5.1 & 2.1 WITH PROPOSED ROAD Geotechnical Soilutions Inc \Eternal Valley Sec A1.gsd 375 375 No. FS Soil Moist Wt Sat Wt c Phi ru Pconst Piez Surf Soil 1 3.41 No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) (ratio) (psf) No. Options 2 3.43 ❑ 1 Fill 120.0 120.0 200.0 30.0 0.000 0.0 0 ; 3 3.43 ❑2 Bedrock 126.0 126.0 200.0 38.0 0.000 0.0 0 4 3.44 5 3.46 300 6 3.46 -- -- - ----------------- 300 7 3.46 8 3.46 9 3.47 10 3.47 225 ------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ 225 8691054731 B8 150 -------------- -------------- ---------------------------------------- ---- 1 B 150 DL1 B6 S1 i i B i B3 S1 1 '✓ B ; S1 S2 75- B 75 B9 S2 i i 0 i i i 0 0 75 150 225 300 375 450 525 600 GEOSTASE FS = 3.41 GEQ$TASE Simplified Bishop Method Slope Stability Analysis GEOSTASE® by GREGORY GEOTECHNICAL SOFTWARE PLATE CA *** GEOSTASE(R) *** ** GEOSTASE(R) (c)Copyright by Garry H. Gregory, Ph.D., P.E.,D.GE ** ** Current Version 4.30.30-Double Precision, January 2019 ** (All Rights Reserved -Unauthorized Use Prohibited) ********************************************************************************* SLOPE S'lABILiTY ANALYSIS SUN"VVFRE Simplified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or General Equilibrium (GE) Options. (Spencer, Morgenstern -Price, USAGE, and Lowe & Karafiath) Including Pier/Pile, Planar Reinf, Nail, Tieback, Line Loads Applied Forces, Fiber -Reinforced Soil (FRS), Distributed Loads Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Strength Envelope, Anisotropic Strengths, Water Surfaces, 3-Stage Rapid Drawdown 2- or 3-Stage Pseudo -Static & Simplified Newmark Seismic Analyses. ********************************************************************************* Analysis Date: 7/ 21/ 2021 Analysis Time: Analysis By: Geotechnical Soilutions Inc Input File Name: C:\Users\Sylva\Desktop\GEOSTASE Backup\GSI Analyses \Eternal Valley\Eternal Valley Sec A1.gsd Output File Name: C:\Users\Sylva\Desktop\GEOSTASE Backup\GSI Analyses \Eternal Valley\Eternal Valley Sec A1.OUT Unit System: English PROJECT: Eternal Valley Sec Al DESCRIPTION: GROSS STATIC ANALYSIS 5:1 & 2:1 WITH PROPOSED ROAD BOUNDARY DATA 8 Surface Boundaries 11 Total Boundaries Boundary X- 1 Y- 1 X- 2 Y- 2 Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0.000 80.000 95.000 80.000 1 2 95.000 80.000 110.000 90.000 1 3 110.000 90.000 205.000 105.000 1 4 205.000 105.000 225.000 115.000 1 5 225.000 115.000 250.000 115.000 1 6 250.000 115.000 470.000 160.000 1 7 470.000 160.000 530.000 165.000 1 8 530.000 165.000 600.000 165.000 2 9 0.000 20.000 210.000 60.000 2 10 210.000 60.000 490.000 140.000 2 11 490.000 140.000 530.000 165.000 2 User Specified X-Origin = 0.000(ft) User Specified Y-Origin = 0.000(ft) MOHR-COULOMB SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of Soil Defined Soil Number Moist Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Water and Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface Option Description (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ratio(ru) (psf) No. 1 Fill 120.0 120.0 200.00 30.00 0.000 0.0 0 0 2 Bedrock 126.0 126.0 200.00 38.00 0.000 0.0 0 0 DISTRIBUTED LOAD(S) 1 Load(s) Specified Load BND No. X- 1 Y- 1 Stress X- 2 Y- 2 Stress Deflection No. (it) (it) (pst) (it) (it) (pst) (deg from Vert) 1 5 225.000 115.000 200.000 250.000 115.000 200.000 0.00 NOTE - Load Stress Varies Linearly Within Specified Range. I'R1AL r'AlLURE SURFACE DATA Circular Trial Failure Surfaces Have Been Generated Using A Random Procedure. 500 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 500 Surfaces Generated at Increments of 1.0822(in) Equally Spaced Within the Start Range Along The Specified Surface Between X 50.00(ft) and X = 95.00(ft) Each Surface Enters within a Range Between X = 205.00(ft) and X = 530.00(ft) Unless XCLUDE Lines Were Specified, The Minimum Elevation To Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00(ft) Specified Maximum Radius = 5000.000(ft) 15.000(ft) Line Segments Were Used For Each Trial Failure Surface. The Simplified Bishop Method Was Selected for FS Analysis. Total Number of Trial Surfaces Attempted = 500 Number of Trial Surfaces With Valid FS = 500 Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values: FS Max = 6.301 FS Min = 3.415 FS Ave = 4.845 Standard Deviation = 0.849 Coefficient of Variation = 17.51 % Critical Surface is Sequence Number 56 of Those Analyzed. *** BEGINNING OF DETAILED GEOSTASE OUTPUT FOR CRITICAL SURFACE FROM A SEARCH*** BACK -CALCULATED CIRCULAR SUhr'ACB PPdQ METLPS: Circle Center At X = 144.400343(ft) ; Y 849.923096(ft); and Radius = 775.100744(ft) Circular Trial Failure Surface Generated With 32 Coordinate Points Point X-Coord. Y-Coord. No. (it) (it) 1 54.960 80.000 2 69.876 78.413 3 84.820 77.116 4 99.786 76.107 5 114.768 75.389 6 129.762 74.961 7 144.762 74.822 8 159.761 74.975 9 174.754 75.417 10 189.736 76.149 11 204.702 77.172 12 219.644 78.483 13 234.558 80.084 14 249.439 81.973 15 264.280 84.149 16 279.077 86.612 17 293.823 89.361 18 308.513 92.395 19 323.141 95.713 20 337.703 99.313 21 352.192 103.194 22 366.603 107.355 23 380.931 111.794 24 395.171 116.510 25 409.317 121.500 26 423.363 126.763 27 437.305 132.296 28 451.137 138.099 29 464.854 144.168 30 478.452 150.501 31 491.924 157.097 32 502.914 162.743 Factor Of Safety For The Critical or Specified Surface = 3.415 ***Table 1 - Geometry Data on the 37 Slices*** Slice Width Height X-Cntr Y-Cntr-Base Y-Cntr-Top Alpha Beta Base Length No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (deg) (deg) (ft) 1 14.92 0.79 62.42 79.21 80.00 -6.07 0.00 15.00 2 14.94 2.24 77.35 77.76 80.00 -4.96 0.00 15.00 3 10.18 3.23 89.91 76.77 80.00 -3.85 0.00 10.20 4 4.79 5.33 97.39 76.27 81.60 -3.85 33.69 4.80 5 10.21 10.73 104.89 75.86 86.60 -2.75 33.69 10.23 6 4.77 14.87 112.38 75.50 90.38 -2.75 8.97 4.77 7 14.99 16.76 122.27 75.17 91.94 -1.64 8.97 15.00 8 15.00 19.41 137.26 74.89 94.30 -0.53 8.97 15.00 9 15.00 21.77 152.26 74.90 96.67 0.58 8.97 15.00 10 14.99 23.84 167.26 75.20 99.04 1.69 8.97 15.00 11 14.98 25.62 182.25 75.78 101.41 2.80 8.97 15.00 12 14.97 27.11 197.22 76.66 103.77 3.91 8.97 15.00 13 0.30 27.79 204.85 77.18 104.98 5.02 8.97 0.30 14 14.64 30.82 212.32 77.84 108.66 5.02 26.57 14.70 15 5.36 34.89 222.32 78.77 113.66 6.13 26.57 5.39 16 9.56 35.43 229.78 79.57 115.00 6.13 0.00 9.61 17 14.88 33.97 242.00 81.03 115.00 7.23 0.00 15.00 18 0.56 32.99 249.72 82.01 115.00 8.34 0.00 0.57 19 14.28 33.36 257.14 83.10 116.46 8.34 11.56 14.43 20 14.80 34.05 271.68 85.38 119.43 9.45 11.56 15.00 21 14.75 34.47 286.45 87.99 122.46 10.56 11.56 15.00 22 14.69 34.59 301.17 90.88 125.47 11.67 11.56 15.00 23 14.63 34.41 315.83 94.05 128.46 12.78 11.56 15.00 24 14.56 33.94 330.42 97.51 131.45 13.89 11.56 15.00 25 14.49 33.17 344.95 101.25 134.42 15.00 11.56 15.00 26 14.41 32.10 359.40 105.27 137.38 16.10 11.56 15.00 27 14.33 30.74 373.77 109.57 140.32 17.21 11.56 15.00 28 14.24 29.09 388.05 114.15 143.24 18.32 11.56 15.00 29 14.15 27.14 402.24 119.00 146.14 19.43 11.56 15.00 30 14.05 24.89 416.34 124.13 149.02 20.54 11.56 15.00 31 13.94 22.36 430.33 129.53 151.89 21.65 11.56 15.00 32 13.83 19.53 444.22 135.20 154.73 22.76 11.56 15.00 33 13.72 16.41 458.00 141.13 157.54 23.87 11.56 15.00 34 5.15 14.11 467.43 145.37 159.47 24.98 11.56 5.68 35 8.45 11.82 474.23 148.53 160.35 24.98 4.76 9.32 36 13.47 7.47 485.19 153.80 161.27 26.08 4.76 15.00 37 10.99 2.37 497.42 159.92 162.28 27.19 4.76 12.36 ***Table 2 - Force Data On The 37 Slices (Excluding Reinforcement)*** Ubeta Ualpha Earthquake Force Force Force Distributed Slice Weight Top Hot Hor Ver Load No. (lbs) (Ibs) (lbs) (Ibs) (Ibs) (Ibs) 1 1420.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 4008.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 3942.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 3058.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 13155.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 8510.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 30159.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 34941.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 39191.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 42902.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 46068.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 48686.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13 995.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14 54160.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15 22424.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16 40637.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1911.7 17 60662.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2976.1 18 2220.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 112.2 19 57164.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 60464.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21 60992.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22 60971.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23 60404.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24 59300.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25 57668.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26 55516.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27 52855.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28 49700.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29 46062.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30 41958.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31 37403.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32 32416.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33 27014.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34 8710.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35 11987.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 36 12071.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37 3119.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL WEIGHT OF SLIDING MASS 1252929.48(lbs) EFFECTIVE WEIGHT OF SLIDING MASS = 1252929.48(lbs) TOTAL AREA OF SLIDING MASS = 10441.08(ft2) ***TABLE 2A - SOIL STRENGTH & SOIL OPTIONS DATA ON THE 37 SLICES*** Slice Soil Cohesion Phi(Deg) Options No. Type (psf) 1 1 200.00 30.00 2 1 200.00 30.00 3 1 200.00 30.00 4 1 200.00 30.00 5 1 200.00 30.00 6 1 200.00 30.00 7 1 200.00 30.00 8 1 200.00 30.00 9 1 200.00 30.00 10 1 200.00 30.00 11 1 200.00 30.00 12 1 200.00 30.00 13 1 200.00 30.00 14 1 200.00 30.00 15 1 200.00 30.00 16 1 200.00 30.00 17 1 200.00 30.00 18 1 200.00 30.00 19 1 200.00 30.00 20 1 200.00 30.00 21 1 200.00 30.00 22 1 200.00 30.00 23 1 200.00 30.00 24 1 200.00 30.00 25 1 200.00 30.00 26 1 200.00 30.00 27 1 200.00 30.00 28 1 200.00 30.00 29 1 200.00 30.00 30 1 200.00 30.00 31 1 200.00 30.00 32 1 200.00 30.00 33 1 200.00 30.00 34 1 200.00 30.00 35 1 200.00 30.00 36 1 200.00 30.00 37 1 200.00 30.00 SOIL OPTIONS: A = ANISOTROPIC, C = CURVED STRENGTH ENVELOPE (TANGENT PHI & C), F = FIBER -REINFORCED SOIL (FRS), N = NONLINEAR UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH, R = RAPID DRAWDOWN OR RAPID LOADING (SEISMIC) SHEAR STRENGTH NOTE: Phi and C in Table 4 are modified values based on specified Soil Options (if any). ***TABLE 3 - Effective and Base Shear Stress Data on the 37 Slices*** Slice Alpha X-Coord. Base Effective Available Mobilized No. (deg) Slice Cntr Leng. Normal Stress Shear Strength Shear Stress * (ft) (ft) (psf) (psf) (psf) 1 -6.07 62.42 15.00 103.36 259.67 76.04 1 -6.07 62.42 15.00 103.36 259.67 76.04 2 -4.96 77.35 15.00 277.50 360.21 105.49 2 -4.96 77.35 15.00 277.50 360.21 105.49 3 -3.85 89.91 10.20 395.80 428.51 125.49 3 -3.85 89.91 10.20 395.80 428.51 125.49 4 -3.85 97.39 4.80 650.65 575.65 168.58 4 -3.85 97.39 4.80 650.65 575.65 168.58 5 -2.75 104.89 10.23 1301.40 951.36 278.60 5 -2.75 104.89 10.23 1301.40 951.36 278.60 6 -2.75 112.38 4.77 1802.35 1240.59 363.30 6 -2.75 112.38 4.77 1802.35 1240.59 363.30 7 -1.64 122.27 15.00 2022.97 1367.96 400.60 7 -1.64 122.27 15.00 2022.97 1367.96 400.60 8 -0.53 137.26 15.00 2333.77 1547.40 453.15 8 -0.53 137.26 15.00 2333.77 1547.40 453.15 9 0.58 152.26 15.00 2607.81 1705.62 499.49 9 0.58 152.26 15.00 2607.81 1705.62 499.49 10 1.69 167.26 15.00 2845.33 1842.75 539.64 10 1.69 167.26 15.00 2845.33 1842.75 539.64 11 2.80 182.25 15.00 3046.59 1958.95 573.67 11 2.80 182.25 15.00 3046.59 1958.95 573.67 12 3.91 197.22 15.00 3211.86 2054.37 601.62 12 3.91 197.22 15.00 3211.86 2054.37 601.62 13 5.02 204.85 0.30 3280.70 2094.12 613.26 13 5.02 204.85 0.30 3280.70 2094.12 613.26 14 5.02 212.32 14.70 3638.80 2300.86 673.80 14 5.02 212.32 14.70 3638.80 2300.86 673.80 15 6.13 222.32 5.39 4105.36 2570.23 752.69 15 6.13 222.32 5.39 4105.36 2570.23 752.69 16 6.13 229.78 9.61 4365.25 2720.28 796.63 16 6.13 229.78 9.61 4365.25 2720.28 796.63 17 7.23 242.00 15.00 4178.65 2612.54 765.08 17 7.23 242.00 15.00 4178.65 2612.54 765.08 18 8.34 249.72 0.57 4048.42 2537.36 743.06 18 8.34 249.72 0.57 4048.42 2537.36 743.06 19 8.34 257.14 14.43 3896.88 2449.87 717.44 19 8.34 257.14 14.43 3896.88 2449.87 717.44 20 9.45 271.68 15.00 3964.03 2488.63 728.79 20 9.45 271.68 15.00 3964.03 2488.63 728.79 21 10.56 286.45 15.00 3998.09 2508.30 734.55 21 10.56 286.45 15.00 3998.09 2508.30 734.55 22 11.67 301.17 15.00 3997.49 2507.95 734.45 22 11.67 301.17 15.00 3997.49 2507.95 734.45 23 12.78 315.83 15.00 3962.55 2487.78 728.54 23 12.78 315.83 15.00 3962.55 2487.78 728.54 24 13.89 330.42 15.00 3893.61 2447.98 716.88 24 13.89 330.42 15.00 3893.61 2447.98 716.88 25 15.00 344.95 15.00 3791.03 2388.75 699.54 25 15.00 344.95 15.00 3791.03 2388.75 699.54 26 16.10 359.40 15.00 3655.16 2310.31 676.57 26 16.10 359.40 15.00 3655.16 2310.31 676.57 27 17.21 373.77 15.00 3486.41 2212.88 648.03 27 17.21 373.77 15.00 3486.41 2212.88 648.03 28 18.32 388.05 15.00 3285.16 2096.69 614.01 28 18.32 388.05 15.00 3285.16 2096.69 614.01 29 19.43 402.24 15.00 3051.84 1961.98 574.56 29 19.43 402.24 15.00 3051.84 1961.98 574.56 30 20.54 416.34 15.00 2786.88 1809.01 529.76 30 20.54 416.34 15.00 2786.88 1809.01 529.76 31 21.65 430.33 15.00 2490.75 1638.03 479.69 31 21.65 430.33 15.00 2490.75 1638.03 479.69 32 22.76 444.22 15.00 2163.90 1449.33 424.43 32 22.76 444.22 15.00 2163.90 1449.33 424.43 33 23.87 458.00 15.00 1806.83 1243.18 364.06 33 23.87 458.00 15.00 1806.83 1243.18 364.06 34 24.98 467.43 5.68 1542.79 1090.73 319.42 34 24.98 467.43 5.68 1542.79 1090.73 319.42 35 24.98 474.23 9.32 1288.41 943.86 276.41 35 24.98 474.23 9.32 1288.41 943.86 276.41 36 26.08 485.19 15.00 800.24 662.02 193.87 36 26.08 485.19 15.00 800.24 662.02 193.87 37 27.19 497.42 12.36 233.04 334.54 97.97 37 27.19 497.42 12.36 233.04 334.54 97.97 ***Table 4 - Base Force Data on the 37 Slices*** Slice Alpha X-Coord. Base Effective Available Mobilized No. (deg) Slice Cntr Leng. Normal Force Shear Force Shear Force * (ft) (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 -6.07 62.42 15.00 1550.38 3895.11 1140.67 1 -6.07 62.42 15.00 1550.38 3895.11 1140.67 2 -4.96 77.35 15.00 4162.47 5403.20 1582.31 2 -4.96 77.35 15.00 4162.47 5403.20 1582.31 3 -3.85 89.91 10.20 4038.54 4372.36 1280.43 3 -3.85 89.91 10.20 4038.54 4372.36 1280.43 4 -3.85 97.39 4.80 3120.80 2761.08 808.58 4 -3.85 97.39 4.80 3120.80 2761.08 808.58 5 -2.75 104.89 10.23 13308.28 9728.76 2849.04 5 -2.75 104.89 10.23 13308.28 9728.76 2849.04 6 -2.75 112.38 4.77 8604.21 5922.42 1734.36 6 -2.75 112.38 4.77 8604.21 5922.42 1734.36 7 -1.64 122.27 15.00 30344.54 20519.43 6009.06 7 -1.64 122.27 15.00 30344.54 20519.43 6009.06 8 -0.53 137.26 15.00 35006.58 23211.06 6797.29 8 -0.53 137.26 15.00 35006.58 23211.06 6797.29 9 0.58 152.26 15.00 39117.12 25584.28 7492.28 9 0.58 152.26 15.00 39117.12 25584.28 7492.28 10 1.69 167.26 15.00 42679.92 27641.26 8094.66 10 1.69 167.26 15.00 42679.92 27641.26 8094.66 11 2.80 182.25 15.00 45698.83 29384.23 8605.09 11 2.80 182.25 15.00 45698.83 29384.23 8605.09 12 3.91 197.22 15.00 48177.84 30815.49 9024.23 12 3.91 197.22 15.00 48177.84 30815.49 9024.23 13 5.02 204.85 0.30 982.80 627.33 183.71 13 5.02 204.85 0.30 982.80 627.33 183.71 14 5.02 212.32 14.70 53491.88 33823.63 9905.15 14 5.02 212.32 14.70 53491.88 33823.63 9905.15 15 6.13 222.32 5.39 22114.06 13844.89 4054.43 15 6.13 222.32 5.39 22114.06 13844.89 4054.43 16 6.13 229.78 9.61 41964.77 26151.05 7658.26 16 6.13 229.78 9.61 41964.77 26151.05 7658.26 17 7.23 242.00 15.00 62679.69 39188.13 11476.13 17 7.23 242.00 15.00 62679.69 39188.13 11476.13 18 8.34 249.72 0.57 2295.09 1438.45 421.25 18 8.34 249.72 0.57 2295.09 1438.45 421.25 19 8.34 257.14 14.43 56244.05 35359.14 10354.82 19 8.34 257.14 14.43 56244.05 35359.14 10354.82 20 9.45 271.68 15.00 59460.42 37329.49 10931.83 20 9.45 271.68 15.00 59460.42 37329.49 10931.83 21 10.56 286.45 15.00 59971.42 37624.52 11018.23 21 10.56 286.45 15.00 59971.42 37624.52 11018.23 22 11.67 301.17 15.00 59962.42 37619.32 11016.71 22 11.67 301.17 15.00 59962.42 37619.32 11016.71 23 12.78 315.83 15.00 59438.31 37316.72 10928.09 23 12.78 315.83 15.00 59438.31 37316.72 10928.09 24 13.89 330.42 15.00 58404.19 36719.67 10753.25 24 13.89 330.42 15.00 58404.19 36719.67 10753.25 25 15.00 344.95 15.00 56865.38 35831.24 10493.08 25 15.00 344.95 15.00 56865.38 35831.24 10493.08 26 16.10 359.40 15.00 54827.42 34654.62 10148.51 26 16.10 359.40 15.00 54827.42 34654.62 10148.51 27 17.21 373.77 15.00 52296.08 33193.15 9720.52 27 17.21 373.77 15.00 52296.08 33193.15 9720.52 28 18.32 388.05 15.00 49277.38 31450.31 9210.13 28 18.32 388.05 15.00 49277.38 31450.31 9210.13 29 19.43 402.24 15.00 45777.60 29429.71 8618.40 29 19.43 402.24 15.00 45777.60 29429.71 8618.40 30 20.54 416.34 15.00 41803.26 27135.12 7946.44 30 20.54 416.34 15.00 41803.26 27135.12 7946.44 31 21.65 430.33 15.00 37361.19 24570.49 7195.40 31 21.65 430.33 15.00 37361.19 24570.49 7195.40 32 22.76 444.22 15.00 32458.47 21739.91 6366.47 32 22.76 444.22 15.00 32458.47 21739.91 6366.47 33 23.87 458.00 15.00 27102.51 18647.64 5460.91 33 23.87 458.00 15.00 27102.51 18647.64 5460.91 34 24.98 467.43 5.68 8757.35 6191.32 1813.11 34 24.98 467.43 5.68 8757.35 6191.32 1813.11 35 24.98 474.23 9.32 12012.72 8800.29 2577.14 35 24.98 474.23 9.32 12012.72 8800.29 2577.14 36 26.08 485.19 15.00 12003.63 9930.30 2908.06 36 26.08 485.19 15.00 12003.63 9930.30 2908.06 37 27.19 497.42 12.36 2879.17 4133.29 1210.42 37 27.19 497.42 12.36 2879.17 4133.29 1210.42 SUM OF MOMENTS = -0.528378E-01 (ft/lbs);Imbalance (Fraction of Total Weight) _ - 0.4217140E-07 Sum of the Resisting Forces = 811988.41 (lbs) Average Available Shear Strength = 1756.20(psf) Sum of the Driving Forces = 237788.46 (lbs) Average Mobilized Shear Stress = 514.30(psf) Total lenqth of the failure surface = 462.36(ft) Factor of Safety Balance Check: FS = 3.41475 CAUTION - Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By The Simplified Bishop Method. This Method Is Valid Only If The Failure Surface Approximates A Circular Arc. ** END OF GEOSTASE OUTPUT ** 375------------ Eternal Valley Sec A2 LOCALIZED STATIC ANALYSIS 2.1 TOE OF SLOPE Geotechnical Soilutions Inc \Eternal Valley Sec A2.gsd ---- -375 300------------- --------------- - ------------------------ 300 225------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- 225 B7 Bs S1 g 150-------------- ---------------------------------------------- --- --- 150 DL1 ; B6 i B S1' B3 S1 lain_ , Qo S1 j B1 C3 1 75 - S1 0 z�egme GEOSTASE Slope Stability Ana'lvsis 75 150 225 300 375 GEOSTASE PROFILE PREVIEW Simplified Bishop Method 1 75 , , , , , , , , , , , 0 450 525 600 GEOSTASE® by GREGORY GEOTECHNICAL SOFTWARE PLATE C.1 Eternal Valley Sec A2 LOCALIZED STATIC ANALYSIS 2.1 TOE OF SLOPE Geotechnical Soilutions Inc \Eternal Valley Sec A2.gsd 375 375 No. FS Soil Moist R Sat R c Phi ru Pconst Piez Surf Soil 1 2.49 No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) (ratio) (psf) No. Options 2 2.49 ❑ 1 Fill 120.0 120.0 200.0 30.0 0.000 0.0 0 ; 3 2.49 ❑2 Bedrock 126.0 126.0 200.0 38.0 0.000 0.0 0 4 2.50 5 2.56 300 6 2.57 --- -- ----- ------------- 300 7 2.59 8 2.59 9 2.59 10 2.60 22 5 - - ------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 225 B7 B8 150 S1 150 DL1 B6 2 1 4 3 2 5 6 7 9 810 S1 B3 B S1 S1 B1 i B S1 S2 B1 ; 7 5 — . _. s1 --;-------------------- 7 5 B9 S2 i i 0 i i i 0 0 75 150 225 300 375 450 525 600 GEOSTASE Slope Stability Ana'lvsis GEOSTASE FS = 2.49 Simplified Bishop Method GEOSTASE® by GREGORY GEOTECHNICAL SOFTWARE Eternal Valley Sec A2 LOCALIZED STATIC ANALYSIS 2.1 TOE OF SLOPE Geotechnical Soilutions Inc \Eternal Valley Sec A2.gsd 375 375 No. FS Soil Moist R Sat R c Phi ru Pconst Piez Surf Soil 1 2.49 No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) (ratio) (psf) No. Options 2 2.49 ❑ 1 Fill 120.0 120.0 200.0 30.0 0.000 0.0 0 3 2.49 ❑2 Bedrock 126.0 126.0 200.0 38.0 0.000 0.0 0 4 2.50 5 2.56 300 6 2.57 --- --- -- - ----- -. ----------- 300 7 2.59 8 2.59 9 2.59 10 2.60 225-- -------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ 225 B7 S1 B8S2 DL1 B6 1 4 3 2 5 6 7 9 810 B B3 S1 B S1 i 75 B1 ; ----- sa----- ---------------- -------- __ �75 B9 S2 i i 0 i i i 10 0 75 150 225 300 375 450 525 600 GEOSTASE FS = 2.49 GEQ$TASE Simplified Bishop Method Slope Stability Analysis GEOSTASE® by GREGORY GEOTECHNICAL SOFTWARE PLATE CA *** GEOSTASE(R) *** ** GEOSTASE(R) (c)Copyright by Garry H. Gregory, Ph.D., P.E.,D.GE ** ** Current Version 4.30.30-Double Precision, January 2019 ** (All Rights Reserved -Unauthorized Use Prohibited) ********************************************************************************* SLOPE S'lABILiTY ANALYSIS SUN"VVFRE Simplified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or General Equilibrium (GE) Options. (Spencer, Morgenstern -Price, USAGE, and Lowe & Karafiath) Including Pier/Pile, Planar Reinf, Nail, Tieback, Line Loads Applied Forces, Fiber -Reinforced Soil (FRS), Distributed Loads Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Strength Envelope, Anisotropic Strengths, Water Surfaces, 3-Stage Rapid Drawdown 2- or 3-Stage Pseudo -Static & Simplified Newmark Seismic Analyses. ********************************************************************************* Analysis Date: 7/ 21/ 2021 Analysis Time: Analysis By: Geotechnical Soilutions Inc Input File Name: C:\Users\Sylva\Desktop\GEOSTASE Backup\GSI Analyses \Eternal Valley\Eternal Valley Sec A2.gsd Output File Name: C:\Users\Sylva\Desktop\GEOSTASE Backup\GSI Analyses \Eternal Valley\Eternal Valley Sec A2.OUT Unit System: English PROJECT: Eternal Valley Sec A2 DESCRIPTION: LOCALIZED STATIC ANALYSIS 2:1 TOE OF SLOPE BOUNDARY DATA 8 Surface Boundaries 11 Total Boundaries Boundary X- 1 Y- 1 X- 2 Y- 2 Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0.000 80.000 95.000 80.000 1 2 95.000 80.000 110.000 90.000 1 3 110.000 90.000 205.000 105.000 1 4 205.000 105.000 225.000 115.000 1 5 225.000 115.000 250.000 115.000 1 6 250.000 115.000 470.000 160.000 1 7 470.000 160.000 530.000 165.000 1 8 530.000 165.000 600.000 165.000 2 9 0.000 20.000 210.000 60.000 2 10 210.000 60.000 490.000 140.000 2 11 490.000 140.000 530.000 165.000 2 User Specified X-Origin = 0.000(ft) User Specified Y-Origin = 0.000(ft) MOHR-COULOMB SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of Soil Defined Soil Number Moist Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Water and Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface Option Description (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ratio(ru) (psf) No. 1 Fill 120.0 120.0 200.00 30.00 0.000 0.0 0 0 2 Bedrock 126.0 126.0 200.00 38.00 0.000 0.0 0 0 DISTRIBUTED LOAD(S) 1 Load(s) Specified Load BND No. X- 1 Y- 1 Stress X- 2 Y- 2 Stress Deflection No. (it) (it) (pst) (it) (it) (pst) (deg from Vert) 1 5 225.000 115.000 200.000 250.000 115.000 200.000 0.00 NOTE - Load Stress Varies Linearly Within Specified Range. I'R1AL r'AlLURE SURFACE DATA Circular Trial Failure Surfaces Have Been Generated Using A Random Procedure. 500 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 500 Surfaces Generated at Increments of 0.0000(in) Equally Spaced Within the Start Range Along The Specified Surface Between X 95.00(ft) and X = 95.00(ft) Each Surface Enters within a Range Between X = 120.00(ft) and X = 170.00(ft) Unless XCLUDE Lines Were Specified, The Minimum Elevation To Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00(ft) Specified Maximum Radius = 5000.000(ft) 3.000(ft) Line Segments Were Used For Each Trial Failure Surface. The Simplified Bishop Method Was Selected for FS Analysis. Total Number of Trial Surfaces Attempted = 500 Number of Trial Surfaces With Valid FS = 500 Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values: FS Max = 5.318 FS Min = 2.492 FS Ave = 3.857 Standard Deviation = 0.747 Coefficient of Variation = 19.36 % Critical Surface is Sequence Number 383 of Those Analyzed. *** BEGINNING OF DETAILED GEOSTASE OUTPUT FOR CRITICAL SURFACE FROM A SEARCH*** BACK -CALCULATED CIRCULAR SUhr'ACB PPdQ METLPS: Circle Center At X = 98.653030(ft) ; Y = 105.755686(ft); and Radius = 26.013458(ft) Circular Trial Failure Surface Generated With 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Coord. Y-Coord. No. (it) (it) 1 95.000 80.000 2 97.990 79.751 3 100.988 79.847 4 103.955 80.288 5 106.852 81.068 6 109.640 82.176 7 112.282 83.598 8 114.742 85.315 9 116.989 87.303 10 118.991 89.537 11 120.490 91.656 Factor Of Safety For The Critical or Specified Surface = 2.492 ***Table 1 - Geometry Data on the 11 Slices*** Slice Width Height X-Cntr No. (it) (it) (it) 1 2.99 1.12 96.49 2 3.00 3.19 99.49 3 2.97 4.91 102.47 4 2.90 6.26 105.40 5 2.79 7.21 108.25 6 0.36 7.61 109.82 7 2.28 7.20 111.14 8 2.46 6.10 113.51 9 2.25 4.62 115.87 10 2.00 2.84 117.99 11 1.50 0.94 119.74 Y-Cntr-Base Y-Cntr-Top Alpha Beta Base Length (it) (it) (deg) (deg) (it) 79.88 81.00 -4.77 33.69 3.00 79.80 82.99 1.84 33.69 3.00 80.07 84.98 8.46 33.69 3.00 80.68 86.94 15.07 33.69 3.00 81.62 88.83 21.68 33.69 3.00 82.27 89.88 28.29 33.69 0.41 82.98 90.18 28.29 8.97 2.59 84.46 90.55 34.90 8.97 3.00 86.31 90.93 41.51 8.97 3.00 88.42 91.26 48.12 8.97 3.00 90.60 91.54 54.73 8.97 2.60 ***Table 2 - Force Data On The 11 Slices (Excluding Reinforcement)*** Ubeta Ualpha Earthquake Force Force Force Distributed Slice Weight Top Hot Hor Ver Load No. (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 402.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 1149.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 1749.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 2175.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 2411.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 328.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 1970.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 1800.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 1244.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 682.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 169.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL WEIGHT OF SLIDING MASS = 14084.08(lbs) EFFECTIVE WEIGHT OF SLIDING MASS = 14084.08(lbs) TOTAL AREA OF SLIDING MASS = 117.37(ft2) ***TABLE 2A - SOIL STRENGTH & SOIL OPTIONS DATA ON THE 11 SLICES*** Slice Soil Cohesion Phi(Deg) Options No. Type (psf) 1 1 200.00 30.00 2 1 200.00 30.00 3 1 200.00 30.00 4 1 200.00 30.00 5 1 200.00 30.00 6 1 200.00 30.00 7 1 200.00 30.00 8 1 200.00 30.00 9 1 200.00 30.00 10 1 200.00 30.00 11 1 200.00 30.00 SOIL OPTIONS: A = ANISOTROPIC, C = CURVED STRENGTH ENVELOPE (TANGENT PHI & C), F = FIBER -REINFORCED SOIL (FRS), N = NONLINEAR UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH, R = RAPID DRAWDOWN OR RAPID LOADING (SEISMIC) SHEAR STRENGTH NOTE: Phi and C in Table 4 are modified values based on specified Soil Options (if any). ***TABLE 3 - Effective and Base Shear Stress Data on the 11 Slices*** Slice Alpha X-Coord. Base Effective Available Mobilized No. (deg) Slice Cntr Leng. Normal Stress Shear Strength Shear Stress (it) (it) (pst) (pst) (pst) 1 -4.77 96.49 3.00 144.02 283.15 113.60 1 -4.77 96.49 3.00 144.02 283.15 113.60 2 1.84 99.49 3.00 377.83 418.14 167.76 2 1.84 99.49 3.00 377.83 418.14 167.76 3 8.46 102.47 3.00 558.44 522.42 209.60 3 8.46 102.47 3.00 558.44 522.42 209.60 4 15.07 105.40 3.00 686.50 596.35 239.27 4 15.07 105.40 3.00 686.50 596.35 239.27 5 21.68 108.25 3.00 762.88 640.45 256.96 5 21.68 108.25 3.00 762.88 640.45 256.96 6 28.29 109.82 0.41 773.23 646.42 259.36 6 28.29 109.82 0.41 773.23 646.42 259.36 7 28.29 111.14 2.59 729.39 621.12 249.20 7 28.29 111.14 2.59 729.39 621.12 249.20 8 34.90 113.51 3.00 581.77 535.89 215.01 8 34.90 113.51 3.00 581.77 535.89 215.01 9 41.51 115.87 3.00 400.86 431.44 173.10 9 41.51 115.87 3.00 400.86 431.44 173.10 10 48.12 117.99 3.00 199.86 315.39 126.54 10 48.12 117.99 3.00 199.86 315.39 126.54 11 54.73 119.74 2.60 85.10 49.13 19.71 11 54.73 119.74 2.60 85.10 49.13 19.71 ***Table 4 - Base Force Data on the 11 Slices*** Slice Alpha X-Coord. Base Effective Available Mobilized No. (deg) Slice Cntr Leng. Normal Force Shear Force Shear Force * (ft) (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 -4.77 96.49 3.00 432.05 849.45 340.81 1 -4.77 96.49 3.00 432.05 849.45 340.81 2 1.84 99.49 3.00 1133.49 1254.42 503.29 2 1.84 99.49 3.00 1133.49 1254.42 503.29 3 8.46 102.47 3.00 1675.33 1567.25 628.81 3 8.46 102.47 3.00 1675.33 1567.25 628.81 4 15.07 105.40 3.00 2059.51 1789.06 717.80 4 15.07 105.40 3.00 2059.51 1789.06 717.80 5 21.68 108.25 3.00 2288.63 1921.34 770.87 5 21.68 108.25 3.00 2288.63 1921.34 770.87 6 28.29 109.82 0.41 315.99 264.17 105.99 6 28.29 109.82 0.41 315.99 264.17 105.99 7 28.29 111.14 2.59 1890.11 1609.52 645.77 7 28.29 111.14 2.59 1890.11 1609.52 645.77 8 34.90 113.51 3.00 1745.32 1607.66 645.02 8 34.90 113.51 3.00 1745.32 1607.66 645.02 9 41.51 115.87 3.00 1202.58 1294.31 519.30 9 41.51 115.87 3.00 1202.58 1294.31 519.30 10 48.12 117.99 3.00 599.57 946.16 379.62 10 48.12 117.99 3.00 599.57 946.16 379.62 11 54.73 119.74 2.60 220.92 127.55 51.17 11 54.73 119.74 2.60 220.92 127.55 51.17 SUM OF MOMENTS = -0.152286E-01 (ft/lbs);Imbalance (Fraction of Total Weight) _ - 0.1081261E-05 Sum of the Resisting Forces = 13230.89 (lbs) Average Available Shear Strength = 447.05(psf) Sum of the Driving Forces = 5308.46 (lbs) Average Mobilized Shear Stress = 179.36(psf) Total length of the failure surface = 29.60(ft) Factor of Safety Balance Check: FS = 2.49242 CAUTION - Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By The Simplified Bishop Method. This Method Is Valid Only If The Failure Surface Approximates A Circular Arc. **** END OF GEOSTASE OUTPUT **** Eternal Valley Sec Al Q GROSS SEISMIC ANALYSIS 5.1 & 2.1 WITH PROPOSED ROAD Geotechnical Soilutions Inc 375 \Eternal Valley Sec Al Q.gsd --------------------- -375 300- ------------------------ --- - 300 225 ------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------- 225 B7 Bs '150 --------------------------------- ---------------------------- ------------. , --- S1B . ---------- - '150 ® S1 B4 B3 1 S1 S1 B1 � i B S1 Sz 75-.--.---.s B - --.. .1. �75 B9 2 i i i i 0 0 Segment 75 50 225 300 375 450 525 600 GEOSTASE Slope Stability Ana'lvsis GEOSTASE PROFILE PREVIEW Simplified Bishop Method GEOSTASE® by GREGORY GEOTECHNICAL SOFTWARE PLATE C.1 Eternal Valley Sec Al Q GROSS SEISMIC ANALYSIS 5.1 & 2.1 WITH PROPOSED ROAD Geotechnical Soilutions Inc \Eternal Valley Sec Al Q.gsd 375 ---- --T----- 375 No. FS Soil Moist Wt Sat Wt c Phi ru Pconst Piez Surf Soil - 1 1.90 No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) (ratio) (psf) No. Options 2 1.92 ❑ 1 Fill 120.0 120.0 200.0 30.0 0.000 0.0 0 3 1.92 ❑2 Bedrock 126.0 126.0 200.0 38.0 0.000 0.0 0 4 1.93 5 1.93 300 6 1.94 --- -- - ---- ,---------------------- 300 7 1.94 8 1.95 9 1.96 10 1.96 225 ------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ 225 1079546281 B8 '150 -------------- -------------- ---------------------------------------- ---- 1 B --- 150 DL1 B6 i i B4 . ; S1 i � B3 S1 B S1 S2 75 B �--.---.s �75 B9 S2 i i 0 i i i 0 0 75 150 225 300 375 450 525 600 GEOSTASE FS = 1.90 GEOSTASE Simplified Bishop Method Slope Stability Analysis GEOSTASE® by GREGORY GEOTECHNICAL SOFTWARE PLATE CA *** GEOSTASE(R) *** ** GEOSTASE(R) (c)Copyright by Garry H. Gregory, Ph.D., P.E.,D.GE ** ** Current Version 4.30.30-Double Precision, January 2019 ** (All Rights Reserved -Unauthorized Use Prohibited) ********************************************************************************* SLOPE S'lABILiTY ANALYSIS SUN"VVFRE Simplified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or General Equilibrium (GE) Options. (Spencer, Morgenstern -Price, USAGE, and Lowe & Karafiath) Including Pier/Pile, Planar Reinf, Nail, Tieback, Line Loads Applied Forces, Fiber -Reinforced Soil (FRS), Distributed Loads Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Strength Envelope, Anisotropic Strengths, Water Surfaces, 3-Stage Rapid Drawdown 2- or 3-Stage Pseudo -Static & Simplified Newmark Seismic Analyses. ********************************************************************************* Analysis Date: 7/ 21/ 2021 Analysis Time: Analysis By: Geotechnical Soilutions Inc Input File Name: C:\Users\Sylva\Desktop\GEOSTASE Backup\GSI Analyses \Eternal Valley\Eternal Valley Sec A1Q.gsd Output File Name: C:\Users\Sylva\Desktop\GEOSTASE Backup\GSI Analyses \Eternal Valley\Eternal Valley Sec A1Q.OUT Unit System: English PROJECT: Eternal Valley Sec A1Q DESCRIPTION: GROSS SEISMIC ANALYSIS 5:1 & 2:1 WITH PROPOSED ROAD BOUNDARY DATA 8 Surface Boundaries 11 Total Boundaries Boundary X- 1 Y- 1 X- 2 Y- 2 Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0.000 80.000 95.000 80.000 1 2 95.000 80.000 110.000 90.000 1 3 110.000 90.000 205.000 105.000 1 4 205.000 105.000 225.000 115.000 1 5 225.000 115.000 250.000 115.000 1 6 250.000 115.000 470.000 160.000 1 7 470.000 160.000 530.000 165.000 1 8 530.000 165.000 600.000 165.000 2 9 0.000 20.000 210.000 60.000 2 10 210.000 60.000 490.000 140.000 2 11 490.000 140.000 530.000 165.000 2 User Specified X-Origin = 0.000(ft) User Specified Y-Origin = 0.000(ft) MOHR-COULOMB SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of Soil Defined Soil Number Moist Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Water and Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface Option Description (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ratio(ru) (psf) No. 1 Fill 120.0 120.0 200.00 30.00 0.000 0.0 0 0 2 Bedrock 126.0 126.0 200.00 38.00 0.000 0.0 0 0 DISTRIBUTED LOAD(S) 1 Load(s) Specified Load BND No. X- 1 Y- 1 Stress X- 2 Y- 2 Stress Deflection No. (it) (it) (pst) (it) (it) (pst) (deg from Vert) 1 5 225.000 115.000 200.000 250.000 115.000 200.000 0.00 NOTE - Load Stress Varies Linearly Within Specified Range. SEISMIC (EARTHQUAKE) DATA Specified Peak Ground Acceleration Coefficient (PGA) = 0.000(g) Default Velocity = 0.000(ft) per second Specified Horizontal Earthquake Coefficient (kh) = 0.1500(g) Specified Vertical Earthquake Coefficient (kv) = 0.000(g) (NOTE:Input Velocity = 0.0 will result in default Peak Velocity = 2 times(PGA) times 2.5 fps or 0.762 mps) Specified Seismic Pore -Pressure Factor = 0.000 Horizontal Seismic Force is Applied at Center of Gravity of Slices 1'R1AL r'AlLURE SURrACE DATA Circular Trial Failure Surfaces Have Been Generated Using A Random Procedure. 500 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 500 Surfaces Generated at Increments of 1.0822(in) Equally Spaced Within the Start Range Along The Specified Surface Between X = 50.00(ft) and X = 95.00(ft) Each Surface Enters within a Range Between X = 205.00(ft) and X = 530.00(ft) Unless XCLUDE Lines Were Specified, The Minimum Elevation To Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00(ft) Specified Maximum Radius = 5000.000(ft) 15.000(ft) Line Segments Were Used For Each Trial Failure Surface. The Simplified Bishop Method Was Selected for FS Analysis. Total Number of Trial Surfaces Attempted = 500 Number of Trial Surfaces With Valid FS = 500 Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values: FS Max = 3.533 FS Min = 1.899 FS Ave 2.739 Standard Deviation = 0.474 Coefficient of Variation 17.30 % Critical Surface is Sequence Number 56 of Those Analyzed. *** BEGINNING OF DETAILED GEOSTASE OUTPUT FOR CRITICAL SURFACE FROM A SEARCH*** BACK -CALCULATED CIRCULAR SURFACE PARAMETERS: Circle Center At X = 144.400343(ft) ; Y = 849.923096(ft); and Radius 775.100744(ft) Circular Trial Failure Surface Generated With 32 Coordinate Points Point X-Coord. Y-Coord. No. (it) (it) 1 54.960 80.000 2 69.876 78.413 3 84.820 77.116 4 99.786 76.107 5 114.768 75.389 6 129.762 74.961 7 144.762 74.822 8 159.761 74.975 9 174.754 75.417 10 189.736 76.149 11 204.702 77.172 12 219.644 78.483 13 234.558 80.084 14 249.439 81.973 15 264.280 84.149 16 279.077 86.612 17 293.823 89.361 18 308.513 92.395 19 323.141 95.713 20 337.703 99.313 21 352.192 103.194 22 366.603 107.355 23 380.931 111.794 24 395.171 116.510 25 409.317 121.500 26 423.363 126.763 27 437.305 132.296 28 451.137 138.099 29 464.854 144.168 30 478.452 150.501 31 491.924 157.097 32 502.914 162.743 Factor Of Safety For The Critical or Specified Surface = 1.899 ***Table 1 - Geometry Data on the 37 Slices*** Slice Width Height X-Cntr Y-Cntr-Base Y-Cntr-Top Alpha Beta Base Length No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (deg) (deg) (ft) 1 14.92 0.79 62.42 79.21 80.00 -6.07 0.00 15.00 2 14.94 2.24 77.35 77.76 80.00 -4.96 0.00 15.00 3 10.18 3.23 89.91 76.77 80.00 -3.85 0.00 10.20 4 4.79 5.33 97.39 76.27 81.60 -3.85 33.69 4.80 5 10.21 10.73 104.89 75.86 86.60 -2.75 33.69 10.23 6 4.77 14.87 112.38 75.50 90.38 -2.75 8.97 4.77 7 14.99 16.76 122.27 75.17 91.94 -1.64 8.97 15.00 8 15.00 19.41 137.26 74.89 94.30 -0.53 8.97 15.00 9 15.00 21.77 152.26 74.90 96.67 0.58 8.97 15.00 10 14.99 23.84 167.26 75.20 99.04 1.69 8.97 15.00 11 14.98 25.62 182.25 75.78 101.41 2.80 8.97 15.00 12 14.97 27.11 197.22 76.66 103.77 3.91 8.97 15.00 13 0.30 27.79 204.85 77.18 104.98 5.02 8.97 0.30 14 14.64 30.82 212.32 77.84 108.66 5.02 26.57 14.70 15 5.36 34.89 222.32 78.77 113.66 6.13 26.57 5.39 16 9.56 35.43 229.78 79.57 115.00 6.13 0.00 9.61 17 14.88 33.97 242.00 81.03 115.00 7.23 0.00 15.00 18 0.56 32.99 249.72 82.01 115.00 8.34 0.00 0.57 19 14.28 33.36 257.14 83.10 116.46 8.34 11.56 14.43 20 14.80 34.05 271.68 85.38 119.43 9.45 11.56 15.00 21 14.75 34.47 286.45 87.99 122.46 10.56 11.56 15.00 22 14.69 34.59 301.17 90.88 125.47 11.67 11.56 15.00 23 14.63 34.41 315.83 94.05 128.46 12.78 11.56 15.00 24 14.56 33.94 330.42 97.51 131.45 13.89 11.56 15.00 25 14.49 33.17 344.95 101.25 134.42 15.00 11.56 15.00 26 14.41 32.10 359.40 105.27 137.38 16.10 11.56 15.00 27 14.33 30.74 373.77 109.57 140.32 17.21 11.56 15.00 28 14.24 29.09 388.05 114.15 143.24 18.32 11.56 15.00 29 14.15 27.14 402.24 119.00 146.14 19.43 11.56 15.00 30 14.05 24.89 416.34 124.13 149.02 20.54 11.56 15.00 31 13.94 22.36 430.33 129.53 151.89 21.65 11.56 15.00 32 13.83 19.53 444.22 135.20 154.73 22.76 11.56 15.00 33 13.72 16.41 458.00 141.13 157.54 23.87 11.56 15.00 34 5.15 14.11 467.43 145.37 159.47 24.98 11.56 5.68 35 8.45 11.82 474.23 148.53 160.35 24.98 4.76 9.32 36 13.47 7.47 485.19 153.80 161.27 26.08 4.76 15.00 37 10.99 2.37 497.42 159.92 162.28 27.19 4.76 12.36 ***Table 2 - Force Data On The 37 Slices (Excluding Reinforcement)*** Ubeta Ualpha Force Force Slice Weight Top Hot No. (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) Hor (lbs) Earthquake Force Distributed Ver Load (lbs) (lbs) 1 1420.0 0.0 0.0 213.0 0.0 0 2 4008.8 0.0 0.0 601.3 0.0 0 3 3942.6 0.0 0.0 591.4 0.0 0 4 3058.9 0.0 0.0 458.8 0.0 0 5 13155.3 0.0 0.0 1973.3 0.0 0 6 8510.5 0.0 0.0 1276.6 0.0 0 7 30159.0 0.0 0.0 4523.9 0.0 0 8 34941.9 0.0 0.0 5241.3 0.0 0 9 39191.8 0.0 0.0 5878.8 0.0 0 10 42902.2 0.0 0.0 6435.3 0.0 0 11 46068.2 0.0 0.0 6910.2 0.0 0 12 48686.3 0.0 0.0 7302.9 0.0 0 13 995.2 0.0 0.0 149.3 0.0 0 14 54160.8 0.0 0.0 8124.1 0.0 0 15 22424.3 0.0 0.0 3363.6 0.0 0 16 40637.9 0.0 0.0 6095.7 0.0 1911 17 60662.6 0.0 0.0 9099.4 0.0 2976 18 2220.3 0.0 0.0 333.0 0.0 112 19 57164.7 0.0 0.0 8574.7 0.0 0 20 60464.4 0.0 0.0 9069.7 0.0 0 21 60992.9 0.0 0.0 9148.9 0.0 0 22 60971.2 0.0 0.0 9145.7 0.0 0 23 60404.8 0.0 0.0 9060.7 0.0 0 24 59300.9 0.0 0.0 8895.1 0.0 0 25 57668.0 0.0 0.0 8650.2 0.0 0 26 55516.0 0.0 0.0 8327.4 0.0 0 27 52855.9 0.0 0.0 7928.4 0.0 0 28 49700.2 0.0 0.0 7455.0 0.0 0 29 46062.8 0.0 0.0 6909.4 0.0 0 30 41958.6 0.0 0.0 6293.8 0.0 0 31 37403.9 0.0 0.0 5610.6 0.0 0 32 32416.2 0.0 0.0 4862.4 0.0 0 33 27014.2 0.0 0.0 4052.1 0.0 0 34 8710.8 0.0 0.0 1306.6 0.0 0 35 11987.2 0.0 0.0 1798.1 0.0 0 36 12071.1 0.0 0.0 1810.7 0.0 0 37 3119.0 0.0 0.0 467.9 0.0 0 TOTAL WEIGHT OF SLIDING MASS = 1252929.48(lbs) EFFECTIVE WEIGHT OF SLIDING MASS = 1252929.48(lbs) TOTAL AREA OF SLIDING MASS 10441.08(ft2) ***TABLE 2A - SOIL STRENGTH & SOIL OPTIONS DATA ON THE 37 SLICES*** Slice Soil Cohesion Phi(Deg) Options No. Type (pst) 1 1 200.00 30.00 2 1 200.00 30.00 3 1 200.00 30.00 4 1 200.00 30.00 5 1 200.00 30.00 6 1 200.00 30.00 7 1 200.00 30.00 8 1 200.00 30.00 9 1 200.00 30.00 10 1 200.00 30.00 11 1 200.00 30.00 12 1 200.00 30.00 13 1 200.00 30.00 14 1 200.00 30.00 15 1 200.00 30.00 16 1 200.00 30.00 17 1 200.00 30.00 18 1 200.00 30.00 19 1 200.00 30.00 20 1 200.00 30.00 21 1 200.00 30.00 22 1 200.00 30.00 23 1 200.00 30.00 24 1 200.00 30.00 25 1 200.00 30.00 26 1 200.00 30.00 27 1 200.00 30.00 28 1 200.00 30.00 29 1 200.00 30.00 30 1 200.00 30.00 31 1 200.00 30.00 32 1 200.00 30.00 33 1 200.00 30.00 34 1 200.00 30.00 35 1 200.00 30.00 36 1 200.00 30.00 37 1 200.00 30.00 SOIL OPTIONS: A = ANISOTROPIC, C = CURVED STRENGTH ENVELOPE (TANGENT PHI & C), F = FIBER -REINFORCED SOIL (FRS), N = NONLINEAR UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH, R = RAPID DRAWDOWN OR RAPID LOADING (SEISMIC) SHEAR STRENGTH NOTE: Phi and C in Table 4 are modified values based on specified Soil Options (if any). ***TABLE 3 - Effective and Base Shear Stress Data on the 37 Slices*** Slice Alpha X-Coord. Base Effective Available Mobilized No. (deg) Slice Cntr Leng. Normal Stress Shear Strength Shear Stress * (ft) (ft) (psf) (psf) (psf) 1 -6.07 62.42 15.00 109.59 263.27 138.65 1 -6.07 62.42 15.00 109.59 263.27 138.65 2 -4.96 77.35 15.00 284.51 364.26 191.83 2 -4.96 77.35 15.00 284.51 364.26 191.83 3 -3.85 89.91 10.20 402.23 432.23 227.63 3 -3.85 89.91 10.20 402.23 432.23 227.63 4 -3.85 97.39 4.80 659.29 580.64 305.78 4 -3.85 97.39 4.80 659.29 580.64 305.78 5 -2.75 104.89 10.23 1311.51 957.20 504.09 5 -2.75 104.89 10.23 1311.51 957.20 504.09 6 -2.75 112.38 4.77 1815.53 1248.20 657.34 6 -2.75 112.38 4.77 1815.53 1248.20 657.34 7 -1.64 122.27 15.00 2031.58 1372.93 723.03 7 -1.64 122.27 15.00 2031.58 1372.93 723.03 8 -0.53 137.26 15.00 2336.89 1549.21 815.86 8 -0.53 137.26 15.00 2336.89 1549.21 815.86 9 0.58 152.26 15.00 2604.04 1703.44 897.09 9 0.58 152.26 15.00 2604.04 1703.44 897.09 10 1.69 167.26 15.00 2833.56 1835.96 966.87 10 1.69 167.26 15.00 2833.56 1835.96 966.87 11 2.80 182.25 15.00 3025.98 1947.05 1025.38 11 2.80 182.25 15.00 3025.98 1947.05 1025.38 12 3.91 197.22 15.00 3181.82 2037.03 1072.76 12 3.91 197.22 15.00 3181.82 2037.03 1072.76 13 5.02 204.85 0.30 3241.58 2071.53 1090.93 13 5.02 204.85 0.30 3241.58 2071.53 1090.93 14 5.02 212.32 14.70 3595.81 2276.04 1198.64 14 5.02 212.32 14.70 3595.81 2276.04 1198.64 15 6.13 222.32 5.39 4046.99 2536.53 1335.82 15 6.13 222.32 5.39 4046.99 2536.53 1335.82 16 6.13 229.78 9.61 4303.47 2684.61 1413.80 16 6.13 229.78 9.61 4303.47 2684.61 1413.80 17 7.23 242.00 15.00 4108.86 2572.25 1354.63 17 7.23 242.00 15.00 4108.86 2572.25 1354.63 18 8.34 249.72 0.57 3970.55 2492.40 1312.58 18 8.34 249.72 0.57 3970.55 2492.40 1312.58 19 8.34 257.14 14.43 3821.70 2406.46 1267.32 19 8.34 257.14 14.43 3821.70 2406.46 1267.32 20 9.45 271.68 15.00 3877.82 2438.86 1284.38 20 9.45 271.68 15.00 3877.82 2438.86 1284.38 21 10.56 286.45 15.00 3901.33 2452.43 1291.53 21 10.56 286.45 15.00 3901.33 2452.43 1291.53 22 11.67 301.17 15.00 3890.92 2446.42 1288.37 22 11.67 301.17 15.00 3890.92 2446.42 1288.37 23 12.78 315.83 15.00 3847.11 2421.13 1275.05 23 12.78 315.83 15.00 3847.11 2421.13 1275.05 24 13.89 330.42 15.00 3770.48 2376.89 1251.75 24 13.89 330.42 15.00 3770.48 2376.89 1251.75 25 15.00 344.95 15.00 3661.58 2314.02 1218.64 25 15.00 344.95 15.00 3661.58 2314.02 1218.64 26 16.10 359.40 15.00 3520.99 2232.85 1175.89 26 16.10 359.40 15.00 3520.99 2232.85 1175.89 27 17.21 373.77 15.00 3349.30 2133.72 1123.69 27 17.21 373.77 15.00 3349.30 2133.72 1123.69 28 18.32 388.05 15.00 3147.10 2016.98 1062.21 28 18.32 388.05 15.00 3147.10 2016.98 1062.21 29 19.43 402.24 15.00 2915.02 1882.99 991.64 29 19.43 402.24 15.00 2915.02 1882.99 991.64 30 20.54 416.34 15.00 2653.68 1732.10 912.18 30 20.54 416.34 15.00 2653.68 1732.10 912.18 31 21.65 430.33 15.00 2363.73 1564.70 824.02 31 21.65 430.33 15.00 2363.73 1564.70 824.02 32 22.76 444.22 15.00 2045.83 1381.16 727.36 32 22.76 444.22 15.00 2045.83 1381.16 727.36 33 23.87 458.00 15.00 1700.66 1181.88 622.41 33 23.87 458.00 15.00 1700.66 1181.88 622.41 34 24.98 467.43 5.68 1445.32 1034.46 544.78 34 24.98 467.43 5.68 1445.32 1034.46 544.78 35 24.98 474.23 9.32 1204.06 895.16 471.42 35 24.98 474.23 9.32 1204.06 895.16 471.42 36 26.08 485.19 15.00 738.45 626.34 329.85 36 26.08 485.19 15.00 738.45 626.34 329.85 37 27.19 497.42 12.36 200.47 315.74 166.28 37 27.19 497.42 12.36 200.47 315.74 166.28 ***Table 4 - Base Force Data on the 37 Slices*** Slice Alpha X-Coord. Base Effective No. (deg) Slice Cntr Leng. Normal Force * (it) (it) (ibs) 1 -6.07 62.42 15.00 1643.80 Available Shear Force (ibs) 3949.05 Mobilized Shear Force (ibs) 2079.70 1 -6.07 62.42 15.00 1643.80 3949.05 2079.70 2 -4.96 77.35 15.00 4267.64 5463.92 2877.48 2 -4.96 77.35 15.00 4267.64 5463.92 2877.48 3 -3.85 89.91 10.20 4104.18 4410.26 2322.59 3 -3.85 89.91 10.20 4104.18 4410.26 2322.59 4 -3.85 97.39 4.80 3162.25 2785.01 1466.68 4 -3.85 97.39 4.80 3162.25 2785.01 1466.68 5 -2.75 104.89 10.23 13411.62 9788.43 5154.91 5 -2.75 104.89 10.23 13411.62 9788.43 5154.91 6 -2.75 112.38 4.77 8667.12 5958.74 3138.07 6 -2.75 112.38 4.77 8667.12 5958.74 3138.07 7 -1.64 122.27 15.00 30473.66 20593.97 10845.46 7 -1.64 122.27 15.00 30473.66 20593.97 10845.46 8 -0.53 137.26 15.00 35053.39 23238.08 12237.93 8 -0.53 137.26 15.00 35053.39 23238.08 12237.93 9 0.58 152.26 15.00 39060.62 25551.66 13456.34 9 0.58 152.26 15.00 39060.62 25551.66 13456.34 10 1.69 167.26 15.00 42503.38 27539.34 14503.11 10 1.69 167.26 15.00 42503.38 27539.34 14503.11 11 2.80 182.25 15.00 45389.63 29205.71 15380.68 11 2.80 182.25 15.00 45389.63 29205.71 15380.68 12 3.91 197.22 15.00 47727.32 30555.38 16091.46 12 3.91 197.22 15.00 47727.32 30555.38 16091.46 13 5.02 204.85 0.30 971.08 620.57 326.81 13 5.02 204.85 0.30 971.08 620.57 326.81 14 5.02 212.32 14.70 52860.01 33458.82 17620.51 14 5.02 212.32 14.70 52860.01 33458.82 17620.51 15 6.13 222.32 5.39 21799.63 13663.35 7195.57 15 6.13 222.32 5.39 21799.63 13663.35 7195.57 16 6.13 229.78 9.61 41370.85 25808.15 13591.41 16 6.13 229.78 9.61 41370.85 25808.15 13591.41 17 7.23 242.00 15.00 61632.88 38583.76 20319.47 17 7.23 242.00 15.00 61632.88 38583.76 20319.47 18 8.34 249.72 0.57 2250.94 1412.97 744.11 18 8.34 249.72 0.57 2250.94 1412.97 744.11 19 8.34 257.14 14.43 55158.94 34732.65 18291.35 19 8.34 257.14 14.43 55158.94 34732.65 18291.35 20 9.45 271.68 15.00 58167.24 36582.87 19265.74 20 9.45 271.68 15.00 58167.24 36582.87 19265.74 21 10.56 286.45 15.00 58519.97 36786.52 19372.98 21 10.56 286.45 15.00 58519.97 36786.52 19372.98 22 11.67 301.17 15.00 58363.74 36696.32 19325.48 22 11.67 301.17 15.00 58363.74 36696.32 19325.48 23 12.78 315.83 15.00 57706.72 36316.99 19125.71 23 12.78 315.83 15.00 57706.72 36316.99 19125.71 24 13.89 330.42 15.00 56557.23 35653.33 18776.21 24 13.89 330.42 15.00 56557.23 35653.33 18776.21 25 15.00 344.95 15.00 54923.74 34710.24 18279.54 25 15.00 344.95 15.00 54923.74 34710.24 18279.54 26 16.10 359.40 15.00 52814.89 33492.69 17638.34 26 16.10 359.40 15.00 52814.89 33492.69 17638.34 27 17.21 373.77 15.00 50239.49 32005.78 16855.29 27 17.21 373.77 15.00 50239.49 32005.78 16855.29 28 18.32 388.05 15.00 47206.56 30254.72 15933.12 28 18.32 388.05 15.00 47206.56 30254.72 15933.12 29 19.43 402.24 15.00 43725.31 28244.82 14874.64 29 19.43 402.24 15.00 43725.31 28244.82 14874.64 30 20.54 416.34 15.00 39805.21 25981.55 13682.73 30 20.54 416.34 15.00 39805.21 25981.55 13682.73 31 21.65 430.33 15.00 35455.93 23470.49 12360.33 31 21.65 430.33 15.00 35455.93 23470.49 12360.33 32 22.76 444.22 15.00 30687.42 20717.39 10910.45 32 22.76 444.22 15.00 30687.42 20717.39 10910.45 33 23.87 458.00 15.00 25509.91 17728.15 9336.22 33 23.87 458.00 15.00 25509.91 17728.15 9336.22 34 24.98 467.43 5.68 8204.07 5871.88 3092.33 34 24.98 467.43 5.68 8204.07 5871.88 3092.33 35 24.98 474.23 9.32 11226.29 8346.24 4395.40 35 24.98 474.23 9.32 11226.29 8346.24 4395.40 36 26.08 485.19 15.00 11076.68 9395.12 4947.78 36 26.08 485.19 15.00 11076.68 9395.12 4947.78 37 27.19 497.42 12.36 2476.78 3900.97 2054.38 37 27.19 497.42 12.36 2476.78 3900.97 2054.38 SUM OF MOMENTS = -0.962109E-01 (ft/lbs);Imbalance (Fraction of Total Weight) _ - 0.7678876E-07 Sum of the Resisting Forces = 793475.91 (lbs) Average Available Shear Strength = 1716.16(psf) Sum of the Driving Forces = 417870.32 (lbs) Average Mobilized Shear Stress = 903.79(psf) Total length of the failure surface = 462.36(ft) Factor of Safety Balance Check: FS = 1.89886 CAUTION - Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By The Simplified Bishop Method. This Method Is Valid Only If The Failure Surface Approximates A Circular Arc. *** SEISMIC SLOPE DISPLACEMENT DATA *** (Note: kv is set = zero for displacement calculations) Seismic Yield Coefficient (ky) = 0.4615(g) Calculated Newmark Seismic Displacement = 0.000(ft) Non -Symmetrical Sliding Resistance Has Been Specified for Downhill Sliding. **** END OF GEOSTASE OUTPUT **** APPENDIX H Soils Investigation John R. erhi N C O R P O R A T E D SOILS INVESTIGATION ETERNAL VALLEY MEMORIAL PARK AND MORTUARY NEW MAUSOLEUM BUILDING NEWHALL, CALIFORNIA DORMAN CONSTRUCTION, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS • TESTING AND INSPECTION 2257 South Lilac Ave., Bloomington, CA 92316-2903 Bloomington (909) 877-1324 Riverside (909) 783-1910 Fax (909) 877-5210 John R. BuE ly I N C O R P O R A T E D SOILS INVESTIGATION OCTOBER 14, 2019 ETERNAL VALLEY MEMORIAL PARK AND MORTUARY NEW MAUSOLEUM BUILDING 23287 NORTH SIERRA HIGHWAY NEWHALL, CALIFORNIA CLIENT: ETERNAL VALLEY MEMORIAL PARK AND MORTUARY CIO DORMAN CONSTRUCTION, INC. 303 SOUTH 5TH STREET, SUITE 135 SPRINGFIELD, OREGON 97477 ATTENTION: TIM LOFTIS, VICE PRESIDENT - CEMETERY DIVISION DISTRIBUTION: (6) CLIENT RPT. NO.: 6104 FILE NO.: S-13849A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS • TESTING AND INSPECTION 2257 South Lilac Ave., Bloomington, CA 92316-2903 Bioomington (909) 877-1324 Riverside (909) 783-1910 Fax (909) 877-5210 INTRODUCTION During September and October of 2019, an additional investigation of the soil conditions underlying the area of the presently proposed mausoleum building site was conducted by this firm. An earlier soils investigation for the then -proposed mausoleum building site was performed by this firm (Soils Investigation, Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary, Area "A" Mausoleum Building, 23287 North Sierra Highway, Newhall, California, John R. Byerly, Inc., File No. 5-13849, Rpt. No. 4133, January 5, 2017). Subsequent to this geotechnical report, we were informed by Dorman Construction, Inc., that the new mausoleum building will now be constructed approximately 600 feet northwest of its original location and near the memorial park and mortuary's Catholic Garden. Due to the change in location of the proposed mausoleum building, we investigated the soil conditions associated with the new building site so that the geotechnical recommendations presented in the earlier soils investigation report could be verified, or additional recommendations prepared for safe and economical foundation types, vertical and lateral bearing values, liquefaction and seismic settlement potential, support of concrete slabs -on -grade, and site preparation as needed. Recommendations are also provided for the design of portland cement concrete pavement for areas to receive only pedestrian traffic. Included in the recommendations are the seismic design parameters as required by the 2016 edition of the California Building Code and the ASCE Standard 7-10. The seismic information is presented in the "Seismic Design Parameters" section of this report. Our soils investigation, together with our conclusions and recommendations, is discussed in detail in the following report. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Dorman Construction, Inc. and their design consultants for specific application to the project described herein. Should the project be modified, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report should reviewed by the geotechnical engineer. Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained, and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, express or implied. 1 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: S-13849A PROJECT DESCRIPTION For the preparation of this report, we reviewed the current site plan and section provided by Dorman Construction, Inc. We understand that planned improvements to the existing Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary will consist of an approximately 1,500-square-foot mausoleum building that will be situated in the southwesterly portion of the site. The new mausoleum building will be of reinforced concrete construction. The new building will incorporate a concrete slab -on - grade floor and will impose moderate foundation loads on the underlying soils. The current site plan and section illustrates a previously graded 2H:1V northeast -facing cut slope with a maximum height of about 40 feet. The mausoleum building will be located near the top of the slope. We understand that the use of retaining walls will be incorporated into the construction of the mausoleum building. The site configuration and proposed development are illustrated on Enclosure 1. REVIEW OF PREVIOUS REPORT Previous explorations at the existing Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary are described in our soils investigation report for the then -proposed mausoleum building site (Soils Investigation, Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary, Area "A" Mausoleum Building, 23287 North Sierra Highway, Newhall, California, John R. Byerly, Inc., File No. S-13849, Rpt. No. 4133, January 5, 2017). The subsurface explorations consisted of three test borings drilled with a limited -access track -mounted flight -auger to depths of up to 46 feet below the existing ground surface. Artificial fill consisting of loose to medium dense silty sands with clay and clayey sands was encountered in earlier Boring 1 to a depth of up to 15 feet. The fill appeared to be associated with previous grading at the site. The natural soils immediately underlying the artificial fill in earlier Boring 1 consisted of medium dense silty sands with clay and some gravel. The upper 3 feet of soil encountered in earlier Boring 2 consisted of loose silty sands with some gravel. All other natural soils generally consisted of medium dense to very dense silty sands and clayey sands, and very stiff clayey silts. Neither bedrock nor free ground water was encountered in these test borings. Laboratory testing included maximum density, consolidation, expansion index, direct shear, and chemical tests. The near -surface soils encountered in these test borings were determined to have a low expansion potential in accordance with ASTM D 4829. At that time, our analysis revealed a low potential for liquefaction. This analysis also estimated the potential for 2 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: S-13849A dynamic settlement. The analysis and the soil classifications indicate uniform soil conditions with respect to dynamic settlement and suggest that the maximum potential for differential dynamic settlement would be about 0.48 inch. The report presented grading and foundation design recommendations for the then -proposed mausoleum building. Grading recommendations included overexcavation and recompaction of the existing soils to a depth of at least 2 feet below the footing base grade and extend beyond the mausoleum building area a horizontal distance at least equal to the depth of overexcavation below the final ground surface or 5 feet, whichever distance was greater. The seismic design parameters presented in this report were based on the requirements of the 2016 edition of the California Building Code and the ASCE Standard 7-10. SITE CONDITIONS The existing Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary is located on the west side of North Sierra Highway and south of Newhall Avenue in the city of Newhall. An Index Map showing the general vicinity of the site is presented on the following page. The coordinates of the site are latitude 34.3612" N and longitude 118.5129" W (WGS 1984 coordinates). The property is occupied by existing buildings and associated parking, driveway, and landscaped plot areas. Presently, the area to be developed is vacant. A previously graded 2H:1V northeast -facing cut slope with a maximum height of about 40 feet ascends to the southwest from the memorial park and mortuary's Catholic Garden. FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION The soils underlying the presently proposed mausoleum building site were explored by means of three test borings drilled with a limited -access track -mounted flight -auger to depths of up to 41 feet below the existing ground surface. The approximate locations of the test borings are indicated on Enclosure 1. The soils encountered were examined and visually classified by one of our field engineers. A summary of the soil classifications appears as Enclosure 2, The exploration logs show subsurface conditions at the dates and locations indicated and may not be representative of other locations and times. The stratification lines presented on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, and the transitions may be gradual. A hollow -stem auger with an outside diameter of 8.5 inches was utilized. The inside diameter of the auger was 4.5 inches. 3 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: 5-13849A INDEX MAP 5 Newhall � m y gµpPl.c'i57i � I � I � 1 Elsmere Carryon SANTA CLARYTA ` Irr 4 ;_mod if 1 o - - Gi SOURCE DOCUMENTS: USGS OAT MOUNTAIN QUADRANGLE, CALIFORNIA, 7.5 MINUTE SERIES, 2018 TOWNSHIP AND RANGESECTION 12, T3N, R16W LATITUDE: 34.3612' N LONGITUDE: 118.5129° W CfO. (zoJoan R. B E iy INCORPORATE D Rpt. No.: 6104 3a File No.: S-13849A Bulk and relatively undisturbed samples were obtained at selected levels within the explorations and returned to our laboratory for testing and evaluation. The driving energy or blow counts required to advance the sampler at each sample interval were also noted. Relatively undisturbed soil samples were recovered at various intervals in the borings with a California sampler. The California sampler was a 2.9-inch outside diameter, 2.5-inch inside diameter, split -barrel sampler lined with brass tubes. The sampler was 18 inches long, The sampler conformed to the requirements of ASTM D 3550. A 140-pound automatic trip hammer was lifted hydraulically and was dropped 30 inches for each blow. Standard penetration tests were performed as Boring 1 was advanced. The standard penetration test blow counts are shown on the log for Boring 1. Standard penetration testing was performed with a 2.0-inch outside diameter, 1.5-inch inside diameter„ split - barrel sampler. The sampler was 18 inches long. The inside diameter of the sampler shoe was 1.4 inches. The sampler was unlined. The sampler conformed to the requirements of ASTM D 1586. A 140-pound automatic trip hammer was lifted hydraulically and was dropped 30 inches for each blow. An efficiency value of 1.0 was assumed for the automatic trip hammer. Included in our laboratory testing were moisture/density determinations on all undisturbed samples. An optimum moisture content/maximum dry density relationship was established for the typical soil so that the relative compaction of the subsoils could be determined. Expansion index testing was performed on a representative sample of soil containing detectable clay. Direct shear tests were conducted on selected samples to determine their strength parameters. The moisture/density data are presented on the boring logs, Enclosure 2. Maximum density test data appear on Enclosure 3. The results of the expansion index and direct shear tests appear on Enclosures 4 and 5. Chemical testing, comprised of pH, soluble sulfate, chloride, redox potential, and resistivity testing, was also performed. These test results are presented in the "Chemical Test Results" section of this report. SOIL CONDITIONS Artificial fill consisting of loose silty sands with some clay and gravel was encountered in Borings 1 and 3 to depths of 2.0 feet and 1.5 feet, respectively. The fill appears to be associated with previous grading at the site. The natural soils immediately underlying the fill consisted of medium dense to dense silty sands with gravel. All other underlying natural soils encountered in our test borings generally consisted of dense to very dense sands with varying 4 Rpt, No.: 6104 File No,: S-13849A amounts of silt and gravel, and very stiff sandy silts. Refusal to the limited -access track - mounted flight -auger occurred in Boring 1 at a depth of 41 feet on very stiff soil. Neither bedrock nor free ground water was encountered in these test borings. The near -surface soils encountered in our test borings were determined to have a very low expansion potential in accordance with ASTM D 4829, LIQUEFACTION AND DYNAMIC SETTLEMENT Liquefaction is a phenomenon that occurs when a soil undergoes a transformation from a solid state to a liquefied condition due to the effects of increased pore -water pressure. Loose saturated soils with particle sizes in the medium sand to silt range are particularly susceptible to liquefaction when subjected to seismic ground shaking. Affected soils lose all strength during liquefaction, and foundation failure can occur. Free ground water was not encountered at our test boring locations. Ground water data presented in the Seismic Safety Element of the General Plan for the County of Los Angeles, Department of Regional Planning (Shallow and Perched Ground Water, Plate 3, Leighton and Associates, Inc., Project No. 2871855-16, December 1990) illustrate ground water levels at the site at a depth in excess of 50 feet. We also searched the records of the California Division of Water Resources. No well data applicable to the subject site were found. For the purpose of our liquefaction analysis, we have conservatively assumed an historic high ground water level at a depth of 50 feet. It is anticipated that major earthquake ground shaking will occur during the lifetime of the proposed development from the seismically active Sierra Madre fault zone located approximately 1.1 miles south of the site. This fault would create the most significant earthshaking event. Based on an earthquake magnitude of 7.2, a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 1.199g is assigned to the site. To evaluate the potential for liquefaction and seismically induced settlement of the subsoils, the soils were analyzed for relative density. The most effective measurement of relative density of sands with respect to liquefaction potential is standard penetration resistance. Standard penetration tests were performed as Boring 1 was advanced to a depth of 41 feet. The standard penetration test °N° values are presented on the boring log for Boring 1. In addition, the California sampler blow count data were also evaluated. 5 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: 5-13849A Equivalent standard penetration test blow counts were estimated for Borings 2 and 3, which were drilled to a maximum depth of 31 feet. To convert the number of blow counts obtained from the California sampler to equivalent standard penetration test blow counts, the California sampler blow counts were multiplied by a factor of 0.7. The standard penetration data provided input for the LiquefyPro Version 4.3 program for liquefaction and seismically induced settlement potential. As indicated in Special Publication 117A (Revised), "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, March 2009," a safety factor of 1.3 was used in this analysis. We have assumed that the upper 5 feet of soil will be overexcavated and replaced as engineered fill, and that the bottom of overexcavation would be scarified to a depth of 12 inches. The engineered fill was assumed to have an "N" value of 30. The results of this evaluation are shown on Enclosure 8. The total settlement will occur over a large area and will not affect local buried utilities. The total depth of Borings 2 and 3 was 31 feet. To evaluate the soil columns for uniformity with respect to dynamic settlement, we have compared the settlement potential attributable to the upper 31 feet in Boring 1 with that indicated for Borings 2 and 3 as shown in the table below. Boring No. 1 2 3 Estimated dynamic settlement attributable 2.27 2.09 2.14 to the upper 31 feet of soil column (in.) The settlement analyses confirm relatively uniform soil conditions with respect to the potential dynamic settlement. We conclude that neither liquefaction nor seismically induced settlement need be a consideration in the design of the presently proposed mausoleum building. SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES Slope stability analyses for the approximately 40-foot-high northeast -facing cut slope (Section A -A') was performed utilizing the Bishop's Modified Method in the Roc Science computer program "Slide," version 7.0. The location of the cross-section utilized in our analysis is shown on Enclosure 1. Static and pseudo -static (Seismic Factor = 0.20) slope stability analyses were conducted for the slope configuration. The analyses revealed a minimum static safety factor against gross failure of approximately 2.5 and a minimum pseudo -static safety factor of 6 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: 5-13849A approximately 1.6. We conclude that the existing cut slope will be grossly stable. The surficial slope stability calculations confirm that the cut slope will also be surficially stable. The slope stability analyses and surficial slope stability calculations are shown on Enclosures 6 and 7, respectively. CONCLUSIONS It appears that the existing artificial fill is loose and extends to depths of 2.0 feet and 1.5 feet in Borings 1 and 3, respectively. Artificial fill was not encountered in Boring 2. To assure uniform and acceptable foundation conditions, we recommend that the artificial fill and any loose natural soil within the area of the new mausoleum building be densified by subexcavation and recompaction. Complete stabilization of the existing artificial fill under pavement areas would require removal and recompaction of the existing artificial fill. The cost of complete removal and recompaction of the existing fill within pavement areas does not appear to be warranted. Substantial stabilization can be obtained by removal and recompaction of the upper 3 feet of artificial fill. Subsequent to remedial grading, the new structure may be safely founded on conventional continuous and/or spread footings. Recommendations for foundation design and slabs -on -grade are provided below for a very low (Expansion Index of 0 to 20) expansion potential. Detailed recommendations are provided below. RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATION DESIGN Where the site is prepared as recommended, the presently proposed mausoleum building may be founded on conventional continuous and/or isolated footings. Footings should be 18 inches deep and should be designed for a maximum safe soil bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot for dead plus live loads. This value may be increased by one-third for wind and seismic loading. Continuous footings should be reinforced with at least two No. 4 bars, one placed near the top and one near the bottom of the footings. This recommendation for foundation reinforcement is based on geotechnical considerations. Structural design may require additional foundation reinforcement. 7 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: 5-13849A Footings should bear entirely on engineered fill. The natural soil should be overexcavated and recompacted such that the footings bear on at least 24 inches of compacted fill. SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS To assist the structural engineer in the selection of seismic coefficients to be incorporated into the design of the structure, we have reviewed the 2016 edition of the California Building Code and the ASCE Standard 7-10. The various coefficients and factors are provided in the following table: Factor or Coefficient Value Latitude 34.36120 N Longitude 118.51290 W Mapped Ss 3.140g Mapped S, 1.032g Fa 1.000 F, 1.500 Final SMs 3.140g Final Sm, 1.549g Final Sas 2.094g Final SD, 1.032g PGA 1.199g Tt 8 seconds Site Class D RETAINING WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS In the design of the building retaining walls, it can be assumed that the wall foundation soil will consist of recompacted fill soil classified as silty sand and sand. The shear strength of the foundation soil can be represented by 50 psf cohesion and an angle of internal friction of 35 degrees. A unit weight at optimum moisture content of 130 pounds per cubic foot may also be assumed. If import fill is to be placed as backfill, we recommend that the contractor import granular soil free of significant organic matter and exhibiting an expansion index of less than 21. It will be 8 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: S-13849A the contractor's responsibility to identify any potential import site and allow the geotechnical engineer to sample and test the proposed import prior to importation to the project site. The building retaining walls that are braced at the top and support backfill ascending from the walls at a rate of 2H:1 V should be designed to support an equivalent at -rest fluid pressure of 60 pounds per square foot per foot of depth, exclusive of surcharge loads. A backdrain system should be provided to preclude the development of hydrostatic pressures. For your information, the peak ground acceleration (PGA) is estimated to be 1.199g. The peak ground acceleration value is not intended to be inserted into a design formula and should not be assumed to be equivalent to a seismic design factor for the building retaining walls. Due to the proximity of the site to the Sierra Madre fault zone (1.1 miles), we recommend a seismic design factor of 0.20 be used in the design of the building retaining walls at this site. Based on a seismic factor of 0.20, the dynamic component of lateral earth pressure on building retaining walls supporting sloping backfill should be computed according to the following equation: PAE = 9.8 H2 where: H = wall height (ft.) PAF = resultant force in pounds per linear foot of wall length The dynamic component acts at 0.6H above the bottom of the building retaining walls, The resultant from the dynamic component of the lateral earth pressure should be added to the resultant from the at -rest earth pressure. Building retaining wall footings may be designed assuming resistance to lateral loads will be provided by passive earth pressure and basal friction. For footings bearing against compacted fill or dense natural soil, passive earth pressure may be considered to develop at a rate of 350 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. Basal friction may be computed at 0.4 times the normal dead load. Resistance from basal friction and passive earth pressure may be combined directly without reduction. Backfill placed within 5 feet of building retaining walls should be granular soil exhibiting an expansion index not exceeding 20. 9 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: S-13849A SLABS -ON -GRADE Concrete slab -on -grade design recommendations are presented below. The slab -on -grade recommendations assume underlying utility trench backfilis and pad subgrade soils have been densified to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent (ASTM D1557). 1. It is our opinion that the existing compacted fill soils should provide adequate support for concrete slabs -on -grade without the use of a gravel base. The final pad surface should be rolled to provide a smooth dense surface upon which to place the concrete. 2. Slab -on -grade floors that will not receive vehicular traffic should be at least 4 inches thick — structural considerations may require a thicker slab. The concrete slabs -on -grade may be designed using a modulus of subgrade reaction of 250 pounds per cubic inch. 3. It is recommended that concrete slabs -on -grade be reinforced with No. 3 bars at 16 inches each way, or equivalent, and located in the middle third of the slab. All slab reinforcement should be supported by chairs or precast concrete blocks to ensure positioning of reinforcement of the slab. Lifting of unsupported reinforcement during concrete placement should not be allowed. 4. Slabs to receive moisture -sensitive floor coverings should be underlain with a moisture vapor retardant membrane, such as 10-mil Stego Wrap or equivalent. The moisture vapor retardant membrane should conform to ASTM E 1745-11 (Standard Specification for Plastic Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Soil or Granular Fill under Concrete Slabs). The moisture vapor retardant membrane should be lapped into the footing excavation to provide full coverage of the subgrade soils. Punctures and/or holes cut for plumbing should be taped to minimize moisture emissions through the membrane. The project inspector and/or a representative of the geotechnical engineer should inspect the placement of the moisture vapor retardant membrane prior to covering. Installation of the moisture vapor retardant membrane should be performed in accordance with ASTM E 1643-11 (Standard Practice for Selection, Design, Installation and Inspection of Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Earth or Granular Fill under Concrete Slabs). 10 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: S-13849A 5. A 2-inch layer of clean sand (SE>30, no more than 7 percent passing the No. 200 sieve) should be placed over the moisture vapor retardant membrane to promote uniform setting of the concrete. Concrete should be placed on the sand blanket when the sand is damp. Excess moisture should not be allowed to accumulate within the sand blanket prior to concrete placement. At the time of concrete placement, the moisture content of the sand blanket above the moisture vapor retardant membrane should not exceed 2 percent below the optimum moisture content. 6. In lieu of placing the sand blanket described above and to further minimize future moisture vapor emissions through the slabs -on -grade, the slab concrete may be placed directly on the moisture vapor retardant membrane. Placing concrete directly on the moisture vapor retardant membrane will increase shrinkage and curling forces and make finishing more difficult. To accommodate these concerns, the structural engineer should provide appropriate mix design criteria for concrete placed directly on the moisture vapor retardant membrane. 7. We recommend a maximum water -cement ratio of 0.50 for all building slab concrete. Architectural or structural considerations may require the utilization of a lower water - cement ratio. Where slab concrete is placed directly on the moisture vapor retardant membrane without the presence of an intervening layer of absorptive sand, a lower maximum water -cement ratio may be needed. 8. Preparation of the concrete floor slabs should conform to ASTM F 710-11 (Standard Practice for Preparing Concrete Floors to Receive Resilient Flooring) and the manufacturer's recommendations. Moisture vapor emission tests should be performed to verify acceptable moisture emission rates prior to flooring installation. SITE PREPARATION We assume that the site will be prepared in accordance with the California Building Code or the current City of Newhall Grading Ordinance. The recommendations presented below are to establish additional grading criteria. These recommendations should be considered preliminary 11 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: 3-13849A and are subject to modification or expansion based on a geotechnical review of the project foundation and grading plans. • All areas to be graded should be stripped of organic matter, man-made obstructions, and other deleterious materials. Underground utilities should be removed and relocated or abandoned, All cavities created during site clearing should be cleaned of loose and disturbed soil, shaped to provide access for construction equipment, and backfilled with fill placed and compacted as described below. • Existing artificial fill should be removed from the new mausoleum building, retaining wall, and hardscape areas. The depth of existing artificial fill encountered in Borings 1 and 3 were 2.0 feet and 1.5 feet, respectively. Artificial fill was not encountered in Boring 2. The existing artificial fill may extend to greater depths in areas not explored. The removals should extend beyond the building area a horizontal distance at least equal to the depth of removal or 5 feet, whichever distance is greater. The existing artificial fill need not be removed to depths greater than 3 feet within proposed pavement areas. Organic matter and other unsuitable debris should be separated from the removed fill and hauled from the site. The removed artificial fill should be stockpiled pending replacement or be placed in areas previously prepared. • Overexcavation o Building and retaining wall areas --- The existing artificial fill underlying the building and retaining wall areas should be removed as described above. The natural soil exposed in the bottom of the overexcavation should be evaluated by the representative of the geotechnical engineer. Natural soil exhibiting a relative compaction of less than 85 percent (ASTM D1557) should be further overexcavated until undisturbed soil exhibiting a relative compaction of at least 85 percent is encountered. The overexcavation should extend beyond the mausoleum building area a horizontal distance at least equal to the depth of overexcavation below the final ground surface or 5 feet, whichever distance is greater. The overexcavation of the undisturbed natural soils should also extend to a depth of at least 2 feet below the footing base grade. A representative of this firm should observe the bottom of all excavations. 12 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: S-13849A o Har_dscape areas -- Should natural soil be encountered at a depth of less than 3 feet below portland cement concrete pavement areas, the soils exposed in the subexcavated surface should be scarified to a minimum depth of 12 inches. The scarified soil should be moisture conditioned to near the optimum moisture content and densified to a relative compaction of a least 90 percent (ASTM D1557). Approved subexcavated surfaces and all other surfaces to receive fill should be scarified to a minimum depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned to near the optimum moisture content, and densified to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent (ASTM D1557). • The on -site soils should provide adequate quality fill material provided they are free from significant organic matter and other deleterious materials and are at acceptable moisture contents. Import fill should be inorganic, granular, non -expansive soil free from rocks or lumps greater than 8 inches in maximum dimension, and should exhibit a very low expansion potential (expansion index less than 21), negligible sulfate content (less than 1,000 ppm soluble sulfate by weight), and low corrosion potential. Prior to bringing import fill to the site, the contractor should obtain certification to verify that the proposed import meets the State of California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) environmental standards. Proposed import should be sampled at the source and tested by this firm for expansion index, soluble sulfate content, and corrosion potential. All fill should be placed in 8-inch or less lifts, moisture conditioned to near the optimum moisture content„ and densified to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent (ASTM D 1557). • Cut and fill slopes should be constructed no steeper than 2:1(H:V). Fill slopes should be overfilled during construction and then cut back to expose fully compacted soil. The surface of the site should be graded to provide positive drainage away from the structure and any slope faces. A berm or brow ditch should be constructed at the top of all slopes that will contain the water flow and control the surface runoff. Drainage should be directed to established swales and then to appropriate drainage structures to 13 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: S-13849A minimize the possibility of erosion. Water should not be allowed to pond adjacent to footings. SHRINKAGE AND SUBSIDENCE Volume change in going from cut to fill conditions is anticipated where near -surface grading will occur. Assuming the fill will be compacted to an average relative compaction of 93 percent, an average cut -fill shrinkage of 10 percent is estimated. Further volume loss will occur through subsidence during preparation of the natural ground surface. Although the contractor's methods and equipment utilized in preparing the natural ground will have a significant effect on the amount of natural ground subsidence that will occur, our experience indicates as much as 0.10 foot of subsidence in areas prepared to receive fill should be anticipated. These values are exclusive of losses due to stripping or removal of subsurface obstructions. PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT For hardscape areas to receive only pedestrian traffic, we recommend the PCC pavement be at least 3.5 inches in thickness and placed directly on the compacted subgrade soil. There are no geotechnical conditions indicating the need for reinforcement of the concrete pavement. The design engineer may wish to provide some level of reinforcement to minimize the width of shrinkage cracks. Prior to the placement of concrete, we recommend that the final subgrade surface be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches, moistened to near the optimum moisture content, and compacted to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent (ASTM D1557). Concrete should be proportioned for a maximum slump of 4 inches and to achieve a minimum compressive strength of at least 2,500 psi at 28 days. If additional workability is desired, a plasticizing or water -reducing admixture should be utilized in lieu of increasing the water content. Control joints for the 3.5-inch-thick pavement should be spaced no more than 10.5 feet on -center each way. Control joints should be established either by hand groovers, plastic inserts, or saw -cutting as soon as the concrete can be cut without dislodging aggregate. Cutting the control joints the day after the concrete pour will likely result in uncontrolled shrinkage cracks. Concrete should not be placed in hot and windy weather. Water curing should commence immediately after the final finishing and should continue for at least 7 days. 14 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: S-13849A CHEMICAL TEST RESULTS The chemical test results from a sample taken from Boring 1 between the ground surface and a depth of 5 feet are shown on the following table: Analysis Result Units Saturated Resistivity 2100 ohm -cm Chloride ND (Not Detected) ppm Sulfate 30 ppm pH 7.8 pH units Redox Potential 288 mV The soil tested in Boring 1 exhibited negligible soluble sulfate content; therefore, sulfate -resistant concrete will not be required for this project. In addition, the results of the corrosivity testing indicate that the soil tested is not detrimentally corrosive to ferrous -metal pipes. FOUNDATION AND GRADING PLAN REVIEW The project foundation and grading plans should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer. Additional recommendations may be required at that time. CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS All grading operations, including the preparation of the natural ground surface, should be observed and compaction tests performed by this firm. No fill should be placed on any prepared surface until that surface has been evaluated by the representative of the geotechnical engineer. All footing excavations for the new mausoleum building should be evaluated by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. All footing excavations should be observed by the geotechnical engineer prior to placement of forms or reinforcing steel. 15 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: S-13849A The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the field and laboratory investigation described herein and represent our best engineering judgment. Should conditions be encountered in the field that appear different from those described in this report, we should be contacted immediately in order that appropriate recommendations might be prepared. Respectfully submitted, JOHN R. BYERLY, INC. <aO c, GE 000179 EXP. 06/30/21 �rtc1#1� John R. Byerly, Geotechnical Engineer President JRB:MLL:jet Enclosures: (1) Plot Plan (2) Test Boring Logs (3) Maximum Density Determinations (4) Expansion Index Test Results (5) Direct Shear Test Results (6) Slope Stability Analysis (7) Surficial Slope Stability Calculations (8) Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement Analysis 16 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: S-13849A LEGEND T I N APPROX. BORING LOCATION FvA �,o � �' ��a �.�. sue' aa���s��d������� � ' ������t�w®���s�R���®������e�� • � .�✓ � � vial �:• bb, a -•'r — b b . a" ETERNAL VALLEY MEMORIAL PARK Enclosure 1 John R. B epi TEST BORING LOCATION PLAN 23287 NORTH SIERRA WAY Rpt. No.: 6104 NEWHALL, CALI•- Baring 1 CIO Ja r1$ Go sec 0 - - - 7 : SM 11 105 12.6 81 v ' v C SM C 22 113 11.9 87 o i.:•::. 5 88 40 114 11.5 z� 35 - i_ 42 100 75 48 53 49 118 11.7 91 50 117 12.3 95 6014" --- --- --- 50 113 17.9 92 50/10" 112 18 3 94 SM ML Boring Date: 9118119 Surface Elevation: Drilling Method: Limited Access Flight -Auger Gray -brown silty fine to coarse sand with some clay and gravel, very moist and loose (FILL) Light gray -brown silty fine to coarse sand with gravel, moist and medium dense (ORIGINAL GROUND) Gray -brown silty fine to coarse sand, moist and dense Olive -gray sandy silt, moist and very stiff SM Gray -brown silty fine sand, very moist and very dense SM Light gray -brown silty fine to coarse sand with gravel, moist and very dense SM Olive -gray silty fine sand, very moist and dense ML Olive -gray sandy silt, moist and very stiff ML Dark gray sandy silt, moist and very stiff LOG OF BORING Eternal Valley Memorial Park On R. Byerly, Inc, and Mortuary, Newhall CA Enclosure 2, Page 1 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: S-13849A 9 U Boring 1 Boring Date: 9118/19 Surface Elevation: Drilling Method: Limited Access Flight -Auger ML Dark gray sandy silt, moist and very stiff i ML Light gray sandy silt, moist and verystiff 40 100 Refusal on Very Stiff Soil at 41.0 Feet No Free Ground Water Encountered 70 LOG OF BORING Eternal Valley Memorial Park Enclosure 2, Page 2 John R. Byerly, Inc. and Mortuary, Newhall CA Rpt. No.: 6104 __ File No.: S-13849A Boring 2 �`1, Sao Boring Date: 9121119 Gam mat Surface Elevation: 'so �� �`°�y Q-�` �a Drilling Method: Limited Access Flight -Auger . SM Gray brown silty fine to coarse sand with gravel, damp and 50/4" 119 7.1 92 v medium dense (ORIGINAL GROUND) SM ——- __. Light gray -brown silty fine to coarse sand with gravel, moist and dense 5 1 � � .:: 50/5" 123 4.9 94 :- SP I Gray -brown fine to coarse sand with gravel„ damp and dense 50/3" 127 I 4.4 97 a"I I I 10 � 50/5" 125 5.0 95 o ' a O _ ti O z- a - I 15 50/4" 125 7.3 96 U W O S a 0 20 50/3" 126 7.7 97 — 25 50/4" 125 7.5 96 3 m I -- 30 ti I 5013" 129 4.6 98 35 John R. Byerly, Inc. SM Gray -brown silty fine to coarse sand, moist and very dense I SP Brown fine to coarse sand with gravel, damp and very dense Total Depth at 31.0 Feet No Free Ground Water Encountered _J L LOG OF BORING Eternal Valley Memorial Park Enclosure 2, Page 3 and Mortuary, Newhall CA Rpt. No.:6104 File No.: S-13849A 5 Boring 3 aIq G w Boring Date: 9121/19 Surface Elevation: 40. Drilling Method: Limited Access Flight -Auger SM Light gray -brown silty fine to coarse sand with gravel, damp 50/3" 122�7.2 94 m �. �:' and loose FILL (FILL) 2 TT: SM SM Light gray -brown silty fine to coarse sand with gravel, moist and dense (ORIGINAL GROUND) 50/8" 119 3.1 91 6 ; _ - SP Gray -brown fine to coarse sand with silt and gravel, damp and dense 50/4" 122 4.3 93 i :' SP Oran e-brown fine to coarse and 'th I d d 50/11" 118 a i m � 4 10 � 50/6" 121 6 ti W a z a —15 1 50/2" 123 w- 0 x- S v a 0 EL 20 50/3" 125 C,1 � 50/2" 129 3 3 N ai Si 0 UF30 I 5011" U A 1 a � A 35 5.1 90 5.0 92 7.3 95 i 7.8 96 4.1 Ir John R. Byer/y, c. 98 LOG OF BORING Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary, Newhall CA g s wi grave , amp an dense SP Gray -orange fine to coarse sand with gravel, damp and dense SM Dark brown silty fine to coarse sand with gravel, moist and very dense SM Gray -brown silty fine to coarse sand, moist and very dense SP Brown fine to coarse sand with gravel, damp and very dense Total Depth at 31.0 Feet No Free Ground Water Encountered Enclosure 2, Page 4 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: S-13849A m 7 C14 _ ■ ¥ m « & 2 � c � ¥ � 4 / q � � 2 d � � c ± � \ b E e 2 � cu 70 L- g � @ .0 L. c _ . @ r CL M k 0 LLJ Q 20_ �&o � 0 �Jd CD � �o D� % Lo ■o a k� % § & 0 m F- —k0 6 John R. BuE ly N C O R P O R A T E D DIRECT SHEAR TESTS Test Depth of Angle of Internal Cohesion Boring No. Sample (Ft.) Friction °) (PSF) B-1 3.0 40 100 B-3 5.0 42 0 Enclosure 5 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: S-13849A 91DnNTB+pRET8.O28 rocscience Page 1 of 9 Slide Analysis Information Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Project Summary Slide Modeler Version: 8.028 Compute Time: 00h:00m:00.215s General Settings Units of Measurement: Imperial Units Time Units: days Permeability Units: feet/second Data Output: Standard Failure Direction: Right to Left Analysis Options Slices Type: Vertical Analysis Methods Used Bishop simplified Janbu simplified Number of slices: so Tolerance: 0.005 Maximum number of iterations: 75 Check malpha < 0.2: Yes Create Interslice boundaries at intersections Yes with water tables and piezos: Initial trial value of FS: 1 Steffensen Iteration: Yes Groundwater Analysis Groundwater Method: Water Surfaces Pore Fluid Unit Weight [lbs/ft3]: 62.4 Use negative pore pressure cutoff: Yes Maximum negative pore pressure [psf]: 0 Advanced Groundwater Method: None Random Numbers Pseudo -random Seed: 10116 Random Number Generation Method: Park and Miller v.3 Surface Options Surface Type: Circular Search Method: Grid Search S-13849A Static.slim AIOF]NIQIPNhT B.02B roCSCIeI'10E: Page 2 of 9 Radius Increment: 10 Composite Surfaces: Disabled Reverse Curvature: Invalid Surfaces Minimum Elevation: Not Defined Minimum Depth: Not Defined Minimum Area: Not Defined Minimum Weight: Not Defined Seismic Loading Advanced seismic analysis: No Staged pseudostatic analysis: No Loading 1 Distributed Load present Distributed Wad 1 Distribution: Constant Magnitude [psf]: 825 Orientation: Normal to boundary Materials Property Material Color Strength Type Mohr -Coulomb Unit Weight [ibs/ft3] 130 Cohesion [psf] 100 Friction Angle [°] 40 Water Surface None Ru Value 0 Global Minimums Method: bishop simplified FS 2A88100 Center: 69.854, 213.926 Radius: 207.651 Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 93.876, 7.670 Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 195.191, 48.369 Left Slope intercept: 93.876 12.048 Right Slope Intercept: 195.19148.368 Resisting Moment: 2.51725e+07lb-ft Driving Moment: 1.01172e+07lb-ft Total Slice Area: 961.305 ft2 Surface Horizontal Width: 101.315 ft Surface Average Height: 9.48826 ft Method: janbu simplified FS 2379210 Center: 98,906,119.507 Radius: 112,332 5-13849A Static.slim 5UD8N7ERPPFf 8.a2s Page 3 of 9 rocscience Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 93.876, 7.288 Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 185.605, 48.080 Left Slope Intercept: 93.87612.048 Right Slope Intercept: 185.605 48.080 Resisting Horizontal Force: 120675 lb. Driving Horizontal Force: 50720.7 Ib Total Slice Area: 1065.69 ft2 Surface Horizontal Width: 91.7291 ft Surface Average Height: 11,6178 ft Valid/Invalid Surfaces Method: bishop simplified Number of Valid Surfaces: 1953 Number of Invalid Surfaces: 2898 Error Codes: Error Code -101 reported for 47 surfaces Error Code-103 reported for 2 surfaces Error Code-105 reported for 43 surfaces Error Code -113 reported for 683 surfaces Error Code -1000 reported for 2123 surfaces Method: janbu simplified Number of Valid Surfaces: 1953 Number of Invalid Surfaces: 2898 Error Codes: Error Code -101 reported for 47 surfaces Error Code -103 reported for 2 surfaces Error Code -105 reported for 43 surfaces Error Code -113 reported for 683 surfaces Error Code -1000 reported for 2123 surfaces Error Codes The following errors were encountered during the computation: -101= Only one (or zero) surface / slope intersections. -103 = Two surface / slope intersections, but one or more surface / nonslope external polygon intersections lie between them. This usually occurs when the slip surface extends past the bottom of the soil region, but may also occur on a benched slope model with two sets of Slope Limits. -105 = More than two surface / slope intersections with no valid slip surface. -113 = Surface intersects outside slope limits. -1000 = No valid slip surface is generated Slice Data Global Minimum Quer - Safety Factor: 2,4881 Angle Base Base Shear Shear Base pore Effective Base Effective Slice Width Weight of Slice Base Cohesion Friction Stress Strength Normal Pressure Normal Vertical Vertical Number [ft] jibs] Base Material Angle Stress Stress Stress Stress [degrees] [Psfl [degrees] Ipsfl lPsfl [psf] Ipsfl [psf] IPA 1psfl 1 2.0263 1257.63 6.92465 Material 100 40 239.687 596.365 591.546 0 592.546 620.656 620.656 1 2 2.0263 1463.77 7.48822 Material 100 40 271.765 676.178 686.66 0 686.66 722.381 722.381 1 3 2.0263 1664.56 8.05251 Material 100 40 302.783 753.355 778.638 0 778.638 821.475 82IA75 1 S-13849A Static.slim .V.IMNn9W Er&M Ocsdence 4 2,0263 1859.98 8.6176 Material 1 5 2.0263 2050.01 9.18353 Material 1 6 2.0263 2234.63 9.75036 Material 1 7 2.0263 2413.81 10,3182 Material 1 8 2,0263 2587.52 10.887 Material 1 9 2.0263 2755.73 11.4569 Material 1 10 2.0263 2918.4 12.028 Material 1 11 2.0263 3075.51 12.6002 Material 1 12 2.0263 3227.01 13.1738 Material 1 13 2.0263 3372.87 13.7487 Material 1 14 2.0263 3513.04 14.325 Material 1 15 2.0263 3647.49 14.9029 Material 1 16 2.0263 3776.17 15.4822 Material 1 17 2.0263 3899.02 16.0632 Material 1 18 2.0263 4016.01 16.6459 Material 1 19 2.0263 4066,87 17.2304 Material 1 20 2.0263 3931.15 17.8167 Material 1 21 2.0263 3777.24 18.405 Material z 22 2.0263 3617.23 18,9952 Material 1 23 2.0263 3451.05 19,5876 Material 1 24 2.0263 3278,65 20.1822 Material 1 25 2.0263 3099.95 20.779 Material 1 26 2.0263 2914.87 21.3782 Material 1 27 2.0263 2723.34 21.9799 Material 1 28 2.0263 2525.28 22.5842 Material 1 29 2.0263 2318.11 23.1911 Material 1 30 2.0263 2088.74 23.8007 Material 1 31 2.0263 1949.89 24.4133 Material 1 32 2.0263 1604.13 25.0288 Material 1 33 2.0263 1351,38 25.6474 Material 1 34 2.0263 1091.51 26.2693 Material 1 35 2.0263 824.423 26.8945 Material 1 36 2.0263 549.989 27.5232 Material 1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 40 332.748 827.911 867.49 40 361.664 999,856 953.233 40 389.535 969.203 1035.87 40 416.367 1035.96 1115A3 40 442.161 1100.14 1191.92 40 466,923 1161.75 1265.34 40 490,656 1220.8 1335.72 40 513.36 1277.29 1403.04 40 535.039 1331.23 1467.33 40 555.697 1382.63 1528.58 40 575.331 1431AB 1586.8 40 593.947 1477.8 1642 40 611.547 1521.59 1694.18 40 628.126 1562.84 1743.34 40 643,688 1601.56 1789.48 40 649.158 1615.17 1805.71 40 626.558 1558.94 1738.69 40 601.367 1496.26 1664 40 57SA19 1431.7 1587.06 40 548.716 1365.26 1507.87 40 521.253 1296.93 1426.44 40 493.035 1226.72 1342.77 40 464.061 1154.63 1256.85 40 434.327 1080.65 1168.69 40 403.836 1004.78 1078.28 40 491.552 1223.03 1338.38 40 579.808 1442.62 1600.08 40 543.157 1351,43 1491.4 40 50S.759 1258.38 1380.51 40 467.614 1163.47 1267.4 40 428.722 1066.7 1152.07 40 389.078 968.064 1034.52 40 348.681 867.554 914.736 Page 4 Of 0 867.49 917.918 917.918 0 953.233 1011.7 1011.7 0 1035.87 1102.81 1102.81 0 1115.43 1191.24 1191.24 0 1191.92 1276.96 1276.96 0 1265.34 1359.98 1359.98 0 1335.72 1440.26 1440,26 0 1403.04 1517.79 1517.79 0 1467.33 1592.56 1592.56 0 1528.58 1664.54 1664.54 0 1586.8 1733,72 1733.72 0 1642 1800.07 1800.07 0 1694.18 1863.58 1863.58 0 1743.34 1924.21 1924.21 0 1789.48 1981.94 1981.94 0 1805.71 2007.04 2007.04 0 1738.69 1940.06 1940.06 0 1664 1864.1 1864.1 0 1587.06 1785.13 1785.13 0 1507.87 1703.13 1703.13 0 1426.44 1618.04 1618.04 0 1342.77 1529.85 1529.85 0 1256.85 143851 1438.51 0 1168.69 1343.99 1343.99 0 1078.28 1246.25 1246.25 0 1338.38 1548.97 1S48.97 0 1600.08 1855.81 1855.81 0 1491.4 1737.94 1737.94 0 1380.51 1616.65 1616.65 0 1267.4 1491.92 1491.92 0 1152.07 1363.67 1363,67 0 1034.52 1231.86 1231.86 0 914.736 1096.43 1096.43 S-13849A 5tatic.slim SUDE[MEWT f8.49a L I mcSdence :Page 5 of 37 2.0263 862.916 28.1555 Material 100 40 357.505 889.507 940.896 0 940.896 1132.23 113123 1 38 2.0263 4124.58 28.7915 Material 100 40 613.042 1525.31 1698.62 0 1698.62 2035.52 2035.52 1 39 2.0263 3943.38 29.4315 Material 100 40 571.179 1421.15 1574.49 0 1574.49 1896.75 1896.75 1 40 2.0263 3554.31 30.0755 Material 100 40 528.528 1315.03 1448.01 0 1448.01 1754.09 1754.09 1 41 2.0263 3257.19 30.7238 Material 100 40 485.073 1206.91 1319.17 0 1319.17 1607.45 1607.45 1 42 2.0263 2951.87 31.3764 Material 100 40 440.821 1096.81 1187.95 0 1187.95 1456,78 1456.78 1 43 2.0263 2638.18 32.0336 Material 100 40 395.764 984.701 1054.35 0 1054.35 1301.97 1301.97 1 44 2.0263 2315.94 32.6956 Material 100 40 349.9 970.585 918.346 0 918,346 1142.94 1142.94 1 45 2.0263 1994.96 33.3625 Material 100 40 303.223 754A5 779.945 0 779.945 979.599 979.599 1 46 2.0263 1645.04 34.0345 Material 100 40 255,732 636.288 639.124 0 639.124 811.942 811.842 1 47 2.0263 1295.96 34.7119 Material 100 40 207.423 516.09 495.875 0 495.875 639.566 639.566 1 48 2.0263 937.499 35.395 Material 100 40 158.292 393.847 350,193 0 350.193 462.665 462.665 1 49 2.0263 569.422 36.0838 Material 100 40 108.336 269,551 202.063 0 202.063 281.016 281.016 1 50 2.0263 191.474 36.7788 Material 100 40 57.5508 143.192 51,4743 0 51.4743 94.4945 94.4945 1 Global Minimum Query Oanbu simplified) - Safety Factor: 2.37921 Angie Base Base Shear Shear Base Pore Effective Base Effective Slice Width Weight of Slice Base Cohesion Friction Stress Strength Normal Pressure Normal Vertical Vertical Number [ft] [Ibs] Base Material [ps�l Angle [�� {�� Stress [�� Stress Stress Stress (degrees] [degrees] [fufJ (psf] [psf[ (psf] 1 1.83458 1255.4 -2.09943 Material 100 40 287.08 683.024 694.82 0 694.82 694.302 684.302 1 2 1.83458 1492.15 -1.16227 Material 100 40 331.253 788.12 820.067 0 820.067 813.347 813.347 1 3 1.83458 1721.75 - Material 100 40 373.541 888,732 939.973 0 939.973 938.497 938.497 0.226415 1 4 1.83458 1944.2 0,709375 Material 100 40 413.976 984.936 1054.62 0 1054.62 1059.75 1059.75 1 5 1.83458 2159.51 1.64536 Material 100 40 452.588 1076.8 1164.11 0 1164.11 1177.11 1177.11 1 6 1.83458 2367.66 2.58177 Material 100 40 489.402 1164.39 1268.49 0 1268.49 1290.56 1290.56 1 7 1.83458 2568.64 3,51888 Material 100 40 524.447 1247.77 1367,86 0 1367.86 1400.11 1400.11 1 8 1.83458 2762.43 4.45694 Material 100 40 557.74 1326.98 1462.26 0 1462.26 1505.74 1505.74 1 9 1.83459 2949.01 5.39619 Material 100 40 589.309 1402.09 1551.77 0 1551.77 1607.44 1607.44 1 10 1.83458 3128.34 6.3369 Material 100 40 619.164 1473.12 1636.42 0 1636.42 1705.18 1705.18 1 11 1.83458 3300.4 7.27933 Material 100 40 647.328 1540.13 1716.28 0 1726.28 1798.96 1798.96 1 12 1.83458 3465.14 8.22374 Material 100 40 673.812 1603.14 1791.37 0 1791.37 1888,75 1888.75 1 13 1.83458 3622.5 9.17041 Material 100 40 698.627 1662.18 1861.74 0 1861.74 197452 1974.52 1 14 1.83458 3772.43 10.1196 Material 100 40 721.79 1717,29 1927.42 0 1927.42 2056.24 2056.24 1 15 1.83458 3914.88 11.0716 Material 100 40 743.31 1768A9 1988.43 0 1988,43 2133.88 2133.88 1 16 1.83458 4049.76 12,0268 Material 100 40 763.19 1815.79 2044.8 0 2044.8 2207.39 2207.39 5-13849A 5tatic.slim SUDEINPMRREr 5.028 roescience Page 6 of 1 17 1.83458 4177 12.9853 Material 100 40 781.44 1859.21 2096.54 0 2096.54 2276.74 2276.74 1 18 1.83458 4296.51 13.9475 Material 100 40 798.063 1898.76 2143.68 0 2143.68 2341.88 2341.88 1 19 1.83458 4408.21 14.9138 Material 100 40 813.064 1934.45 2186.21 0 2186.21 2402.76 2402.76 1 20 1.83458 4511.99 15.8844 Material 100 40 826.442 1966.29 2224.14 0 2224.14 2459.32 2459.32 1 21 1.83458 4545.23 16.8598 Material 100 40 827.342 1968A2 2226.7 0 2226.7 2477.43 2477.43 1 22 1.83458 4430.65 17.8402 Material 100 40 802.64 1909.65 2156.65 0 2156.65 2414.97 2414.97 1 23 1.83458 4302.59 18.826 Material 100 40 775.837 1845.88 2080.66 0 2080.66 2345.17 2345.17 1 24 1.83458 4166.11 19,8177 Material 100 40 747.841 1779.27 2001.27 0 2001.27 2270.77 2270.77 1 25 1.83458 4021.04 20,8155 Material 100 40 718.642 1709.8 1918.49 0 1918.49 2191.7 2191.7 1 26 1.83458 3867.21 21.8201 Material 100 40 688.241 1637.47 1832.29 0 1832.29 2107.85 2107.85 1 27 1.83458 3704.46 22.8317 Material 100 40 656.638 1562.28 1742.68 0 1742.68 2019.13 2019.13 1 28 1.83458 3532,57 23.8509 Material 100 40 623.825 1484.21 1649.64 0 1649.64 1925.44 1925." 1 29 1.83458 3351.34 24.8782 Material 100 40 589.797 1403.25 1553.15 0 1553.15 1826.65 1826.65 1 30 1.83458 3160.54 25.9141 Material 100 40 554.55 1319.39 1453.21 0 1453.21 1722.65 1722.65 1 31 1.83458 2959.91 26.9592 Material 100 40 518.075 1232.61 1349,79 0 1349.79 1613.29 1613.29 1 32 1.83458 2746.97 28,0141 Material 100 40 605.314 1440.17 1597.15 0 1597.15 1919.19 1919.19 1 33 1.93458 2510.93 29.0795 Material 100 40 681.899 1622.38 1814.3 0 1814.3 2193,52 2193.52 1 34 1.83458 2262,17 30.1559 Material 100 40 637.245 1516,14 1687.7 0 1687.7 2057.93 2057.93 1 35 1.83458 2002.34 31.2443 Material 100 40 591.348 1406.94 1557.55 0 1557.55 1916.31 1916.31 1 36 1.83458 1731.08 32.3454 Material 100 40 544.185 1294.73 1423.83 0 1423.83 1768A5 1768.45 1 37 1.83458 1447.95 33.46 Material 100 40 495.753 1179.5 1286.49 0 1286.49 1614.13 1614.13 1 38 1.83458 1152.51 34.5891 Material 100 40 446.034 1061.21 1145.52 0 1145.52 1453.1 1453.1 1 39 1.83458 844.258 35.7339 Material 100 40 395.02 939.835 1000,87 0 1000.87 1285.08 1285.08 1 40 1.83458 522.631 36,9953 Material 100 40 342.697 815.347 852.519 0 852.519 1109.78 1109.78 ' 1 41 1.83458 1281.41 38.0747 Material 100 40 387.289 921,441 978.956 0 978.956 1282.35 1282.35 1 42 1.83458 3591.53 39.2734 Material 100 40 568.462 1352A9 1492.66 0 1492.66 1957.5 1957.5 1 43 1.83458 3238.99 40,4931 Material 100 40 510.808 1215.32 1329.19 0 1329.19 1765.35 1765.35 1 44 1,83458 2870.19 41.7353 Material 100 40 451.646 1074.56 1161.44 0 1161.44 1564.34 1564.34 1 45 1.83458 2494.17 43.0021 Material 100 40 390.952 930.158 989.346 0 989.346 1353.94 1353.94 1 46 1.83458 2079.85 44.2955 Material 100 40 328.706 782.061 812.949 0 812.849 1133.57 1133.57 1 47 1.83458 1656,02 45.6181 Material 100 40 264.888 630.224 631.894 0 631.894 902.56 902.56 1 48 1.83458 1211.25 46,9728 Material 100 40 199.48 474.606 446.438 0 446A38 660.151 660.151 1 S-13849A Static.slim 91DF1MFRARET &028 Ej r©CSCIeI'1Ce Page 7 of 9 49 1.83458 743.95 48.3627 Material 100 40 132.473 315.182 256.444 0 256.444 405.457 405.457 1 50 1,83458 252.223 49.7916 Material 100 40 63.863 151.944 61.904 0 61.904 137.453 137.453 1 lnterslice Data Global Minimum query (bishop simplified) - S Slice x Y Number coordinate coordinate - Bottom Ift] Ift] 1 93.8761 7.66967 2 95,9024 791576 3 97.9287 8.1821 4 99.955 8,46878 5 101.981 8.77586 6 104.008 9.10346 7 106.034 9.45165 8 108.06 9.82056 9 110.087 10.2103 10 112.113 10.621 11 114.139 11.0527 12 116,165 11.5056 13 118.192 11,9799 14 120.219 12.4757 15 122.244 12.9931 16 124.271 13.5324 17 126.297 14.0937 18 128.323 14.6771 19 130.35 15.283 20 132.376 15.9114 21 134.402 16.5626 22 136.428 17.2369 23 138.455 17,9344 24 140.481 18.6554 25 142.507 19.4003 26 144534 20.1691 27 146.56 20.9623 28 148.586 21.7802 29 150.613 22.623 30 152.639 23.4911 31 154.665 24.3849 32 156,692 25.3046 33 158.718 26.2507 34 160,744 27.2236 35 162.77 28.2237 36 164.797 29.2515 37 166.823 30,3074 38 168.849 31.3918 39 170.876 32SO54 40 172.902 33.6486 41 174.928 34.8221 42 176.955 36.0264 43 178.981 37.2621 44 181.007 39.5299 45 183.033 39.8305 46 185.06 41.1647 47 187.086 42.5333 48 189.112 43.937 49 191.139 45,3767 50 193.165 46.8535 Factor: 2.4881 Interstice Interstice Interstice Normal Force Shear Force Force Angle Ilba] Ilbs] [degrees] 0 0 0 340.099 0 0 707.885 0 0 1098.2 0 0 1506.05 0 0 1926.61 0 0 2355.24 0 0 2787.43 0 0 3218.85 0 0 3645.33 0 0 4062.86 0 0 4467.58 0 0 4855.79 0 0 5223.95 0 0 5568.66 0 0 5986.7 0 0 6174.98 0 0 6430.59 0 0 6650.75 0 0 6831.38 0 0 6968.68 0 0 7065.27 0 0 7124.22 0 0 7148.94 0 0 7142.6 0 0 7109.21 0 0 7052.58 0 0 6976.83 0 0 6886.34 0 0 6720.52 0 0 6465.33 0 0 6194.23 0 0 5912.92 0 0 5627.39 0 0 5343.9 0 0 5069.05 0 0 4809.74 0 0 4513.78 0 0 3864.43 0 0 3221.8 0 0 2593.58 0 0 1987.94 0 0 1413.11 0 0 878.312 0 0 392.867 0 0 -33.3131 0 0 -389.789 0 0 -665.554 0 0 -948.999 0 0 -927.871 0 0 S-13849A Static.slim suonNTERPREra.oas : Page 8 of 9 51 195.191 48,3682 0 0 0 aloof minimum Query Uanou simplivea} - safety Factor: 2.37921 Slice x Y Interslice Intersllce Interslice Number coordinate coordinate - Bottom Normal Force Shear Force Force Angle [ftl iftl ilbsl [lbsl [degrees] 1 93,8761 7.28762 0 0 0 2 95.7107 7.2204 573.582 0 0 3 97.5453 7.18318 1212.05 0 0 4 99.3798 7.17593 1904,42 0 0 5 101.214 7.19864 2640.24 0 0 6 103.049 7.25134 3409.52 0 0 7 104.884 7.33406 4202.79 0 0 8 106,718 7,44688 5010.99 0 0 9 108.553 7.58987 5825.51 0 0 10 110.387 7.76317 6638.15 0 0 11 112.222 7.96691 7441A 0 0 12 114.056 8.20125 8226.93 0 0 13 115.891 BA6639 8988.6 0 0 14 117.726 8,76256 9719.41 0 0 15 119.56 9.08999 10413 0 0 16 121.395 9.44898 11063.4 0 0 17 123.229 9,83983 11664.8 0 0 18 125.064 10.2629 12212.1 0 0 19 126.899 10.7185 12700 0 0 20 128.733 11.2071 13124 0 0 21 130,569 11.7292 13479.7 0 0 22 132.402 12.2852 13760.1 0 0 23 134.237 12.8756 13959.8 0 0 24 136.071 13.5011 14082.3 0 0 25 137.906 14.1622 14131.7 0 0 26 139.741 14.8597 14112.5 0 0 27 141,575 15.5942 14029.8 0 0 28 143.41 16.3666 13888.9 0 0 29 145.244 17.1777 13695.8 0 0 30 147.079 18.0284 13456.9 0 0 31 148.914 18.9198 13179.3 0 0 32 150.748 19.8529 12870.6 0 0 33 152.583 20.829 12422.7 0 0 34 154.417 21.9492 11823.1 0 0 35 156.252 22.9151 11193.8 0 0 36 158.086 24.0281 10545.5 0 0 37 159.921 25.1899 9890.04 0 0 38 161.756 26.4023 9240.09 0 0 39 163.59 27.6674 8609.52 0 0 40 165.425 28.9873 8013.41 0 0 41 167.259 30.3645 7468.27 0 0 42 169.094 31.8017 6772.11 0 0 43 170.929 33.3019 5576.17 0 0 44 172.763 34.8684 4431.48 0 0 45 174.598 36.505 3359.6 0 0 46 176.432 38.2159 2384.45 0 0 47 178.267 40.0059 1532.71 0 0 48 180.101 41.8805 834.309 0 0 49 181.936 43.846 322.951 0 0 50 183.771 45.9096 36.9727 0 0 51 185.605 48.0799 0 0 0 Entity Information S-13849A Stabc,sfim slIDESMBlPBEf &028 Page 9 of 9 Distributed Load X Y 168.558 31.8673 151.644 31.8673 External Boundary X Y 0 -50 239.345 -50 239.345 50.5874 224.942 49,0805 219.878 49.0805 168.558 47.5672 168.558 31.8673 151.644 31.8673 130.978 31.0672 93.8761 12.0476 93.8761 6.854 67.1251 6.4606 63.6263 4.2472 37,5171 3.7472 33.8771 1.7472 0 0 S-13849A Static.shm S. KI�ET&029 rocscience : Page 1 of 9 Slide Analysis Information Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary Project Summary Slide Modeler Version: 8.028 Compute Time: 00h:00m:00.242s Genera! Settings Units of Measurement: Imperial Units Time Units: days Permeability Units: feet/second Data Output: Standard Failure Direction: Right to Left Analysis Options Slices Type: Vertical Analysis Methods Used Bishop simplified Janbu simplified Number of slices: 50 Tolerance: 0.005 Maximum number of iterations: 75 Check malpha < 0.2: Yes Create Interstice boundaries at intersections Yes with water tables and piezos: Initial trial value of FS: 1 Steffensen Iteration: Yes Groundwater Analysis Groundwater Method: Water Surfaces Pore Fluid Unit Weight [Ibs/ft3]: 62.4 Use negative pore pressure cutoff: Yes Maximum negative pore pressure [psf]: 0 Advanced Groundwater Method: None Random Numbers Pseudo -random Seed: 10116 Random Number Generation Method: Park and Miller v.3 Surface Options Surface Type: Circular Search Method: Grid Search 5-13849A Pseudo.sl'Im SLMNTEFPRE76,0N I"0CSCIGf1Ce Page 2 of 9 Radius Increment: 10 Composite Surfaces: Disabled Reverse Curvature: Invalid Surfaces Minimum Elevation: Not Defined Minimum Depth: Not Defined Minimum Area: Not Defined Minimum Weight: Not Defined Seismic Loading Advanced seismic analysis: No Staged pseudostatic analysis: No Seismic Load Coefficient (Horizontal): 0.2 Loading 1 Distributed Load present Distributed Load 1 Distribution: Constant Magnitude [psf]: 825 Orientation: Normal to boundary Materials Property Materlall Color 7 Strength Type Mohr -Coulomb Unit Weight [lbs/ft3] 130 Cohesion [psf] 100 Friction Angle [°] 40 Water Surface None Ru Value 0 Global Minimums Method: bishop simplified FS 1.600390 Center: 69.854, 213.926 Radius: 207.651 Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 93,876, 7.670 Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 195.191, 48.368 Left Slope Intercept: 93.876 12.048 Right Slope Intercept: 195.19148.368 Resisting Moment: 2.36926e+07lb-ft Driving Moment: 1.48042e+07 Ib-ft Total Slice Area: 961.305 ft2 Surface Horizontal Width: 101.315 ft Surface Average Height: 9.48826 ft Method: janbu simplified FS 1.539260 5-13849A Pseudo.slim 5UDEfM62PPZr 8.878 Page 3 of 9 r©cscience Center: 98.906, 119.507 Radius: 112,332 Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 93.876, 7.288 Right Skip Surface Endpoint: 185,605, 48.080 Left Slope Intercept: 93.876 12.048 Right Slope Intercept: 185.605 48.080 Resisting Horizontal Force: 113729lb Driving Horizontal Force: 73885.1 lb Total Slice Area: 1065.69 ft2 Surface Horizontal Width: 91.7291 ft Surface Average Height: 11.6179 ft Valid/Invalid Surfaces Method: bishop simplified Number of Valid Surfaces: 1953 Number of Invalid Surfaces: 2898 Error Codes: Error Code -101 reported for 47 surfaces Error Code -103 reported for 2 surfaces Error Code -105 reported for 43 surfaces Error Code -113 reported for 683 surfaces Error Code -1000 reported for 2123 surfaces Method; janbu simplified Number of Valid Surfaces: 1953 Number of Invalid Surfaces: 2898 Error Codes: Error Code -101 reported for 47 surfaces Error Code -103 reported for 2 surfaces Error Code -105 reported for 43 surfaces Error Code -113 reported for 683 surfaces Error Code-1000 reported for 2123 surfaces Error Codes The following errors were encountered during the computation -101= Only one (or zero) surface / slope intersections. -103 = Two surface / slope intersections, but one or more surface / nonslope external polygon intersections lie between them. This usually occurs when the slip surface extends past the bottom of the soil region, but may also occur on a benched slope model with two sets of Slope Limits. -105 = More than two surface / slope intersections with no valid slip surface. -113 = Surface intersects outside slope limits. -1000 = No valid slip surface is generated Slice Data Global Minimum Quer - safety Factor: 1.60039 Angle Base Base Shear Shear Base Pore Effective Slice Width Weight of Slice Base Friction Normal Normal Number [ft] fibs] Base Material Cohesion Angle Stress Strength Pressure Stress Stress [degrees] IPsf3 [degrees] [Psfl [psf] [Ps$ IPA]psf] 1 2.0263 1257.63 6.92465 Material 100 40 364.705 583.671 576.418 0 576.418 1 2 2.0263 1463.77 7.48822 Material 100 40 412.822 660.677 668.189 0 668.189 1 Base Effective Vertical vertical Stress Stress ]PS9 1psfl 620.711 620.711 722.451 722.451 5-13849A Pseudo.slim 3SDEMERPRU 8.028 u racscience Page 4 of 3 2.0263 1664,56 8.05251 Material 100 40 459.175 734.859 756.596 0 756.596 821.558 821.558 1 4 2.0263 1859.98 8.6176 Material 100 40 503.779 806.243 841.668 0 841.668 919.016 918.016 1 5 2.0263 2050.01 9.18353 Material 100 40 546.651 874.855 923.437 0 923.437 1011.81 1011.81 1 6 2.0263 2234.63 9.75036 Material 100 40 587.808 940.722 1001.93 0 1001.93 1102.94 1102.94 1 7 2.0263 2413.81 10.3182 Material 100 40 627.263 1003.87 1077.18 0 1077.18 1191.38 1191.38 1 8 2.0263 2587.52 10,887 Material 100 40 665.032 1064.31 1149.22 0 1149.22 1277.13 1277.13 1 9 2.0263 2755.73 11.4569 Material 100 40 701.123 1122.07 1218.06 0 1218.06 1360.16 1360.16 1 10 2.0263 2918.4 12.028 Material 100 40 735.558 1177.18 1283.74 0 1283.74 1"0.46 1440.46 1 11 2,0263 3075.51 12.6002 Material 100 40 768.344 1229.65 1346.26 0 1346.26 1518.01 1518.01 1 12 2.0263 3227.01 13.1738 Material 100 40 799.486 1279.49 1405.67 0 1405.67 1592.8 1592.8 1 13 2.0263 3372.87 13.7487 Material 100 40 829.004 1326.73 1461.97 0 1461.97 1664.9 1664.9 1 14 2.0263 3513.04 14.325 Material 100 40 856.904 1371.38 1515.18 0 1515.18 1734 1734 1 15 2.0263 3647.49 14.9029 Material 100 40 883.197 1413.46 1565.32 0 156532 1800.37 1800.37 1 16 Z0263 3776.17 15.4822 Material 100 40 907,891 1452.98 1612.42 0 1612.42 1863.89 1863.89 1 17 2.0263 3899.02 16,0632 Material 100 40 930.992 1489.95 1656A8 0 1656.48 1924.55 1924.55 1 18 2.0263 4016.01 16.6459 Material 100 40 952.505 152438 1697.51 0 1697.51 1982.3 1982.3 1 19 2.0263 4066.87 17.2304 Material 100 40 959.047 1534.85 1709.99 0 1709.99 2007.42 2007.42 1 20 2.0263 3931.15 17.8167 Material 100 40 924.15 1479 1643A3 0 1643.43 1940.44 1940.44. 1 21 2.0263 3777.24 18.405 Material 100 40 885.553 1417.23 1569.81 0 1569.81 1964.48 1864.48 1 22 2.0263 3617.23 18.9952 Material 100 40 845.956 1353.86 1494.3 0 1494.3 1785,51 1785.51 1 23 2.0263 3451.05 19.5876 Material 100 40 805.379 1288.92 1416.9 0 1416.9 1703A9 1703.49 1 24 2.0263 3278.65 20.1822 Material 100 40 763.82 1222AI 1337.64 0 1337.64 1618.4 1618.4 1 25 2.0263 3099.95 20.779 Material 100 40 721.287 1154.34 1256.51 0 1256.51 1530.2 1530.2 1 26 2,0263 2914.87 21.3782 Material 100 40 677.779 1094.71 1173.53 0 1173.53 1438,85 1438,85 1 27 2.0263 2723.34 21.9799 Material 100 40 633.304 1013.53 1088.7 0 1088.7 1344.32 1344.32 i 28 2,0263 2525.28 22.5842 Material 100 40 587.867 940.816 1002.04 0 1002.04 1246.56 1246.56 1 29 2.0263 2318.11 23.1911 Material 100 40 714.363 1143.26 1243,31 0 1243.31 1549.36 1549.36 1 30 2,0263 2088.74 23.8007 Material 100 40 941.214 1346.27 1495.25 0 1485.25 1856.28 1856.28 1 31 2.0263 1849,89 24.4133 Material 100 40 786.714 1259.05 1381.3 0 1381.3 1738.39 1738.39 1 32 2.0263 1604.13 25.0288 Material 100 40 731.309 1170,38 1275.63 0 1275.63 1617.09 1617.09 1 33 2.0263 1351.38 25.6474 Material 100 40 675.002 1090.27 1168.24 0 1168.24 1492.33 1492.33 1 34 2.0263 1091.51 26.2693 Material 100 40 617.8 988.721 1059.13 0 1059,13 1364.06 1364.06 1 35 2.0263 824A23 26.8945 Material 100 40 559.705 895.747 948.334 0 948.334 1232.22 1232.22 1 S-13849A Pseudo.slim smFmna+ansr a.aze r L ] rocscI@nce :Page 5 Of 36 2.0263 549.989 27.5232 Material 100 40 500.724 801.353 835.84 0 835.84 1096.76 1096.76 1 37 2.0263 862.916 28.1555 Material 100 40 512.496 820.194 858.294 0 858.294 1132.58 1132.58 1 38 2.0263 4124.58 28,7915 Material 100 40 877.267 1403.97 1554.02 0 1554.02 2036.13 2036.13 1 39 2.0263 3843.38 29.4315 Material 100 40 815.914 1305.78 1437 0 1437 1897.33 1897.33 1 40 2.0263 3554.31 30.0755 Material 100 40 753.629 1206.1 1318.2 0 1318.2 1754.64 1754.64 1 41 2.0263 3257.19 30.7238 Material 100 40 690.419 1104.94 1197.65 0 1197.65 1607.98 1607.98 1 42 2.0263 2951.87 31.3764 Material 100 40 626.289 1002.31 1075.33 0 1075.33 1457.26 1457.26 1 43 2.0263 2638.18 32.0336 Material 100 40 561.238 898.199 951.256 0 951.256 1302A1 1302.41 1 44 2.0263 2315,94 32.6956 Material 100 40 495.271 792.626 825.441 0 825.441 1143.34 1143.34 1 45 2.0263 1984.96 33.3625 Material 100 40 428.392 685.595 697.894 0 697.884 979.954 979.954 1 46 2.0263 1645.04 34.0345 Material 100 40 360.608 577.113 568.601 0 568.601 812.15 812.15 1 47 2.0263 1295.96 34.7119 Material 100 40 291.922 467.189 437.6 0 437.6 639.826 639.826 1 48 2.0263 937.499 35.395 Material 100 40 222.34 355.83 304,887 0 304.887 462.866 462.866 1 49 2.0263 569.422 36.0838 Material 100 40 151.868 243.048 170.478 0 170.478 281.156 281.156 1 50 2.0263 191A74 36.7788 Material 100 40 80.5136 129.853 34.3857 0 34.3857 94.571 94.571 1 Global Minimum Query Qanbu simplified] - Safety Factor:1.53926 Angle Base Base Shear Shear Base Pare Effective Base Effective Slice Width Weight of Slice Base Cohesion Friction Stress Strength Normal Pressure Normal Vertical Vertical Number ft [ ] [Ibs] Base Material IP 1 Angle [iMfl [Ps�l Stress IPafl Stress Stress Stress [degrees] [degrees] [psf] 1Psf1 [Psf] [PSI 1 1.83458 1255.4 -2.09843 Material 100 40 446.947 687.968 700,714 0 700.714 684.338 694.338 1 2 1.83458 1492.15 -1.16227 Material 100 40 514.046 791.251 823.901 0 823.801 813.371 813.371 1 3 1.83458 1721.75 - Material 100 40 577.819 889.414 940.785 0 940.785 938.502 938,502 0.226415 1 4 1.83458 1944.2 0.709375 Material 100 40 638.353 982.591 1051.83 0 1051.83 1059.74 1059.74 1 5 1.83458 2159.51 1.64536 Material 100 40 695.727 1070.9 1157.08 0 1157.08 1177.06 1177.06 1 6 1.83458 2367.66 2,58177 Material 100 40 750.016 1154.47 1256.67 0 1256.67 1290A9 1290.49 1 7 1,83458 2568.64 3.51888 Material 100 40 801.294 1233.4 1350.73 0 1350.73 1400 1400 1 8 1.83458 2762.43 4AS694 Material 100 40 849.616 1307.78 1439.37 0 1439.37 1505.59 1505.59 1 9 1.83458 2949.01 5.39619 Material 100 40 995.04 1377.7 1522.71 0 1522.71 1607.26 1607.26 1 10 1.83458 3128.34 6.3369 Material 100 40 937.632 1443.26 1600.83 0 1600.83 1704.96 1704.96 1 11 1,83458 3300.4 7.27933 Material 100 40 977.431 1504.52 1673.84 0 1673.84 1798.7 1798.7 1 12 1.83458 3465.14 8.22374 Material 100 40 1014.49 1561.56 1741.82 0 1741.82 1888.44 1888.44 1 13 1.83458 3622.5 9.17041 Material 100 40 1048.84 1614.44 1804.84 0 1804.84 1974.16 1974.16 1 14 1.83459 3772.43 10.1196 Material 100 40 1080.53 1663.22 1862.98 0 1862.98 2055.83 2055.93 1 15 1.83458 3914.88 11.0716 Material 100 40 1109.6 1707.96 1916.29 0 1916.29 2133.42 2133.42 S-13849A Pseudo.slim smEBVrUV 7S.o2e I_l rocs fence : Page 6 of 1 16 1.83458 4049.76 12,0268 Material 100 40 1136.07 1748.7 1964.84 0 1964.84 2206.88 2206.88 1 17 1.83458 4177 12.9853 Material 100 40 1159.97 1785.49 2008.69 0 2008.69 2276.17 2276.17 1 18 1.83458 4296.51 13.9475 Material 100 40 1181.33 1818.37 2047.87 0 2047.87 2341.26 2341.26 1 19 1.83458 4408.21 14.9138 Material 100 40 1200.17 1847,37 2082.43 0 2082.43 2402.08 2402.08 1 20 1.83458 4511.99 15.8844 Material 100 40 1216.51 1872.52 2112.41 0 2112AI 2458,58 2458.58 1 21 1.83458 4545.23 16,8598 Material 100 40 1214A3 1869.33 2108.61 0 2108.61 2476.65 2476.65 1 22 1.83458 4430.65 VA402 Material 100 40 1174.98 1808A5 2036.05 0 2036.05 2414.17 2414.17 1 23 1.83458 430259 18.826 Material 100 40 1132.47 1743.17 1958.25 0 1958.25 2344.35 2344.35 1 24 1.83458 4166.11 19.8177 Material 100 40 1088.54 1675.55 1877.66 0 1877.66 2269.94 2269.94 1 25 1.83458 4021.04 20,8155 Material 100 40 1043.09 1605,59 1794.3 0 1794.3 2190.85 2190.85 1 26 1.83458 3967.21 21.8201 Material 100 40 996.141 1533.32 1708.17 0 1708.17 2107 2107 1 27 1,83458 3704.46 22,8317 Material 100 40 947.696 1458.75 1619.3 0 1619.3 2018.29 2018.29 1 28 1.83458 3532.57 218509 Material 100 40 897.756 1381.88 1527.69 0 1527.69 1924.6 1924.6 1 29 1.83458 3351.34 24.8782 Material 100 40 846.335 1302.73 1433.36 0 1433.36 1925.82 1825.82 1 30 1.93458 3160.54 25.9141 Material 100 40 793.44 1221.31 1336.32 0 1336.32 1721.83 1721.83 1 31 1.83458 2959.91 26.9592 Material 100 40 739.069 1137.62 1236.59 0 1236.59 1612.5 1612.5 1 32 1.83458 2746.97 28.0141 Material 100 40 860.953 1325.23 1460.18 0 1460.18 1918.23 1918.23 1 33 1.83458 2510.93 29.0795 Material 100 40 966.958 1488.4 1654.64 0 1654.64 2192.39 2192.39 1 34 1.83459 2262.17 30,1559 Material 100 40 900.881 1396.69 1533,42 0 1533.42 2056.92 2056.82 1 35 1.93458 2002.34 31.2443 Material 100 40 833.4 1282.82 1409.63 0 1409,63 1915.24 1915.24 E 36 1.83458 1731.08 323454 Material 100 40 764.517 1176.79 1283.27 0 1283.27 1767.42 1767.42 1 37 1.83458 1447.95 33.46 Material 100 40 694.239 1068,62 1154.35 0 1154.35 1613.16 1613,16 1 38 1.83458 1152.51 34.5891 Material 100 40 622.572 958.3 1022.88 0 1022.88 1452,19 1452.19 1 39 1.83458 844,258 35.7339 Material 100 40 549.524 845.86 889.882 0 888.882 1284.25 1284.25 1 40 1.S3458 522.631 36,8953 Material 100 40 475,106 731.312 752.366 0 752.366 1109.03 1109.03 1 41 1.83458 1281.41 38.0747 Material 100 40 535.045 823.574 862.324 0 862.324 1281.47 1281.47 1 42 1.83458 3591.53 39.2734 Material 100 40 792.512 1204.49 1316.28 0 1316.28 1956.15 1956,15 1 43 1.83458 3238,99 40.4931 Material 100 40 700.546 1078,32 1165.92 0 1165.92 1764.09 1764,09 1 44 1,83458 2870.19 41,7353 Material 100 40 617,041 949.786 1012.73 0 1012.73 1563.18 1563.18 1 45 1.83458 2494.17 43.0021 Material 100 40 532.01 818.902 856.756 0 856.756 1352.9 1352.9 1 46 1.83458 2079.85 44.2955 Material 100 40 445A72 685.697 698.007 0 698.007 1132.66 1132.66 1 47 1.83458 1656.02 45.6181 Material 100 40 357.454 550.214 536.543 0 536,543 901.794 901.794 1 5-13849A Pseudo.slim RiDuwbiwwr moz L-.l I'OCSCl2nC2 Page 7 of 9 48 1.83458 1211.25 46.9729 Material 100 40 267.993 412.511 372.434 0 372.434 659.548 659.548 1 49 1.83458 743.95 48.3627 Material 100 40 177.144 272.67 205,78 0 205.78 405.04 405,04 1 50 1.83458 252.223 49.7916 Material 100 40 84.9796 130.806 36.7129 0 36.7129 137.243 137.243 1 interstice Data Global Minimum Query (bishop simplified) - Safety Factor: 1.60039 Slice X Y Interstice Interstice Interstice Number coordinate coordinate - Bottom Normal Force Shear Force Force Angle Ift] IN (tbs] [lbs] (degrees] 1 93.8761 7.66967 0 0 2 95.9024 7.91576 344,683 0 3 97.9287 8.1821 709A 0 4 99.955 8.46878 1088.84 0 5 101,981 8.77596 1477.88 0 6 104.008 9.10346 1871.64 0 7 106.034 9.45165 2265.41 0 8 108-06 9.82056 2654.67 0 9 110.087 10.2103 3035.12 0 10 112.113 10.621 3402.64 0 11 114,139 11.0527 3753.29 0 { 12 116.165 11.5056 4083.33 0 C 13 118.192 11.9799 4389.18 0 { 14 120.218 12.4757 4667.46 0 C 15 122.244 12.9931 4914.98 0 C 16 124.271 13.5324 5129.7 0 C 17 126.297 14.0937 530539 0 [ 18 128.323 14.6771 5443.57 0 C 19 130.35 15.283 5539.57 0 C 20 132.376 15,9114 5592.44 0 C 21 134,402 16,5626 5606.19 0 C 22 136.428 17.2369 5584.4 0 C 23 138.455 17.9344 5530.63 0 C 24 140.481 18.6554 5448.64 0 C 25 142.507 19.4003 5342.38 0 C 26 144,534 20.1691 5215.97 0 C 27 146.56 20.9623 5073.78 0 C 28 148.586 21,7802 4920.34 0 C 29 150,613 22.623 4760.42 0 C 30 152.639 23.4911 4663,16 0 C 31 154.665 24,3849 4620.38 0 C 32 156.692 25.3046 4572.05 0 C 33 158,718 26.2507 4524.29 0 C 34 160.744 27.2236 4483.45 0 0 35 162.77 28.2237 4456.15 0 0 36 164.797 29.2515 4449.3 0 0 37 166.823 30,3074 4470.09 0 0 38 168.849 31.3918 4403.86 0 0 39 170.876 32.5054 3623.78 0 0 40 172.902 33.6486 2863.47 0 0 41 174,928 34.8221 2130.9 0 0 42 176.955 36.0264 1434.39 0 0 43 178.981 37.2621 782.654 0 0 44 181.007 38.5299 184.776 0 0 45 183.033 39.8305 -349.725 0 0 46 185.06 41,1647 -810.886 0 0 47 187.086 42.5333 -1188.28 0 0 48 189Al2 43.937 -1470.96 0 0 S-13849A Pseudo -slim SUDMWEnaner &M i r©cscience :Page 8 of 9 49 191.139 45.3767-1647.46 0 0 50 193.165 46,8535-170536 0 0 51 195.191 48.3682 0 0 0 Global Minimum Query Oanbu simplified) - Safety Factor:1.53926 Slice x Y Interslice Intersiice Interslice Number coordinate coordinate - Bottom Normal Force Shear Force Force Angle fft] [ft] fibs] [lbs] [degrees] 1 93.8761 7.28762 0 0 0 2 95.7107 7.2204 617.941 0 0 3 97.5453 7.18318 1295.48 0 0 4 99.3798 7.17593 2020.54 0 0 5 101,214 7,19864 2781.71 0 0 6 103.049 7.25134 3568.25 0 0 7 104.884 7.33406 4370.01 0 0 8 106.718 7.44688 5177.45 0 0 9 108.553 7.58987 5981.54 0 0 10 110,387 7.76317 6773.81 0 0 11 112.222 7.96691 7546,26 0 0 12 114.056 8.20125 829138 0 0 13 115.891 8.46639 9002.13 0 0 14 117.726 8.76256 9671.88 0 0 15 119.56 9.08999 10294.4 0 0 16 121.395 9.44898 10864 0 0 17 123.229 9.83983 11375.3 0 0 18 125.064 10.2629 11823.3 0 0 19 126.899 10.7185 12203.3 0 0 20 128.733 11.2071 12511.2 0 0 21 130.568 11.7292 12743.1 0 0 22 132.402 12.2852 12895 0 0 23 134.237 12.8756 12967.3 0 0 24 136.071 13.5011 12964.5 0 0 25 137,906 14.1622 12891.7 0 0 26 139.741 14.8597 12754.3 0 0 27 141.575 155942 12558 0 0 28 143.41 16.3666 12309.2 0 0 29 145.244 17.1777 12014.5 0 0 30 147.079 18.0294 11681.2 0 0 31 148.914 18.9198 11317 0 0 32 150.748 19,8529 10930.2 0 0 33 152,583 20.829 10538.9 0 0 34 154.417 21.8492 10126.8 0 0 35 156.252 22.9151 9696,62 0 0 36 158.086 24.0281 9259.82 0 0 37 159.921 25.1899 8828.61 0 0 38 161,756 26.4023 8416.12 0 0 39 163.59 27.6674 8036.47 0 0 40 165.425 28.9873 7704.92 0 0 41 167.259 30.3645 7437.92 0 0 42 169.094 31.8017 6926.25 0 0 43 170.929 33.3019 5672.31 0 0 44 172.763 34.8684 4486.38 0 0 45 174.599 36.505 3389.63 0 0 46 176.432 38.2159 2405.33 0 0 47 178.267 40.0059 1559.12 0 0 48 180.101 41.8805 879.455 0 0 49 181.936 43.846 398.02 0 0 50 183.771 45.9096 150.336 0 0 51 185.605 48.0799 0 0 0 Entity Information 5-13849A Pseudo.slim SUDEINTEP"E &5A scien : Page 9 of 9 Distributed Load x v 168.558 31.8673 151.644 31.8673 External Boundary x v 0 -50 239.345 -50 239.345 50.5874 224.942 49.0805 218.878 49.0805 168.558 47.5672 168,558 31.8673 151,644 31.8673 130.978 3LO672 93.8761 12.0476 93.8761 6,854 67.1251 6.4606 63.6263 4.2472 37.5171 3.7472 33.9771 1,7472 0 0 S-13849A Pseudo.slim SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS FS = c+d(y - y ,)costa tangy yd sin a cos a where: FS = factor of safety c = cohesion (psf) d = thickness of saturated soil layer (ft) y - unit weight of soil (pcf) Yw = unit weight of water (pcf) a = inclination of slope face from horizontal (°) 0 = angle of internal friction (°) FS _ 100+3 126-62.4 cost 26.60 tan 401, (126) 3 (sin 26.61 cos 26.611) 228.0 151.3 = 1.5 Enclosure 7 Rpt. No.: 6107 File No.: S-13849A Uc ACBCN Ar+L)(Ss VALLEY N WRIAL PARK & MORTUARY- NPL BCLEL MI BULL7LNG hbde Aka.=E,9 M8rDgWF 5Q.aff sx.fa ae aev--1612 ref abo%e AZL ►v bg►mxb=72 199g Sl� FadorofSYay Sea/ffrurd Soil LLb_p(i 000 0 5 01 5 0 (n.) 10 Sty f-asariw/day andg-/d(FL l� 5ity f-c sa -rd w/gravd (OEM 10 S1Clyl Sift S tyfiresad —20 5tty f-c sad w/9-1d sift � I Send/sift i I 40 fs 1. Sa'dy sift O R csrz E4;..__ ae d zaV lass Uquefadicn Fbrer,rra' S = 3.02 in. 5 I 'S 70 JohiR Byerty, Irm 513MA Enclosure 8, Page 1 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: S-13849A S-13849A.1.sum LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS CALCULATION SHEET version 4.3 Copyright by CivilTech software www.civiltech.com (425) 453-6488 Fax (425) 453-5848 Licensed to John R Byerly, John R. Byerly, Inc. 10/17/2019 5:40:27 PM Input File Name: T:\Liquefy4\S-13849A.1.liq Title: ETERNAL VALLEY MEMORIAL PARK & MORTUARY - MAUSOLEUM BUILDING Subtitle: S--13849A Surface Elev.=1612 feet above MSL Hole No.=B-1 Depth of Hole= 41.0 ft water Table during Earthquake= 50.0 ft water Table during In -Situ Testing= 50.0 ft Max. Acceleration= 1.2 g Earthquake Magnitude= 7.2 User defined factor of safty (applied to CSR) User fs=1.3 fs=user, Plot one CSR (fs=user) Hammer Energy Ratio, Ce=1 Borehole Diameter, Cb=1 Sampeling Method, Cs=1 SPT Fines Correction Method: Stark/Olson et al.* Settlement Analysis Method: Ishihara / Yoshimine* Fines Correction for Liquefaction: Stark/Olson et al.* Fine Correction for settlement: Post-Liq. Correction Average Input Data: smooth' Recommended options Input Data: Depth SPT Gamma Fines ft pcf 1.0 30.0 130.0 25.0 3.0 30.0 130.0 25.0 5.0 30.0 130.0 25.0 6.0 28.0 127.1 25.0 11.0 42.0 131.8 25.0 16.0 100.0 131.4 35.0 21.0 75.0 133.0 25.0 26.0 48.0 133.2 85.0 31.0 53.0 132.5 85.0 35.0 51.0 135.0 85.0 40.0 100.0 135.0 85.0 Output Results: Settlement of saturated sands=0.00 in. Settlement of dry sands=3.02 in.. Total settlement of saturated and dry sands=3.02 in. Differential Settlement=1.508 to 1.990 in. Depth CRRm CSRfs F.S. S_sat. S_dry Sall Page 1 Enclosure 8, Page 2 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: S-13849A ft w/fs S-13849a.1.sum in. in. in. 1.00 2.22 1.01 5.00 0.00 3.02 3.02 2.00 2.22 1.01 5.00 0.00 2.96 2.96 3.00 2.22 1.01 5.00 0.00 2.88 2.88 4.00 2.22 1„00 5.00 0.00 2.81 2.81 5.00 2.22 1.00 5.00 0.00 2.73 2.73 6.00 2.22 1.00 5.00 0.00 2.65 2.65 7.00 2.22 1.00 5.00 0.00 2.55 2.55 8.00 2.22 1.00 5.00 0.00 2.46 2.46 9.00 2.22 0.99 5.00 0.00 2.38 2.38 10.00 2.22 0.99 5.00 0.00 2.31 2.31 11.00 2.22 0.99 5.00 0.00 2.23 2.23 12.00 2.22 0.99 5.00 0.00 2.16 2.16 13.00 2.22 0.98 5.00 0.00 2.08 2.08 14.00 2.22 0.98 5.00 0.00 2.01 2.01 15.00 2.22 0.98 5.00 0.00 1.93 1.93 16.00 2.22 0.98 5.00 0.00 1.86 1.86 17.00 2.22 0.97 5.00 0.00 1.79 1.79 18.00 2.22 0.97 5.00 0.00 1.72 1.72 19.00 2.22 0.97 5.00 0.00 1.65 1.65 20.00 2.22 0.97 5.00 0.00 1.57 1.57 21.00 2.22 0.96 5.00 0.00 1.50 1.50 22.00 2.22 0.96 5.00 0.00 1.42 1.42 23.00 2.22 0.96 5.00 0.00 1.35 1.35 24.00 2.23 0.96 5.00 0.00 1.27 1.27 25.00 2.21 0.95 5.00 0.00 1.20 1.20 26.00 2.20 0.95 5.00 0.00 1.12 1.12 27.00 2.18 0.95 5.00 0.00 1.05 1.05 28.00 2.17 0.95 5.00 0.00 0.97 0.97 29.00 2.15 0.95 5.00 0.00 0.90 0.90 30.00 2.14 0.94 5.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 31.00 2.12 0.93 5.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 32.00 2.11 0.93 5.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 33.00 2.10 0.92 5.00 0.00 0.60 0.60 34.00 2.08 0.91 5.00 0.00 0.53 0.53 35.00 2.07 0.90 5.00 0.00 0.45 0.45 36.00 2.06 0.89 5.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 37.00 2.05 0.89 5.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 38.00 2.03 0.88 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 39.00 2.02 0.87 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 40.00 2.01 0.86 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 41.00 2.00 0.85 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 F.S.<1, Liquefaction Potential Zone (F.S. is limited to 5, CRR is limited to 2, CSR is limited to 2) Units Depth = ft, Stress or Pressure = tsf (atm), Unit weight = pcf, Settlement = in. CRRm Cyclic resistance ratio from soils CSRfs Cyclic stress ratio induced by a given earthquake (with user request factor of safety) F.S. Factor of Safety against liquefaction, F.S.=CRRm/CSRfs S_sat Settlement from saturated sands S_dry Settlement from dry sands Sall Total settlement from saturated and dry sands NoLiq No -Liquefy soils Page 2 Enclosure 8, Page 3 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: S-13849A 5-13849A.1.cal LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS CALCULATION SHEET Version 4.3 Copyright by CivilTech software www.civiltech.com (425) 453-6488 Fax (425) 453-5848 Licensed to John R Byerly, John R. Byerly, Inc. 10/17/2019 5:40:35 PM Input File Name: T:\Liquefy4\S-13849A.1.liq Title: ETERNAL VALLEY MEMORIAL PARK & MORTUARY -- MAUSOLEUM BUILDING Subtitle: S-13849A Input Data: Surface Elev.=1612 feet above MSL Hole No.=B-1 Depth of Hole=41.0 ft water Table during Earthquake= 50.0 ft water Table during In -Situ Testing= 50.0 ft Max. Acceleration=1.2 g Earthquake Magnitude=7.2 user defined factor of safty (applied to CSR) User fs=1.3 fs=user, Plot one CSR (fs=user) Hammer Energy Ratio, Ce=1 Borehole Diameter, Cb=1 Sampeling Method, Cs=1 SPT Fines Correction Method: stark/Olson et al.* Settlement Analysis Method: ishihara / Yoshimine* Fines Correction for Liquefaction: Stark/Olson et al.* Fine Correction for Settlement: Post-Liq. Correction Average Input Data: Smooth* :; Recommended Options Depth SPT Gamma Fines ft pcf 1.0 30.0 130.0 25.0 3.0 30.0 130.0 25.0 5.0 30.0 130.0 25.0 6.0 28.0 127.1 25.0 11.0 42.0 131.8 25.0 16.0 100.0 131.4 35.0 21.0 75.0 133.0 25.0 26.0 48.0 133.2 85.0 31.0 53.0 132.5 85.0 35.0 51.0 135.0 85.0 40.0 100.0 135.0 85.0 Output Results: (Interval = 1.00 ft) CSR Calculation: Depth gamma sigma gamma' sigma' rd CSR fs CSRfs pcf is pcf is (user) w/fs Page 1 Enclosure 8, Page 4 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: S-13849A S-13849A.l.cal 1.00 130.0 0.065 130.0 0.065 1.00 0.78 1.3 1.01 2.00 130.0 0.130 130.0 0.130 1.00 0.78 1.3 1.01 3.00 130.0 0.195 130.0 0.195 0.99 0.77 1.3 1.01 4.00 130.0 0.260 130.0 0.260 0.99 0.77 1.3 1.00 5.00 130.0 0.325 130.0 0.325 0.99 0.77 1.3 1.00 6.00 127.1 0.389 127.1 0.389 0.99 0.77 1.3 1.00 7.00 128.0 0.453 128.0 0.453 0.98 0.77 1.3 1.00 8.00 129.0 0.517 129.0 0.517 0.98 0.77 1.3 1.00 9.00 129.9 0.582 129.9 0.582 0.98 0.76 1.3 0.99 10.00 130.9 0.647 130.9 0.647 0.98 0.76 1.3 0.99 11.00 131.8 0.713 131.8 0.713 0.97 0.76 1.3 0.99 12.00 131.7 0.779 131.7 0.779 0.97 0.76 1.3 0.99 13.00 131.6 0.845 131.6 0.845 0.97 0.76 1.3 0.98 14.00 131.6 0.910 131.6 0.910 0.97 0.75 1.3 0.98 15.00 131.5 0.976 131.5 0.976 0.97 0.75 1.3 0.98 16.00 131.4 1.042 131.4 1.042 0.96 0.75 1.3 0.98 17.00 131.7 1.108 131.7 1.108 0.96 0.75 1.3 0.97 18.00 132.0 1.174 132.0 1.174 0.96 0.75 1.3 0.97 19.00 132.4 1.240 132.4 1.240 0.96 0.75 1.3 0.97 20.00 132.7 1.306 132.7 1.306 0.95 0.74 1.3 0.97 21.00 133.0 1.372 133.0 1.372 0.95 0.74 1.3 0.96 22.00 133.0 1.439 133.0 1.439 0.95 0.74 1.3 0.96 23.00 133.1 1.505 133.1 1.505 0.95 0.74 1.3 0.96 24.00 133.1 1.572 133.1 1.572 0.94 0.74 1.3 0.96 25.00 133.2 1.639 133.2 1.639 0.94 0.73 1.3 0.95 26.00 133.2 1.705 133.2 1.705 0.94 0.73 1.3 0.95 27.00 133.1 1.772 133.1 1.772 0.94 0.73 1.3 0.95 28.00 132.9 1.838 132.9 1.838 0.93 0.73 1.3 0.95 29.00 132.8 1.905 132.8 1.905 0.93 0.73 1.3 0.95 30.00 132.6 1.971 132.6 1.971 0.93 0.73 1.3 0.94 31.00 132.5 2.037 132.5 2.037 0.92 0.72 1.3 0.93 32.00 133.1 2.104 133.1 2.104 0.91 0.71 1.3 0.93 33.00 133.7 2.170 133.7 2.170 0.91 0.71 1.3 0.92 34.00 134.4 2.237 134.4 2.237 0.90 0.70 1.3 0.91 35.00 135.0 2.305 135.0 2.305 0.89 0.69 1.3 0.90 36.00 135.0 2.372 135.0 2.372 0.88 0.69 1.3 0.89 37.00 135.0 2.440 135.0 2.440 0.87 0.68 1.3 0.89 38.00 135.0 2.507 135.0 2.507 0.86 0.67 1.3 0.88 39.00 135.0 2.575 135.0 2.575 0.86 0.67 1.3 0.87 40.00 135.0 2.642 135.0 2.642 0.85 0.66 1.3 0.86 41.00 135.0 2.710 135.0 2.710 0.84 0.66 1.3 0.85 CSR is based on water table at 50.0 during earthquake CRR Calculation from SPT or BPT data: Depth SPT Cebs Cr sigma' Cn (N1)60 Fines d(N1)60 (N1)60f CRR7.5 ft % u 1.00 30.00 1.00 0.75 0.065 1.70 38.25 25.0 4.80 43.05 2.00 2.00 30.00 1.00 0.75 0.130 1.70 38.25 25.0 4.80 43.05 2.00 3.00 30.00 1.00 0.75 0.195 1.70 38.25 25.0 4.80 43.05 2.00 4.00 30.00 1.00 0.75 0.260 1.70 38.25 25.0 4.80 43.05 2.00 5.00 30.00 1.00 0.75 0.325 1.70 38.25 25.0 4.80 43.05 2.00 6.00 28.00 1.00 0.75 0.389 1.60 33.66 25.0 4.80 Page 2 Enclosure 8, Page 5 Rpt. No., 6104 File No.: S-13849A s-13849A.1.ca1 38.46 2.00 7.00 30.80 1.00 0.75 0.453 1.49 39.12 2.00 8.00 33.60 1.00 0.75 0.517 1.39 39.84 2.00 9.00 36.40 1.00 0.85 0.582 1.31 45.35 2.00 10.00 39.20 1.00 0.85 0.647 1.24 46.22 2.00 11.00 42.00 1.00 0.85 0.713 1.18 47.08 2.00 12.00 53.60 1.00 0.85 0.779 1.13 56.91 2.00 13.00 65.20 1.00 0.85 0.845 1.09 66.06 2.00 14.00 76.80 1.00 0.85 0.910 1.05 74.66 2.00 15.00 88.40 1.00 0.95 0.976 1.01 91.72 2.00 16.00 100.00 1.00 0.95 1.042 0.98 100.27 2.00 17.00 95.00 1.00 0.95 1.108 0.95 92.47 2.00 18.00 90.00 1.00 0.95 1.174 0.92 85.16 2.00 19.00 85.00 1.00 0.95 1.240 0.90 78.28 2.00 20.00 80.00 1.00 0.95 1.306 0.88 71.78 2.00 21.00 75.00 1.00 0.95 1.372 0.85 65.62 2.00 22.00 69.60 1.00 0.95 1.439 0.83 62.32 2.00 23.00 64.20 1.00 0.95 1.505 0.82 56.91 2.00 24.00 58.80 1.00 0.95 1.572 0.80 51.75 2.00 25.00 53.40 1.00 0.95 1.639 0.78 46.83 2.00 26.00 48.00 1.00 0.95 1.705 0.77 42.12 2.00 27.00 49.00 1.00 0.95 1.772 0.75 42.17 2.00 28.00 50.00 1.00 1.00 1.838 0.74 44.08 2.00 29.00 51.00 1.00 1.00 1.905 0.72 44.15 2.00 30.00 52.00 1.00 1.00 1.971 0.71 44.24 2.00 31.00 53.00 1.00 1.00 2.037 0.70 44.33 2.00 32.00 52.50 1.00 1.00 2.104 0.69 43.40 2.00 33.00 52.00 1.00 1.00 2.170 0.68 42.50 2.00 34.00 51.50 1.00 1.00 2.237 0.67 41.63 2.00 35.00 51.00 1.00 1.00 2.305 0.66 40.79 2.00 36.00 60.80 1.00 1.00 2.372 0.65 46.67 2.00 37.00 70.60 1.00 1.00 2.440 0.64 52.40 2.00 Page 3 34.32 25.0 4.80 35.04 25.0 4.80 40.55 25.0 4.80 41.42 25.0 4.80 42.28 25.0 4.80 51.63 27.0 5.28 60.30 29.0 5.76 68.42 31.0 6.24 85.00 33.0 6.72 93.07 35.0 7.20 85.75 33.0 6.72 78.92 31.0 6.24 72.52 29.0 5.76 66.50 27.0 5.28 60.82 25.0 4.80 55.12 37.0 7.20 49.71 49.0 7.20 44.55 61.0 7.20 39.63 73.0 7.20 34.92 85.0 7.20 34.97 85.0 7.20 36.88 85.0 7.20 36.95 85.0 7.20 37.04 85.0 7.20 37.13 85.0 7.20 36.20 85.0 7.20 35.30 85.0 7.20 34.43 85.0 7.20 33.59 85.0 7.20 39.47 85.0 7.20 45.20 85.0 7.20 Enclosure 8, Page 6 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: S-13849A S-13849A.1.cal 38.00 80.40 1.00 1.00 2.507 0.63 50.77 85.0 7.20 57.97 2.00 39.00 90.20 1.00 1.00 2.575 0.62 56.21 85.0 7.20 63.41 2.00 40.00 100.00 1.00 1.00 2.642 0.62 61.52 85.0 7.20 68.72 2.00 41.00 100.00 1.00 1.00 2.710 0.61 60.75 85.0 7.20 67.95 2.00 CRR is based on water table at 50.0 during in -Situ Testing Factor Depth ft of Safety, - Earthquake SiggC' CRR7.5 KSigma tsf tsf Magnitude= 7.2: CRRV MSF CRRm CSRfs w/fs F.S. CRRm/CSRfs 1.00 0.04 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 1.01 5.00 2.00 0.08 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 1.01 5.00 3.00 0.13 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 1.01 5.00 4.00 0,17 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 1.00 5.00 5.00 0.21 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 1.00 5.00 6.00 0.25 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 1.00 5.00 7.00 0.29 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 1.00 5.00 8.00 0.34 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 1.00 5.00 9.00 0.38 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 0.99 5.00 10.00 0.42 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 0.99 5.00 11.00 0.46 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 0.99 5.00 12.00 0.51 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 0.99 5.00 13.00 0.55 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 0.98 5.00 14.00 0.59 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 0.98 5.00 15.00 0.63 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 0.98 5.00 16.00 0.68 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 0.98 5.00 17.00 0.72 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 0.97 5.00 18.00 0.76 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 0.97 5.00 19.00 0.81 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 0.97 5.00 20.00 0.85 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 0.97 5.00 21.00 0.89 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 0.96 5.00 22.00 0.94 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 0.96 5.00 23.00 0.98 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 0.96 5.00 24.00 1.02 2.00 1.00 2.01 1.11 2.23 0.96 5.00 25.00 1.07 2.00 1.00 1.99 1.11 2.21 0.95 5.00 26.00 1.11 2.00 0.99 1.98 1.11 2.20 0.95 5.00 27.00 1.15 2.00 0.98 1.97 1.11 2.18 0.95 5.00 28.00 1.19 2.00 0.98 1.95 1.11 2.17 0.95 5.00 29.00 1.24 2.00 0.97 1.94 1.11 2.15 0.95 5.00 30.00 1.28 2.00 0.96 1.93 1.11 2.14 0.94 5.00 31.00 1.32 2.00 0.96 1.91 1.11 2.12 0.93 5.00 32.00 1.37 2.00 0.95 1.90 1.11 2.11 0.93 5.00 33.00 1.41 2.00 0.94 1.89 1.11 2.10 0.92 5.00 34.00 1.45 2.00 0.94 1.88 1.11 2.08 0.91 5.00 35.00 1.50 2.00 0.93 1.87 1.11 2.07 0.90 5.00 36.00 1.54 2.00 0.93 1.85 1.11 2.06 0.89 5.00 37.00 1.59 2.00 0.92 1.84 1.11 2.05 0.89 5.00 38.00 1.63 2.00 0.92 1.83 1.11 2.03 0.88 5.00 39.00 1.67 2.00 0.91 1.82 1.11 2.02 0.87 5.00 40.00 1.72 2.00 0.90 1.81 1.11 2.01 0.86 5.00 41.00 1.76 2.00 0.90 1.80 1.11 2.00 0.85 5.00 :, F.S.<1: Liquefaction Potential zone. (if above water table: F.5.=5) (F.S. is limited to 5, CRR iS limited to 2, CSR is limited to 2) Page 4 Enclosure 8, Page 7 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: 5-13849A 5-13849A.1.cal CPT convert to SPT for Settlement Analysis: Fines Correction for Settlement Analysis: Depth IC qc/N60 qcl (N1)60 Fines ft tsf d(Nl)60 (N1)60s 1.00 - - - 38.25 25.0 2.19 40.44 2.00 - - - 38.25 25.0 2.19 40.44 3.00 - - - 38.25 25.0 2.19 40.44 4.00 - - - 38.25 25.0 2.19 40.44 5.00 - - - 38.25 25.0 2.19 40.44 6.00 - - - 33.66 25.0 2.19 35.84 7.00 - - - 34.32 25.0 2.19 36.50 8.00 - - - 35.04 25.0 2.19 37.22 9.00 - - - 40.55 25.0 2.19 42.74 10.00 - - - 41.42 25.0 2.19 43.60 11.00 - - - 42.28 25.0 2.19 44.47 12.00 - - - 51.63 27.0 2.34 53.97 13.00 - - - 60.30 29.0 2.49 62.79 14.00 - - - 68.42 31.0 2.64 71.05 15.00 - - - 85.00 33.0 2.78 87.78 16.00 - - 93.07 35.0 2.92 95.99 17.00 - - - 85.75 33.0 2.78 88.53 18.00 - - - 78.92 31.0 2.64 81.56 19.00 - - - 72.52 29.0 2.49 75.01 20.00 - _ - 66.50 27.0 2.34 68.84 21.00 - - - 60.82 25.0 2.19 63.01 22.00 - - - 55.12 37.0 3.06 58.18 23.00 - - - 49.71 49.0 3.81 53.52 24.00 - - - 44.55 61.0 4.45 49.00 25.00 - - - 39.63 73.0 4.98 44.61 26.00 - - - 34.92 85.0 5.38 40.31 27.00 - - - 34.97 85.0 5.38 40.36 28.00 - - - 36.88 85.0 5.38 42.26 29.00 - - - 36.95 85.0 5.38 42.34 30.00 - - - 37.04 85.0 5.38 42.42 31.00 - - - 37.13 85.0 5.38 42.52 32.00 - - - 36.20 85.0 5.38 41.58 33.00 - - - 35.30 85.0 5.38 40.68 34.00 - - - 34.43 85.0 5.38 39.81 35.00 - - 33.59 85.0 5.38 38.98 36.00 - - - 39.47 85.0 5.38 44.86 37.00 - - - 45.20 85.0 5.38 50.58 38.00 - - - 50.77 85.0 5.38 56.16 39.00 - - - 56.21 85.0 5.38 61.60 40.00 - - - 61.52 85.0 5.38 66.90 41.00 - - - 60.75 85.0 5.38 66.13 Settlement of Saturated sands: settlement Analysis Method: Ishihara / Yoshimine* Depth CSRfs F.S. Fines (Nl)60s Dr ee dsz dsv S ft w/fs % % % in. in. in. Settlement of saturated sands=0.000 in. dsz is per each segment: dz=0.05 ft dsv is per each print interval: dv=1 ft S is cumulated settlement at this depth settlement of Dry Sands: Page 5 Enclosure 8, Page 8 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: S-13849A S-13849A.1.ca1 ee % depth ft in. ssigma` sv tsf in. SigC` tsf in. (Nl)60s CSRfs w/fs Gmax tsf 9*Ge/Gm g_eff ec7.5 % Cec 40.95 2.71 1.76 66.17 0.85 2395.8 9.6E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.004 0.004 40.00 2.64 1.72 66.90 0.86 2375.9 9.6E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.071 0.075 39.00 2.57 1.67 61.60 0.87 2281.7 9.8E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 0.149 38.00 2.51 1.63 56.16 0.88 2183.3 1.0E-3 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 0.224 37.00 2.44 1.59 50.58 0.89 2080.0 1.0E-3 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 0.298 36.00 2.37 1.54 44.86 0.89 1970.7 1.1E-3 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 0.373 35.00 2.30 1.50 38.98 0.90 1853.6 1.1E-3 1.0000 0.3392 0.98 0.3334 4.0E-3 0.075 0.448 34.00 2.24 1.45 39.81 0.91 1839.3 1.1E-3 1.0000 0.3196 0.98 0.3142 3.8E-3 0.078 0.526 33.00 2.17 1.41 40.68 0.92 1824.6 1.1E-3 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 0.601 32.00 2.10 1.37 41.58 0.93 1809.5 1.1E-3 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 0.675 31.00 2.04 1.32 42.52 0.93 1793.9 1.1E-3 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 0.750 30.00 1.97 1.28 42.42 0.94 1763.2 1.1E-3 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 0.824 29.00 1.90 1.24 42.34 0.95 1732.1 1.0E-3 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 0.899 28.00 1.84 1.19 42.26 0.95 1700.6 1.0E-3 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 0.974 27.00 1.77 1.15 40.36 0.95 1644.1 1.0E-3 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 1.048 26.00 1.71 1.11 40.31 0.95 1612.3 1.0E-3 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 1..123 25.00 1.64 1.07 44.61 0.95 1634.7 9.6E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 1.197 24.00 1.57 1.02 49.00 0.96 1652.1 9.1E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 1.272 23.00 1.51 0.98 53.52 0.96 1664.9 8.7E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 1.347 22.00 1.44 0.94 58.18 0.96 1673.6 8.3E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 1.421 21.00 1.37 0.89 63.01 0.96 1678.4 7.9E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 1.496 20.00 1.31 0.85 68.84 0.97 1686.3 7.5E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 1.570 19.00 1.24 0.81 75.01 0.97 1690.6 7.1E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 1.645 18.00 1.17 0.76 81.56 0.97 1691.4 6.7E-4 0.8236 0.2605 0.98 0.2560 3.1E-3 0.070 1.715 17.00 1.11 0.72 88.53 0.97 1688.7 6.4E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.071 1.786 16.00 1.04 0.68 95.99 0.98 1682.5 6.0E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 1.860 15.00 0.98 0.63 87.78 0.98 1580.8 6.0E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 1.935 14.00 0.91 0.59 71.05 0.98 1422.9 6.3E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 2.010 Page 6 Enclosure 8, Page 9 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: S-13849A s-13849A.1.cal 13.00 0.84 0.55 62.79 0.98 1315.2 6.3E--4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 2.084 12.00 0.78 0.51 53.97 0.99 1200.8 6.4E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 2.159 11.00 0.71 0.46 44.47 0.99 1077.2 6.5E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 2.233 10.00 0.65 0.42 43.60 0.99 1019.7 6.3E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 2.308 9.00 0.58 0.38 42.74 0.99 960.5 6.0E--4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 2.383 8.00 0.52 0.34 37.22 1.00 864.8 6.0E-4 1.0000 0.3811 0.98 0.3746 4.5E-3 0.078 2.461 7.00 0.45 0.29 36.50 1.00 804.1 5.6E-4 1.0000 0.3985 0.98 0.3918 4.7E-3 0.092 2.553 6.00 0.39 0.25 35.84 1.00 740.9 5.3E-4 1.0000 0.4148 0.98 0.4078 4.9E-3 0.096 2.649 5.00 0.33 0.21 40.44 1.00 704.6 4.6E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.083 2.732 4.00 0.26 0.17 40.44 1.00 630.2 4.1E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 2.807 3.00 0.20 0.13 40.44 1.01 545.8 3.6E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 2.881 2.00 0.13 0.08 40.44 1.01 445.7 2.9E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 2.956 1.00 0.07 0.04 40.44 1.01 315.1 2.1E-4 0.1200 0.0379 0.98 0.0373 4.5E-4 0.060 3.015 settlement of Dry Sands=3.015 in. dsz is per each segment: dz=0.05 ft dsv is per each print interval: dv=1 ft S is cumulated settlement at this depth Total settlement of Saturated and Dry Sands=3.015 in. Differential Settlement=1.508 to 1.990 in. units Depth = ft, Stress or Pressure = tsf (atm), unit weight = pcf, Settlement = in. SPT Field data from standard Penetration Test (SPT) BPT Field data from Becker Penetration Test (BPT) c Field data from cone Penetration Test (CPT) c Friction from CPT testing Gamma Total unit weight of soil Gamma' Effective unit weight of soil Fines Fines content M D50 Mean drain size Dr Relative Density Sigma Total vertical stress [tsf] sigma Effective vertical stress [tsf] sigC' Effective confining pressure [tsf] rd Stress reduction coefficient CSR Cyclic stress ratio induced by earthquake fs user request factor of safety, apply to CSR w/fs with user request factor of safety inside CSRfs CSR with user request factor of safety CRR7.5 Cyclic resistance ratio (M=7.5) Ksigma Overburden stress correction factor for CRR7.5 CRRv CRR after overburden stress correction, CRRv=CRR7.5 Ksigma MSF Magnitude scaling factor for CRR (M=7.5) Page 7 Enclosure 8, Page 10 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: S-13849A S-13849A.1.cal CRRm After magnitude scaling correction CRRm=CRRv ., MSF F.S. Factor of safety against liquefaction F.S.=CRRm/CSRfs Cebs Energy Ratio, Borehole Dia., and Sample Method corrections Cr Rod Length Corrections Cn Overburden Pressure Correction (N1)60 SPT after corrections, (N1)60=SPT * Cr Cn * Cebs d(N1)60 Fines correction of SPT (N1)60f (N1)60 after fines corrections, (NI)60f=(N1)60 + d(N1)60 Cq overburden stress correction factor qcl CPT after overburden stress correction dgcl Fines correction of CPT gclf CPT after Fines and overburden correction, qclf=qcl + dgcl gcln CPT after normalization in Robertson's method Rc Fine correction factor in Robertson's Method gclf CPT after Fines correction in Robertson's Method Ic Soil type index in Suzuki's and Robertson's Methods (N1)60s (N1)60 after seattlement fines corrections ec Volumetric strain for saturated sands ds Settlement in each segment dz dz segment for calculation, dz=0.050 ft Gmax shear Modulus at low strain g_eff gamma_eff, Effective shear strain g*Ge/Gm gamma_eff * G_eff/G_max, strain -modulus ratio ec7.5 volumetric Strain for magnitude=7.5 Cec ma nitude correction factor for any magnitude ec Volumetric strain for dry sands, ec=Cec * ec7.5 NoLiq No -Liquefy soils References: NCEER workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. Youd, T.L., and Idriss, I.M., eds., Technical Report NCEER 97-0022. SP117. southern California Earthquake Center. Recommended Procedures for implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California. University of Southern California. march 1999. Page 8 Enclosure 8, Page 11 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: S-13849A C. .. A ` ♦ r -rERNAL VALLEY N43VORLAL PARK& NICFMIAW-S BULIDING Aso — a .r• •d• r r -Sal EL."ptic" - �-5 Mr.I mm W1 30 s 9k--Z C$2 — (S SmdedZbm has Ugjvf r,m FUerhaf John Byedy, Inc. VIES— n)— S=209in u. 9fty f-c sad -19BA (Op 94y f-c sad wlga�el Fc sad w/gaA Silty f-csand w/gam Silty f-c sad Fc sad w/gaA Enclosure 8, Page 12 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: S-13849A S-13849A.2.sum LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS CALCULATION SHEET Version 4.3 Copyright by CivilTech software www.civiltech.com (425) 453-6488 Fax (425) 453-5848 Licensed to Sohn R Byerly, ]ohn R. Byerly, Inc. 10/17/2019 5:44:07 PM Input File Name: T:\Liquefy4\s-13849A.2.liq Title: ETERNAL VALLEY MEMORIAL PARK & MORTUARY - MAUSOLEUM BUILDING Subtitle: S-13849A Surface Elev.=1614 feet above MSL Hole No.=B-2 Depth of Hole= 31.0 ft water Table during Earthquake= 50.0 ft water Table during In -situ Testing= 50.0 ft Max. Acceleration= 1.2 g Earthquake Magnitude= 7.2 User defined factor of safty (applied to CSR) User fs=1.3 fs=user, Plot one CSR (fs=user) Hammer Energy Ratio, Ce=1 Borehole Diameter, Cb=1 Sampeling Method, Cs=1 SPT Fines Correction Method: Stark/olson et al.* Settlement Analysis Method: ishihara / Yoshimine* Fines Correction for Liquefaction: stark/Olson et al.* Fine Correction for settlement: Post-Liq. Correction Average Input Data: smooth* Recommended options Input Data: Depth SPT Gamma Fines ft pcf 1.0 30.0 130.0 25.0 3.0 30.0 130.0 25.0 5.0 30.0 130.0 1.0 7.0 140.0 132.6 1.0 10.0 84.0 131.3 1.0 15.0 105.0 134.1 25.0 20.0 140.0 135.7 25.0 25.0 105.0 134.4 25.0 30.0 140.0 134.9 1.0 Output Results: Settlement of saturated sands=0.00 in. Settlement of dry sands=2.09 in. Total settlement of saturated and dry sands=2.09 in. Differential settlement=1.043 to 1.377 in. Depth CRRm CSRfS F.S. S_sat. S_dry Sall ft w/fs in. in. in. Page 1 Enclosure 8, Page 13 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: S-13849A S-13849A.2.sum 1.00 2.22 1.01 5.00 0.00 2.09 2.09 2.00 2.22 1.01 5.00 0.00 2.03 2.03 3.00 2.22 1.01 5.00 0.00 1.95 1.95 4.00 2.22 1.00 5.00 0.00 1.88 1.88 5.00 2.22 1.00 5.00 0.00 1.80 1.80 6.00 2.22 1.00 5.00 0.00 1.72 1.72 7.00 2.22 1.00 5.00 0.00 1.65 1.65 8.00 2.22 1.00 5.00 0.00 1.57 1.57 9.00 2.22 0.99 5.00 0.00 1.53 1.53 10.00 2.22 0.99 5.00 0.00 1.47 1.47 11.00 2.22 0.99 5.00 0.00 1.40 1.40 12.00 2.22 0.99 5.00 0.00 1.32 1.32 13.00 2.22 0.98 5.00 0.00 1.25 1.25 14.00 2.22 0.98 5.00 0.00 1.17 1.17 15.00 2.22 0.98 5.00 0.00 1.10 1.10 16.00 2.22 0.98 5.00 0.00 1.02 1.02 17.00 2.22 0.97 5.00 0.00 0.95 0.95 18.00 2.22 0.97 5.00 0.00 0.89 0.89 19.00 2.22 0.97 5.00 0.00 0.85 0.85 20.00 2.22 0.97 5.00 0.00 0.80 0.80 21.00 2.22 0.96 5.00 0.00 0.74 0.74 22.00 2.22 0.96 5.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 23.00 2.22 0.96 5.00 0.00 0.60 0.60 24.00 2.22 0.96 5.00 0.00 0.52 0.52 25.00 2.21 0.95 5.00 0.00 0.45 0.45 26.00 2.19 0.95 5.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 27.00 2.18 0.95 5.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 28.00 2.16 0.95 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 29.00 2.15 0.95 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 30.00 2.13 0.94 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 31.00 2.12 0.93 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ,. F.S.<1, Liquefaction Potential Zone (F.S. is limited to 5, CRR is limited to 2, CSR is limited to 2) units Depth = ft, Stress or Pressure = tsf (atm), unit weight = pcf, settlement = in. CRRm CSRfs request factor of F.S. S_sat S_dry S-al 1 NoLiq Cyclic resistance ratio from soils Cyclic stress ratio induced by a given earthquake. (with user safety) Factor of safety Settlement from Settlement from Total settlement No -Liquefy Soils against liquefaction, F.S.=CRRm/CSRfs saturated sands dry sands from saturated and dry sands Page 2 Enclosure 8, Page 14 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: S-13849A s-13849A.2.cal LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS CALCULATION SHEET Version 4.3 Copyright by CivilTech software www.civiltech.com (425) 453-6488 Fax (425) 453-5848 Licensed to ]ohn R Byerly, 7ohn R. Byerly, Inc. 10/17/2019 5:44:15 PM Input File Name: T:\Liquefy4\5-13849A.2.liq Title: ETERNAL VALLEY MEMORIAL PARK & MORTUARY - MAUSOLEUM BUILDING Subtitle: s-13849A Input Data: Surface Elev.=1614 feet above MSL Hole No.=B-2 Depth of Hole=31.0 ft water Table during Earthquake= 50.0 ft Water Table during In -Situ Testing= 50.0 ft Max. Acceleration=1.2 g Earthquake Magnitude=7.2 user defined factor of safty (applied to CSR) User fs=1.3 fs=user, Plot one CSR (fs=user) Hammer Energy Ratio, Ce=1 Borehole Diameter, Cb=1 Sampeling Method, Cs=1 SPT Fines Correction Method: stark/Olson et al.* Settlement Analysis Method: Ishihara / Yoshimine* Fines Correction for Liquefaction: stark/Olson et al.* Fine Correction for settlement: Post-Liq. Correction Average Input Data: Smooth* Recommended options Depth SPT Gamma Fines ft pcf 1.0 30.0 130.0 25.0 3.0 30.0 130.0 25.0 5.0 30.0 130.0 1.0 7.0 140.0 132.6 1.0 10.0 84.0 131.3 1.0 15.0 105.0 134.1 25.0 20.0 140.0 135.7 25.0 25.0 105.0 134.4 25.0 30.0 140.0 134.9 1.0 Output Results: (Interval = 1.00 ft) CSR Calculation: Depth gamma siggma gamma" siggma' rd ft pcf tsf pcf tsf 1.00 130.0 0.065 130.0 0.065 1.06 Page 1 CSR fs CSRfs (user) w/fs 0.78 1.3 1.01 Enclosure 8, Page 15 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: S-13849A s-13849A.2.cal 2.00 130.0 0.130 130.0 0.130 1.00 0.78 1.3 1.01 3.00 130.0 0.195 130.0 0.195 0.99 0.77 1.3 1.01 4.00 130.0 0.260 130.0 0.260 0.99 0.77 1.3 1.00 5.00 130.0 0.325 130.0 0.325 0.99 0.77 1.3 1.00 6.00 131.3 0.390 131.3 0.390 0.99 0.77 1.3 1.00 7.00 132.6 0.456 132.6 0.456 0.98 0.77 1.3 1.00 8.00 132.2 0.522 132.2 0.522 0.98 0.77 1.3 1.00 9.00 131.7 0.588 131.7 0.588 0.98 0.76 1.3 0.99 10.00 131.3 0.654 131.3 0.654 0.98 0.76 1.3 0.99 11.00 131.9 0.720 131.9 0.720 0.97 0.76 1.3 0,99 12.00 132.4 0.786 132.4 0.786 0.97 0.76 1.3 0.99 13.00 133.0 0.852 133.0 0.852 0.97 0.76 1.3 0.98 14.00 133.5 0.919 133.5 0.919 0.97 0.75 1.3 0.98 15.00 134.1 0.986 134.1 0.986 0.97 0.75 1.3 0.98 16.00 134.4 1.053 134.4 1.053 0.96 0.75 1.3 0.98 17.00 134.7 1.120 134.7 1.120 0.96 0.75 1.3 0.97 18.00 135.1 1.188 135.1 1.188 0.96 0.75 1.3 0.97 19.00 135.4 1.255 135.4 1.255 0.96 0.75 1.3 0.97 20.00 135.7 1.323 135.7 1.323 0.95 0.74 1.3 0.97 21.00 135.4 1.391 135.4 1.391 0.95 0.74 1.3 0.96 22.00 135.2 1.459 135.2 1.459 0.95 0.74 1.3 0.96 23.00 134.9 1.526 134.9 1.526 0.95 0.74 1.3 0.96 24.00 134.7 1.594 134.7 1.594 0.94 0.74 1.3 0.96 25.00 134.4 1.661 134.4 1.661 0.94 0.73 1.3 0.95 26.00 134.5 1.728 134.5 1.728 0.94 0.73 1.3 0.95 27.00 134.6 1.795 134.6 1.795 0.94 0.73 1.3 0.95 28.00 134.7 1.863 134.7 1.863 0.93 0.73 1.3 0.95 29.00 134.8 1.930 134.8 1.930 0.93 0.73 1.3 0.95 30.00 134.9 1.997 134.9 1.997 0.93 0.73 1.3 0.94 31.00 134.9 2.065 134.9 2.065 0.92 0.72 1.3 0.93 CSR is based on water table at 50.0 during earthquake CRR Calculation from SPT or BPT data: Depth SPT Cebs Cr sigma' Cn (N1)60 Fines d(N1)60 (N1)60f CRR7.5 ft 1.00 30.00 1.00 0.75 0.065 1.70 38.25 25.0 4.80 43.05 2.00 2.00 30.00 1.00 0.75 0.130 1.70 38.25 25.0 4.80 43.05 2.00 3.00 30.00 1.00 0.75 0.195 1.70 38.25 25.0 4.80 43.05 2.00 4.00 30.00 1.00 0.75 0.260 1.70 38.25 13.0 1.92 40.17 2.00 5.00 30.00 1.00 0.75 0.325 1.70 38.25 1.0 0.00 38.25 2.00 6.00 85.00 1.00 0.75 0.390 1.60 102.04 1.0 0.00 102.04 2.00 7.00 140.00 1.00 0.75 0.456 1.48 155.45 1.0 0.00 155.45 2.00 8.00 121.33 1.00 0.75 0.522 1.38 125.90 1.0 0.00 125.90 2.00 9.00 102.67 1.00 0.85 0.588 1.30 113.76 1.0 0.00 113.76 2.00 10.00 84.00 1.00 0.85 0.654 1.24 88.28 1.0 0.00 88.28 2.00 11.00 88.20 1.00 0.85 0.720 1.18 88.35 5.8 0.19 88.55 2.00 12.00 92.40 1.00 0.85 0.786 1.13 88.59 10.6 1.34 Page 2 Enclosure 8, Page 16 Rpt, No.: 6104 File No.: 5-13849A S-13849A.2.cal 89.93 2.00 13.00 96.60 1.00 0.85 0.852 1.08 88.94 15.4 2.50 91.43 2.00 14.00 100.80 1.00 0.85 0.919 1.04 89.38 20.2 3.65 93.02 2.00 15.00 105.00 1.00 0.95 0.986 1.01 100.46 25.0 4.80 105.26 2.00 16.00 112.00 1.00 0.95 1.053 0.97 103.69 25.0 4.80 108.49 2.00 17.00 119.00 1.00 0.95 1.120 0.94 106.81 25.0 4.80 111.61 2.00 18.00 126.00 1.00 0.95 1.188 0.92 109.83 25.0 4.80 114.63 2.00 19.00 133.00 1.00 0.95 1.255 0.89 112.77 25.0 4.80 117.57 2.00 20.00 140.00 1.00 0.95 1.323 0.87 115.62 25.0 4.80 120.42 2.00 21.00 133.00 1.00 0.95 1.391 0.85 107.13 25.0 4.80 111.93 2.00 22.00 126.00 1.00 0.95 1.459 0.83 99.11 25.0 4.80 1.03.91 2.00 23.00 119.00 1.00 0.95 1.526 0.81 91.51 25.0 4.80 96.31 2.00 24.00 112.00 1.00 0.95 1.594 0.79 84.29 25.0 4.80 89.09 2.00 25.00 105.00 1.00 0.95 1.661 0.78 77.40 25.0 4.80 82.20 2.00 26.00 112.00 1.00 0.95 1.728 0.76 80.94 20.2 3.65 84.59 2.00 27.00 119.00 1.00 0.95 1.795 0.75 84.37 15.4 2.50 86.87 2.00 28.00 126.00 1.00 1.00 1.863 0.73 92.32 10.6 1.34 93.67 2.00 29.00 133.00 1.00 1.00 1.930 0.72 95.73 5.8 0.19 95.93 2.00 30.00 140.00 1.00 1.00 1.997 0.71 99.06 1.0 0.00 99.06 2.00 31.00 140.00 1.00 1.00 2.065 0.70 97.43 1.0 0.00 97.43 2.00 CRR is Factor Depth ft based on water table at of Safety, - Earthquake si gC' CRR7.5 Ksigma tsf tsf 50.0 during in -situ Testing Magnitude= 7.2: CRRv MSF CRRM CSRfs w/fs F.S. CRRm/CSRfs 1.00 0.04 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 1.01 5.00 2.00 0.08 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 1.01 5.00 3.00 0.13 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 1.01 5.00 4.00 0.17 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 1.00 5.00 5.00 0.21 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 1.00 5.00 6.00 0.25 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 1.00 5.00 7.00 0.30 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 1.00 5.00 8.00 0.34 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 1.00 5.00 9.00 0.38 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 0.99 5.00 10.00 0.43 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 0.99 5.00 11.00 0.47 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 0.99 5.00 12.00 0.51 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 0.99 5.00 13.00 0.55 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 0.98 5.00 14.00 0.60 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 0.98 5.00 15.00 0.64 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 0.98 5.00 Page 3 Enclosure 8, Page 17 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: S-13849A s-13849A.2.cal 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 21.00 22.00 23.00 24.00 25.00 26.00 27.00 28.00 29.00 30.00 31.00 0.68 M3 0.77 0.82 0.86 0.90 0.95 0.99 1.04 1.08 1.12 1.17 1.21 1.25 1.30 1.34 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.95 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.99 1.97 1.96 1.95 1.93 1.92 1.91 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.21 2.19 2.18 2.16 2.15 2.13 2.12 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 * F.S.<1: Liquefaction Potential zone. (if above water table: F.S.=5) (F.S. is limited to 5, CRR is limited to 2, CSR is limited to 2) CPT convert to SPT for Settlement Analysis: Fines correction for settlement Analysis: Depth IC qc/N60 qcl (N1)60 Fines d(N1)60 (N1)60s ft tsf % 1.00 - - - 38.25 25.0 2.19 40.44 2.00 _ - - 38.25 25.0 2.19 40.44 3.00 - - - 38.25 25.0 2.19 40.44 4.00 - - - 38.25 13.0 1.20 39.45 5.00 - - - 38.25 1.0 0.10 38.35 6.00 - - - 100.00 1.0 0.10 100.10 7.00 - - - 100.00 1.0 0.10 100.10 8.00 - - - 100.00 1.0 0.10 100.10 9.00 - - - 100.00 1.0 0.10 100.10 10.00 - - - 88.28 1.0 0.10 88.37 11.00 - - - 88.35 5.8 0.55 88.91 12.00 - - - 88.59 10.6 0.99 89.57 13.00 - - - 88.94 15.4 1.41 90.34 14.00 - - - 89.38 20.2 1.80 91.18 15.00 - -- - 100.00 25.0 2.19 102.19 16.00 - - - 100.00 25.0 2.19 102.19 17.00 - - - 100.00 25.0 2.19 102.19 18.00 - - - 100.00 25.0 2.19 102.19 19.00 - - - 100.00 25.0 2.19 102.19 20.00 - - -- 100.00 25.0 2.19 102.19 21,00 - - - 100.00 25.0 2.19 102.19 22.00 - - - 99.11 25.0 2.19 101.30 23.00 - - - 91.51 25.0 2.19 93.70 24.00 - - - 84.29 25.0 2.19 86.47 25.00 - - - 77.40 25.0 2.19 79.59 26.00 - - - 80.94 20.2 1.80 82.74 27.00 - - - 84.37 15.4 1.41 85.78 28.00 - - - 92.32 10.6 0.99 93.31 29.00 - - - 95.73 5.8 0.55 96.29 30.00 - - - 99.06 1.0 0.10 99.16 31.00 - - - 97.43 1.0 0.10 97.52 Settlement of saturated sands: Settlement Analysis Method: Ishihara / Yoshimine* Depth CSRfs F.S. Fines (Nl)60s Dr ec dsz dsv S Page 4 Enclosure 8, Page 18 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.! S-13849A ft w/fs s-13849A.2.cal % % in. in. in. Settlement of Saturated Sands=0.000 in. dsz is per each segment: dz=0.05 ft dsv is per each print interval: dv=1 ft S is cumulated settlement at this depth Settlement of Dry sands: Depth sigma' sigC' (N1)60s CSRfs Gmax g*Ge/Gm g_eff ec7.5 Cec ec dsz dsv S ft tsf tsf w/fs tsf in. in. in. 30.95 2.06 1.34 97.60 0.94 2379.9 8.1E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.004 0.004 30.00 2.00 1.30 99.16 0.94 2354.9 8.0E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.071 0.075 29.00 1.93 1.25 96.29 0.95 2292.3 8.0E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 0.149 28.00 1.86 1.21 93.31 0.95 2228.5 7.9E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 0.224 27.00 1.80 1.17 85.78 0.95 2127.4 8.0E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 0.298 26.00 1.73 1.12 82.74 0.95 2062.3 8.0E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 0.373 25.00 1.66 1.08 79.59 0.95 1995.8 7.9E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 0.448 24.00 1.59 1.04 86.47 0.96 2009.7 7.6E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 0.522 23.00 1.53 0.99 93.70 0.96 2020.0 7.3E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 0.597 22.00 1.46 0.95 101.30 0.96 2026.8 6.9E-4 0.9643 0.3049 0.98 0.2998 3.6E-3 0.074 0.671 21.00 1.39 0.90 102.19 0.96 1985.0 6.8E-4 0.8358 0.2643 0.98 0.2598 3.1E-3 0.066 0.738 20.00 1.32 0.86 102.19 0.97 1936.0 6.6E-4 0.7360 0.2327 0.98 0.2288 2.7E-3 0.058 0.796 19.00 1.26 0.82 102.19 0.97 1885.8 6.5E-4 0.6472 0.2047 0.98 0.2012 2.4E-3 0.051 0.847 18.00 1.19 0.77 102.19 0.97 1834.3 6.3E-4 0.5684 0.1797 0.98 0.1767 2.1E-3 0.045 0.892 17.00 1.12 0.73 102.19 0.97 1781.4 6.1E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.058 0.950 16.00 1.05 0.68 102.19 0.98 1727.1 6.0E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 1.025 15.00 0.99 0.64 102.19 0.98 1671.2 5.8E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 1.099 14.00 0.92 0.60 91.18 0.98 1553.4 5.8E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 1.174 13.00 0.85 0.55 90.34 0.98 1491.4 5.6E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 1.249 12.00 0.79 0.51 89.57 0.99 1428.2 5.4E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 1.323 11.00 0.72 0.47 88.91 0.99 1363.4 5.2E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 1.398 10.00 0.65 0.43 88.37 0.99 1297.0 5.0E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 1.472 9.00 0.59 0.38 100.10 0.99 1282.2 4.6E-4 0.5734 0.1813 0.98 Rage 5 Enclosure 8, Page 19 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: S-13849A S-13849A.2.cal 0.1782 2.1E-3 0.053 1.526 8.00 0.52 0.34 100.10 1.00 1208.2 4.3E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.047 1.573 7.00 0.46 0.30 100.10 1.00 1129.1 4.0E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 1.647 6.00 0.39 0.25 100.10 1.00 1044.3 3.7E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 1.722 5.00 0.33 0.21 38.35 1.00 692.3 4.7E-4 1.0000 0.3541 0.98 0.3481 4.2E-3 0.075 1.797 4.00 0.26 0.17 39.45 1.00 625.1 4.2E-4 1.0000 0.3281 0.98 0.3226 3.9E-3 0.080 1.877 3.00 0.20 0.13 40.44 1.01 545.8 3.6E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 1.952 2.00 0.13 0.08 40.44 1.01 445.7 2.9E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 2.027 1.00 0.07 0.04 40.44 1.01 315.1 2.1E-4 0.1200 0.0379 0.98 0.0373 4.5E-4 0.060 2.087 Settlement of Dry sands=2.087 in. dsz is per each segment: dz=0.05 ft dsv is per each print interval: dv=1 ft S is cumulated settlement at this depth Total Settlement of saturated and Dry sands=2.087 in. Differential Settlement=1.043 to 1.377 in. Units Depth = ft, Stress or Pressure = tsf (atm), Unit Weight = pcf, settlement = in. SPT Field data from Standard Penetration Test (SPT) BPT Field data from Becker Penetration Test (BPT) qc Field data from cone Penetration Test (CPT) fc Friction from CPT testing Gamma Total unit weight of soil Gamma' Effective unit weight of soil Fines Fines content [%] D50 Mean grain size Dr Relative Density sigma Total vertical stress [tsf] sigma' Effective vertical stress [tsf] sigc' Effective confining pressure [tsf] rd Stress reduction coefficient CSR Cyclic stress ratio induced by earthquake fs User request factor of safety, apply to CSR w/fs With user request factor of safety inside CSRfs CSR with user request factor of safety CRR7.5 cyclic resistance ratio (M=7.5) Ksigma overburden stress correction factor for CRR7.5 CRRv CRR after overburden stress correction, CRRv=CRR7.5 Ksigma MSF Magnitude scaling factor for CRR (M=7.5) CRRm After magnitude scaling correction CRRm=CRRv * MSF F.S. Factor of Safety against liquefaction F.S.=CRRm/CSRfs Cebs Energy Ratio, Borehole Dia., and sample Method corrections Cr Rod Length corrections Cn overburden Pressure correction (N1)60 SPT after corrections, (Nl)60=SPT * Cr * Cn * Cebs d(N1)60 Fines correction of SPT (N1)60f (Nl)60 after fines corrections, (Nl)60f=(N1)60 + d(N1)60 Cq overburden stress correction factor Page 6 Enclosure 8, Page 20 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: S-13849A qcl qcl gclf gcln KC gclf ic (N1) 60s ec ds dz Gmax g_eff g*Ge/Gm ec7.5 Cec ec NoLi q References: s-13849A.2.cal CPT after overburden stress correction Fines correction of CPT CPT after Fines and overburden correction, gclf=qcl + dqcl CPT after normalization in Robertson's method Fine correction factor in Robertson's Method CPT after Fines correction in Robertson's Method Soil type index in Suzuki's and Robertson's Methods (N1)60 after seattlement fines corrections Volumetric strain for saturated sands settlement in each segment dz segment for calculation, dz=0.050 ft shear Modulus at low strain gamma_eff, Effective shear strain gamma_eff :, G_eff/G_max, strain -modulus ratio Volumetric strain for magnitude=7.5 Magnitude correction factor for any magnitude Volumetric strain for dry sands, ec=Cec * ec7.5 No -Liquefy Soils NCEER workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of soils. voud, T.L., and Idriss, I.M., eds., Technical Report NCEER 97--0022. SP117. southern California Earthquake Center. Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California. university of southern California. March 1999. Page 7 Enclosure 8, Page 21 Rpt No.: 6104 File No.: S 13849A UCIJB=AcnCNANALYSS VALLEY NfJ11 ORAL PARK& IVURiIJAW- MW.ESO -aM BULLING 1-k bAk)L=B,.3 V DWOI-UaOf! SUfamEFev.--1619feetabovvMS . Nbgrrhrb=7.2 AamAe�tlwg 57ear slp� R-1i0 Fads cf 3aW Seta&?va Scr! C.Lvip6m in)o 0 5 01 5 5 10 KIA 25 s a 30 5 0 35 9iaa�d Tara has bq-efaciim F[terWai Jdrn R Ekx rdy, !ram RM Ion vw— Dy- 3=214in. S13B4aF1 Enclosure 8, Page 22 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: S-13849A S-13849A.3.sum LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS CALCULATION SHEET Version 4.3 Copyright by CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com (425) 453-6488 Fax (425) 453-5848 Licensed to John R Byerly, John R. Byerly, Inc. 10/17/2019 5:46:44 PM Input File Name: T:\Liquefy4\5-13849A.3.liq Title: ETERNAL VALLEY MEMORIAL PARK & MORTUARY - MAUSOLEUM BUILDING Subtitle: S-13849A Surface Elev.=1619 feet above MSL Hole NO.=B-3 Depth of Hole= 31..0 ft water Table during Earthquake= 50.0 ft water Table during In -situ Testing= 50.0 ft Max. Acceleration= 1.2 g Earthquake Magnitude= 7.2 User defined factor of safty (applied to CSR) User fs=1.3 fs=user, Plot one CSR (fs=user) Hammer Energy Ratio, Ce=1 Borehole Diameter, Cb=1 sampeling Method, Cs=1 SPT Fines Correction Method: stark/Olson et al.* Settlement Analysis Method: Ishihara / Yoshimine* Fines Correction for Liquefaction: stark/Olson et al.* Fine Correction for settlement: Past-Liq. Correction Average Input Data: smooth* * Recommended options Input Data: Depth SPT Gamma Fines ft pcf 1.0 30.0 130.0 25.0 3.0 30.0 130.0 25.0 5.0 30.0 130.0 1.0 7.0 38.0 124.0 1.0 10.0 70.0 127.1 1.0 15.0 210.0 132.0 25.0 20.0 140.0 134.8 25.0 25.0 210.0 134.3 1.0 30.0 420.0 135.0 1.0 Output Results: settlement of saturated sands=0.00 in. settlement of dry sands=2.14 in. Total settlement of saturated and dry sands=2.14 in. Differential Settlement=1.069 to 1.411 in. Depth CRRm CSRfS F.S. S_sat. S_dry Sall ft w/fs in. in. in. Page 1 Enclosure 8, Page 23 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: 5-13849A S-13849,4.3.sum 1.00 2.22 1.01 5.00 0.00 2.14 2.14 2.00 2.22 1.01 5.00 0.00 2.08 2.08 3.00 2.22 1.01 5.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 2.22 1.00 5.00 0.00 1.93 1.93 5.00 2.22 1.00 5.00 0.00 1.85 1.85 6.00 2.22 1.00 5.00 0.00 1.77 1.77 7.00 2.22 1.00 5.00 0.00 1.70 1.70 8.00 2.22 1.00 5.00 0.00 1.62 1.62 9.00 2.22 0.99 5.00 0.00 1.55 1.55 10.00 2.22 0.99 5.00 0.00 1.47 1.47 11.00 2.22 0.99 5.00 0.00 1.40 1.40 12.00 2.22 0.99 5.00 0.00 1.32 1.32 13.00 2.22 0.98 5.00 0.00 1.25 1.25 14.00 2.22 0.98 5.00 0.00 1.17 1.17 15.00 2.22 0.98 5.00 0.00 1.10 1.10 16.00 2.22 0.98 5.00 0.00 1.03 1.03 17.00 2.22 0.97 5.00 0.00 0.95 0.95 18.00 2.22 0.97 5.00 0.00 0.88 0.88 19.00 2.22 0.97 5.00 0.00 0.84 0.84 20.00 2.22 0.97 5.00 0.00 0.79 0.79 21.00 2.22 0.96 5.00 0.00 0.73 0.73 22.00 2.22 0.96 5.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 23.00 2.22 0.96 5.00 0.00 0.60 0.60 24.00 2.23 0.96 5.00 0.00 0.52 0.52 25.00 2.21 0.95 5.00 0.00 0.45 0.45 26.00 2.20 0.95 5.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 27.00 2.18 0.95 5.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 28.00 2.17 0.95 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 29.00 2.15 0.95 5.00 MO 0.15 0.15 30.00 2.14 0.94 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 31.00 2.12 0.93 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 * F.S.<1., Liquefaction Potential Zone (F.S. is limited to 5, CRR is limited to 2, CSR is limited to 2) Units Depth = ft, Stress or Pressure = tsf (atm), unit weight = pcf, Settlement = in. CRRm Cyclic resistance ratio from soils CSRfs Cyclic stress ratio induced by a given earthquake (with user request factor of safety) F.S. Factor of Safety against liquefaction, F.S.=CRRm/CSRfs s_sat Settlement from saturated sands S_dry Settlement from dry sands Sall Total settlement from saturated and dry sands NoLiq No -Liquefy soils Page 2 Enclosure 8, page 24 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: S-13849A S-13849A.3.cal LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS CALCULATION SHEET Version 4.3 Copyright by CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com (425) 453-6488 Fax (425) 453-5848 Licensed to ]ohn R Byerly, aohn R. Byerly, Inc. 10/17/2019 5:46:53 PM Input File Name: T:\Liquefy4\S-13849A.3.liq Title: ETERNAL VALLEY MEMORIAL PARK & MORTUARY - MAUSOLEUM BUILDING Subtitle: S-13849A Input Data: Surface Elev.=1619 feet above MSL Hole No.=B-3 Depth of Hole=31.0 ft water Table during Earthquake= 50.0 ft water Table during In -Situ Testing= 50.0 ft Max. Acceleration=1.2 g Earthquake Ma nitude=7.2 user defined factor of safty (applied to CSR) User fs=1.3 fs=user, Plot one CSR (fs=user) Hammer Energy Ratio, Ce=1 Borehole Diameter, Cb=1 Sampeling Method, Cs=1 SPT Fines Correction Method: stark/Olson et al.* Settlement Analysis Method: Ishihara / Yoshimine* Fines Correction for Liquefaction: Stark/Olson et al.* Fine Correction for Settlement: Post-Liq. Correction Average Input Data: Smooth' ,: Recommended options Depth SPT Gamma Fines ft pcf 1.0 30.0 130.0 25.0 3.0 30.0 130.0 25.0 5.0 30.0 130.0 1.0 7.0 38.0 124.0 1.0 10.0 70.0 127.1 1.0 15.0 210.0 132.0 25.0 20.0 140.0 134.8 25.0 25.0 210.0 134.3 1.0 30.0 420.0 135.0 1.0 Output Results: (Interval = 1.00 ft) CSR Calculation: Depth gamma sigma gamma' sigma' rd ft pcf tsf pcf tsf 1.00 130.0 0.065 130.0 0.065 1.06 Page 1 CSR fs CSRfS (user) w/fs 0.78 1.3 1.01 Enclosure 8, Page 25 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: S-13849A S-13849A.3.cal 2.00 130.0 0.130 130.0 0.130 1.00 0.78 1.3 1.01 3.00 130.0 0.195 130.0 0.195 0.99 0.77 1.3 1.01 4.00 130.0 0.260 130.0 0.260 0.99 0.77 1.3 1.00 5.00 130.0 0.325 130.0 0.325 0.99 0.77 1.3 1.00 6.00 127.0 0.389 127.0 0.389 0.99 0.77 1.3 1.00 7.00 124.0 0.452 124.0 0.452 0.98 0.77 1.3 1.00 8.00 125.0 0.514 125.0 0.514 0.98 0.77 1.3 1.00 9.00 126.1 0.577 126.1 0.577 0.98 0.76 1.3 0.99 10.00 127.1 0.640 127.1 0,640 0.98 0.76 1.3 0.99 11.00 128.1 0.704 128.1 0.704 0.97 0.76 1.3 0.99 12.00 129.1 0.768 129.1 0.768 0.97 0.76 1.3 0.99 13.00 130.0 0.833 130.0 0.833 0.97 0.76 1.3 0.98 14.00 131.0 0.898 131.0 0.898 0.97 0.75 1.3 0.98 15.00 132.0 0.964 132.0 0.964 0.97 0.75 1.3 0.98 16.00 132.6 1.030 132.6 1.030 0.96 0.75 1.3 0.98 17.00 133.1 1.097 133.1 1.097 0.96 0.75 1.3 0.97 18.00 133.7 1.163 133.7 1.163 0.96 0.75 1.3 0.97 19.00 134.2 1.230 134.2 1.230 0.96 0.75 1.3 0.97 20.00 134.8 1.298 134.8 1.298 0.95 0.74 1.3 0.97 21.00 134.7 1.365 134.7 1.365 0.95 0.74 1.3 0.96 22.00 134.6 1.432 134.6 1.432 0.95 0.74 1.3 0.96 23.00 134.5 1.500 134.5 1.500 0.95 0.74 1.3 0.96 24.00 134.4 1.567 134.4 1.567 0.94 0.74 1.3 0.96 25.00 134.3 1.634 134.3 1.634 0.94 0.73 1.3 0.95 26.00 134.4 1.701 134.4 1.701 0.94 0.73 1.3 0.95 27.00 134.6 1.768 134.6 1.768 0.94 0.73 1.3 0.95 28.00 134.7 1.836 134.7 1.836 0.93 0.73 1.3 0.95 29.00 134.9 1.903 134.9 1.903 0.93 0.73 1.3 0.95 30.00 135.0 1.971 135.0 1.971 0.93 0.73 1.3 0.94 31.00 135.0 2.038 135.0 2.038 0.92 0.72 1.3 0.93 CSR is based on water table at 50.0 during earthquake CRR Calculation from SPT or BPT data: Depth SPT Cebs Cr sigma' Cn (N1)60 Fines d(N1)60 (N1)60f CRR7.5 ft % a 1.00 30.00 1.00 0.75 0.065 1.70 38.25 25.0 4.80 43.05 2.00 2.00 30.00 1.00 0.75 0.130 1.70 38.25 25.0 4.80 43.05 2.00 3.00 30.00 1.00 0.75 0.195 1.70 38.25 25.0 4.80 43.05 2.00 4.00 30.00 1.00 0.75 0.260 1.70 38.25 13.0 1.92 40.17 2.00 5.00 30.00 1.00 0.75 0.325 1.70 38.25 1.0 0.00 38.25 2.00 6.00 34.00 1.00 0.75 0.389 1.60 40.87 1.0 0.00 40.87 2.00 7.00 38.00 1.00 0.75 0.452 1.49 42.39 1.0 0.00 42.39 2.00 8.00 48.67 1.00 0.75 0.514 1.39 50.90 1.0 0.00 50.90 2.00 9.00 59.33 1.00 0.85 0.577 1.32 66.39 1.0 0.00 66.39 2.00 10.00 70.00 1.00 0.85 0.640 1.25 74.35 1.0 0.00 74.35 2.00 11.00 98.00 1.00 0.85 0.704 1.19 99.27 5.8 0.19 99.46 2.00 12.00 126.00 1.00 0.85 0.768 1.14 122.18 10.6 1.34 Page 2 Enclosure 8, Page 26 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: S-13849A 5-13849A.3.cal 123.52 2.00 13.00 154.00 1.00 0.85 0.833 1.10 143.41 15.4 2.50 145.90 2.00 14.00 182.00 1.00 0.85 0.898 1.06 163.21 20.2 3.65 166.86 2.00 15.00 210.00 1.00 0.95 0.964 1.02 203.17 25.0 4.80 207.97 2.00 16.00 196.00 1.00 0.95 1.030 0.99 183.44 25.0 4.80 188.24 2.00 17.00 182.00 1.00 0.95 1.097 0.95 165.10 25.0 4.80 169.90 2.00 18.00 168.00 1.00 0.95 1.163 0.93 147.97 25.0 4.80 152.77 2.00 19.00 154.00 1.00 0.95 1.230 0.90 131.89 25.0 4.80 136.69 2.00 20.00 140.00 1.00 0.95 1.298 0.88 116.75 25.0 4.80 121.55 2.00 21.00 154.00 1.00 0.95 1.365 0.86 125.22 20.2 3.65 128.87 2.00 22.00 168.00 1.00 0.95 1.432 0.84 133.35 15.4 2.50 135.85 2.00 23.00 182.00 1.00 0.95 1.500 0.82 141.19 10.6 1.34 142.53 2.00 24.00 196.00 1.00 0.95 1.567 0.80 148.75 5.8 0.19 148.94 2.00 25.00 210.00 1.00 0.95 1.634 0.78 156.07 1.0 0.00 156.07 2.00 26.00 252.00 1.00 0.95 1.701 0.77 183.54 1.0 0.00 183.54 2.00 27.00 293.99 1.00 0.95 1.768 0.75 210.02 1.0 0.00 210.02 2.00 28.00 335.99 1.00 1.00 1.836 0.74 247.98 1.0 0.00 247.98 2.00 29.00 377.99 1.00 1.00 1.903 0.72 274.00 1.0 0.00 274.00 2.00 30.00 419.99 1.00 1.00 1.971 0.71 299.18 1.0 0.00 299.18 2.00 31.00 420.00 1.00 1.00 2.038 0.70 294.19 1.0 0.00 294.19 2.00 CRR is based on water table at 50.0 during in -Situ Testing Factor of Safety, - Earthquake Magnitude= 7.2: Depth sigC' CRR7.5 Ksigma CRRv MSF CRRm CSRfs F.S. ft tsf tsf w/fs CRRm/CSRfs 1.00 0.04 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 1.01 5.00 2.00 0.08 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 1.01 5.00 3.00 0.13 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 1.01 5.00 4.00 0.17 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 1.00 5.00 5.00 0.21 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 1.00 5.00 6.00 0.25 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 1.00 5.00 7.00 0.29 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 1.00 5.00 8.00 0.33 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 1.00 5.00 9.00 0.38 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 0.99 5.00 10.00 0.42 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 0.99 5.00 11.00 0.46 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 0.99 5.00 12.00 0.50 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 0.99 5.00 13.00 0.54 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 0.98 5.00 14.00 0.58 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 0.98 5.00 15.00 0.63 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.11 2.22 0.98 5.00 Page 3 Enclosure 8, Page 27 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.. S-13849A S-13849A.3.cal 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 21.00 22.00 23.00 24.00 25.00 26.00 27.00 28.00 29.00 30.00 31.00 0.67 0.71 0.76 0.80 0.84 0.89 0.93 0.97 1.02 1.06 1.11 1.15 1.19 1.24 1.28 1.32 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.96 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.01 1.99 1.98 1.97 1.95 1.94 1.93 1.91 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.23 2.21 2.20 2.18 2.17 2.15 2.14 2.12 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 * F.S.<1: Liquefaction Potential zone. (If above water table: F.S.=5) (F.S. is limited to 5, CRR is limited to 2, CSR is limited to 2) CPT convert to SPT for Settlement Analysis: Fines Correction for Settlement Analysis: Depth zc qc/N60 qc1 (N1)60 Fines d(N1)60 (N1)60s ft tsf 1.00 - - - 38.25 25.0 2.19 40.44 2.00 - - 38.25 25.0 2.19 40.44 3.00 - - - 38.25 25.0 2.19 40.44 4.00 - - 38.25 13.0 1.20 39.45 5.00 - - - 38.25 1.0 0.10 38.35 6.00 - - - 40.87 1.0 0.10 40.97 7.00 - - - 42.39 1.0 0.10 42.48 8.00 - - - 50.90 1.0 0.10 50.99 9.00 - - - 66.39 1.0 0.10 66.49 10.00 - - - 74.35 1.0 0.10 74.45 11.00 - - - 99.27 5.8 0.55 99.82 12.00 - - - 100.00 10.6 0.99 100.99 13.00 - - - 100.00 15.4 1.41 101.41 14.00 - - - 100.00 20.2 1.80 101.80 15.00 - - - 100.00 25.0 2.19 102.19 16.00 - - - 100.00 25.0 2.19 102.19 17.00 - - - 100.00 25.0 2.19 102.19 18.00 - - - 100.00 25.0 2.19 102.19 19.00 - - - 100.00 25.0 2.19 102.19 20.00 - - - 100.00 25.0 2.19 102.19 21.00 - - - 100.00 20.2 1.80 101.80 22.00 - - - 100.00 15.4 1.41 101.41 23.00 - - - 100.00 10.6 0.99 100.99 24.00 - - - 100.00 5.8 0.55 100.55 25.00 - - - 100.00 1.0 0.10 100.10 26.00 - - - 100.00 1.0 0.10 100.10 27.00 - - - 100.00 1.0 0.10 100.10 28.00 - - - 100.00 1.0 0.10 100.10 29.00 - - - 100.00 1.0 0.10 100.10 30.00 - - - 100.00 1.0 0.10 100.10 31.00 - - - 100.00 1.0 0.10 100.10 Settlement of saturated Sands: Settlement Analysis Method: zshihara / Yoshimine* Depth CSRfs F.S. Fines (N1)60s Dr ec dsz dsv S Page 4 Enclosure 8, Page 28 Rpt. No.! 6104 File No.: S-13849A ft w/fs S-13849A.3.cai % % % in. in, in. settlement of saturated sands=0.000 in. dsz is per each segment: dz=0.05 ft dsv is per each print interval: dv=1 ft S is cumulated settlement at this depth Settlement of Dry sands: Depth sigma' sigC' (N1)60s CSRfs Gmax g*Ge/Gm g_eff ec7.5 Cec ec dsz dsv s ft tsf tsf w/fs tsf % % in. in. in. 30.95 2.03 1.32 100.10 0.94 2384.3 8.0E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.004 0.004 30.00 1.97 1.28 100.10 0.94 2346.5 7.9E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.071 0.075 29,00 1.90 1.24 100.10 0.95 2306.0 7.8E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 0.149 28.00 1.84 1.19 100.10 0.95 2264.8 7.7E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 0.224 27.00 1.77 1.15 100.10 0.95 2222.8 7.6E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 0.298 26.00 1.70 1.11 100.10 0.95 2180.2 7.4E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 0.373 25.00 1.63 1.06 100.10 0.95 2136.7 7.3E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 0.448 24.00 1.57 1.02 100.55 0.96 2095.5 7.2E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 0.522 23.00 1.50 0.97 100.99 0.96 2053.0 7.0E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 0.597 22.00 1.43 0.93 101.41 0.96 2009.2 6.9E-4 0.9112 0.2882 0.98 0.2833 3.4E-3 0.072 0.669 21.00 1.37 0.89 101.80 0.96 1963.9 6.7E-4 0.7976 0.2522 0.98 0.2480 3.0E-3 0.063 0.732 20.00 1.30 0.84 102.19 0.97 1917.2 6.5E-4 0.6979 0.2207 0.98 0.2169 2.6E-3 0.056 0.788 19.00 1.23 0.80 102.19 0.97 1866.9 6.4E-4 0.6141 0.1942 0.98 0.1909 2.3E-3 0.049 0.837 18.00 1.16 0.76 102.19 0.97 1815.4 6.2E-4 0.5398 0.1707 0.98 0.1678 2.0E-3 0.043 0.880 17.00 1.10 0.71 102.19 0.97 1762.6 6.1E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.071 0.951 16.00 1.03 0.67 102.19 0.98 1708.4 5.9E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 1.025 15.00 0.96 0.63 102.19 0.98 1652.6 5.7E-4 1.0000 0,3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 1.100 14.00 0.90 0.58 101.80 0.98 1593.3 5.5E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 1.174 13.00 0.83 0.54 101.41 0.98 1532.4 5.3E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 1.249 12.00 0.77 0.50 100.99 0.99 1469.6 5.2E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 1.324 11.00 0.70 0.46 99.82 0.99 1401.3 5.0E-4 0.9890 0.3128 0.98 0.3075 3.7E-3 0.075 1.398 10.00 0.64 0.42 74.45 0.99 1212.0 5.2E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 1.473 9.00 0.58 0.38 66.49 0.99 1108.1 5.2E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 Page 5 Enclosure 8, Page 29 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: S-13849A S-13849A.3.cal 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 1.547 8.00 0.51 0.33 50.99 1.00 957.6 5.3E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 1.622 7.00 0.45 0.29 42.48 1.00 844.8 5.3E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 1.697 6.00 0.39 0.25 40.97 1.00 774.5 5.0E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 1.771 5.00 0.33 0.21 38.35 1.00 692.3 4.7E-4 1.0000 0.3541 0.98 0.3481 4.2E-3 0.076 1.848 4.00 0.26 0.17 39.45 1.00 625.1 4.2E-4 1.0000 0.3281 0.98 0.3226 3.9E-3 0.080 1.928 3.00 0.20 0.13 40.44 1.01 545.8 3.6E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 2.003 2.00 0.13 0.08 40.44 1.01 445.7 2.9E-4 1.0000 0.3162 0.98 0.3109 3.7E-3 0.075 2.078 1.00 0.07 0.04 40.44 1.01 315.1 2.1,E-4 0.1200 0.0379 0.98 0.0373 4.5E-4 0.060 2.137 in. Settlement of Dry Sands=2.137 dsz is per each segment: dz=0.05 ft dsv is per each print interval: dv=1 ft S is cumulated settlement at this depth Total Settlement of Saturated and Dry Sands=2.137 in. Differential settlement=1.069 to 1.411 in. Units Depth = ft, Stress or Pressure = tsf (atm), Unit weight = pcf, Settlement = in. SPT Field data from standard Penetration Test (SPT) BPT Field data from Becker Penetration Test (6PT) qc Field data from cone Penetration Test (CPT) fc Friction from CPT testing Gamma Total unit weight of soil Gamma' Effective unit weight of soil Fines Fines content [%] D50 Mean grain size Dr Relative Density sigma Total vertical stress [tsf] sigma' Effective vertical stress [tsf] sigc, Effective confining pressure [tsf] rd Stress reduction coefficient CSR Cyclic stress ratio induced by earthquake fs User request factor of safety, apply to CSR w/fs with user request factor of safety inside CSRfs CSR with user request factor of safety CRR7.5 Cyclic resistance ratio (M=7.5) Ksigma overburden stress correction factor for CRR7.5 CRRv CRR after overburden stress correction, CRRv=CRR7.5 Ksigma MSF Magnitude scaling factor for CRR (M=7.5) CRRm After magnitude scaling correction CRRm=CRRv ;; MSF F.S. Factor of Safety against liquefaction F.S.=CRRm/CSRfs Cebs Energy Ratio, Borehole Dia., and sample Method Corrections Cr Rod Length Corrections Cn Overburden Pressure correction (N1)60 SPT after corrections, (Nl)60=SPT Cr * Cn * Cebs d(N1)60 Fines correction of SPT (N1)60f (N1)60 after fines corrections, (N1)60f=(N1)60 + d(Nl)60 Cq overburden stress correction factor Page 6 Enclosure 8, Page 30 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: S-13849A qc1 dgcl gclf gcln KC gclf Ic (N1)60s ec ds dz Gmax g_eff g ., Ge/Gm ec7. 5 Cec ec NoLiq References: S-13849A.3.cal CPT after overburden stress correction Fines correction of CPT CPT after Fines and overburden correction, gclf=qcl + dgcl CPT after normalization in Robertson's method Fine correction factor in Robertson's Method CPT after Fines correction in Robertson's Method Soil type index in Suzuki's and Robertson's Methods (N1)60 after seattlement fines corrections volumetric strain for saturated sands settlement in each segment dz segment for calculation, dz=0.050 ft shear Modulus at low strain gamma_eff, Effective shear Strain gamma_eff G_eff/G_max, strain -modulus ratio Volumetric strain for magnitude=7.5 Ma nitude Correction factor for any magnitude Volumetric strain for dry sands, ec=Cec :, ec7.5 No -Liquefy Soils NCEER workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. Youd, T.L., and Idriss, I.M., eds., Technical Report NCEER 97-0022. SP117. Southern California Earthquake center. Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California. University of southern California. March 1999. Page 7 Enclosure 8, Page 31 Rpt. No.: 6104 File No.: S-13849A APPENDIX I Drainage Plans u ales v 92 PROPERTY LINEEL �\ /N. BASIN A i -- .'� BASIN A)T13 IL LOT LINE TVP —3269 LOT 10. LOT 17� LOTS Tc 15 1 I , .�LOT 16 ZQ 22]9I _ Ty �y LOT a 24 STORM DRAIN INL a' d� r� 1 £H fi05aa r / 24' STO INLET PER 24' STb DRAIN LOT 2 J/ INLET PEt 1875, �WpT BASIN TO LOT I, 6 REMOVED I PHASF 1 CONTRIBUTION d s z DRAIN- BASIN B PER M71D1875 f�I l q - � ZO 18263 1 ,ea .cam _ x o 7c s as,10 Ll 1T iv �-7A/ • v a8. __ �41 NoioR RAT-oT-.A. oEaA1-1-T — — — — — WATBeSIM BOEMABY 1CISnwRAHw aOWPATH — — STRBBTAOWPATH ` RURosa�"n oR NRn 6E1ETDEo IIT-TON oE�ET�O �oNOITION ETERNAL VALLEY ALWORIAL PARK FMMNG DRAWAGE EXHIBTT SHEET C-4 ®HNNIAARNR6 ESSOCIANES KING � ENGINEERING ,. strRVEVING �4 �� �dR E�Ira9 vweso4 smem• vvx�:fesU rzw�url �T lwpnFnlNl®.u14E I PROPERTr LINE:.\.\ ,.176% o seas\, BASIN A `Tm '22E`, I 70/ BASIN ALO U 262; � \.\ - fF LOF'_—en LOT UNF ITVP, 1{R CD \ / �16q� LOT 6 — 1061 LOT 17 n ✓ � gq' �..=139 ch \ \JT=Smm LOT 6 16A 0 29 fi4nch 0 } 63 ✓ L aA\ LOT 16 _� 101. 7.4 o: 42Ba PA v .e `♦ '+ LOT 225 eta 11911 � LOT 24' STORM DRAIN IN L £o 22A PER MTD1875 �T f° efi 24 STO jvl. DRAIN BASIN B0. , o s = a,l INLET PER WTD1875 a 24' ST DRAIN LOT 2 � a=� ee � u y INLET PE� 875 E, eA T ,e o Q - ,e� F 4 -� N WET BASIN TO ("'60' LOT I, B REMOVED p e33 l �'y��r / 6A t J -y rtTO'�4S lam'rl 00, CONTRIBUTION pP'<KWPV- STORM ;WITHIN RAN OF P+du:.�,iEt / TO BE MAINTAINED BVTIACF D(TVP) \ a N �XC � ` I OR p� LID IMPROVEMENTS r TREATMENT OF RUNOFF FROM PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREAS WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY DIRECTING RUNOFF TO THE TURF (VEGETATIVE) AREA OF THE CEMETERY. LID PRACTICES AND MEASURES WILL BE PER LID MANUAL— MAY- INCLUDE VEGETATED FILTERSTRIP/TURF AND/OR PLANTER VEGETATION. IJ ILL WATBRSHRD BOUNDARY / 20 S®PR RIFY PLOWPA. STARRrAOWPATH 7' LRADIMI ETBOVBLffi A DRABYAGB II�NBBDHAM R1NCF[ I LETOPIMIROVEAff" DRAMG8 70 SERA �— IN HIFY ETERNAL VALLEY ME1Mi7RIAI. PARK — — — — — — — — — PROPOSED DRAINAGE RRA EYHIBIT SHEET G5 ®HINNSA,RNR6 ESSOCIANES KING � ENGINEERING ,. strRVEVING �4 �� �dR E�les9 veseso4 wilem. vvx�:fesU rzw�url EST lwpnFnlNl®vu14E APPENDIX J Noise and Vibration Technical Report Eternal Valley Project Noise and Vibration Technical Report IMPACT SCIENCES Prepared for: Hunsaker & Associates 26074 Avenue Hall, Suite 23 Valencia, CA 91355 Prepared by: Impact Sciences, Inc. 811 W. Th Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Location..............................................................................................................................1 1.2 Project Description.........................................................................................................................1 2.0 Environmental Setting.................................................................................................................................3 2.1 Fundamentals of Noise & Vibration............................................................................................3 2.2 Noise Sensitive Receptors.............................................................................................................9 2.3 Existing Conditions........................................................................................................................9 3.0 Regulatory Framework..............................................................................................................................12 3.1 State Regulations..........................................................................................................................12 3.2 Local Plans and Policies..............................................................................................................12 4.0 Noise Analysis............................................................................................................................................17 4.1 Thresholds of Significance..........................................................................................................17 4.2 Methodology.................................................................................................................................17 4.3 Impact Analysis............................................................................................................................18 5.0 References....................................................................................................................................................24 Attachment A — Noise and Vibration Technical Appendix LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page ProjectSite.....................................................................................................................................................2 Noise Sensitive Receptors.........................................................................................................................11 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 A -Weighted Decibel Scale...........................................................................................................................4 2 Building Noise Reduction Factors..............................................................................................................5 3 Construction Vibration Damage Criteria..................................................................................................9 4 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments...........................................................12 5 Construction Noise Impacts at Off -Site Sensitive Receptors................................................................18 6 Vibration Levels at Off -Site Sensitive Uses from Project Construction..............................................21 Impact Sciences, Inc. 1 Eternal Valley Noise and Vibration Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 1.0 INTRODUCTION This study describes the existing noise and vibration environment of the proposed development at the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary in the City of Santa Clarita (City). This study evaluates potential impacts from construction and operation of this proposal. This report has been prepared by Impact Sciences, Inc., in support of the environmental documentation being prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION The project site is located at 23287 Sierra Highway in the City of Santa Clarita. The project is located within Newhall neighborhood area in the southern portion of the City. The site is on the western portion of the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary, bounded by Needham Ranch Parkway on the west, open space brush areas to the north, previously developed areas of the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary to the east, and industrial warehouses to the south. The project site is approximately 17 acres, zoned OS - Open Space, and is currently undeveloped, see Figure 1, Project Site. 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Project consists of rough grading, future lawn burials, and the construction of a community mausoleum. The project includes approximately 17 acres of grading for the project site. The project would be graded with a volume totaling 92,600 cubic yards of cut and fill to be balanced on site. An additional 100,300 cubic yards of dirt will be removed and recompacted onsite in accordance with the project's soils report recommendations for remedial grading. No soil import or export is anticipated at this time. The 3,665 square foot mausoleum will be set into the hillside and would have a capacity of 780 caskets. A central room would include housing niches for the inurnment of cremated remains. The structure will lie below the ridgeline elevation. The project would also include traditional lawn burial gardens consistent with the overall cemetery appearance and a private cemetery loop road for access by cemetery visitors and will include an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) parking stall. Shade trees would also be placed in the same density and pattern of the existing Eternal Valley developed cemetery areas. Impact Sciences, Inc. 1 Eternal Valley Noise and Vibration Technical Study 1366.001 March 2022 l7" y r R EL Y[7ha'_ Elsme�,e Canyo- _ t V.) f "vi norial Parke r rtLjary 23.287 SS( r Hwy ` B&'I wig tirg ! � Y - r LA North Studios (`S a fr k a r _ Goo le Earth - � ♦ �;' �s� _ � � � � - g i ',' NN 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 2.1 FUNDAMENTALS OF NOISE & VIBRATION Noise Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound that is an undesirable byproduct of society's normal day-to- day activities. Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it causes actual physical harm, and/or when it has adverse effects on health. Noise is measured on a logarithmic scale of sound pressure level known as a decibel (dB). The human ear does not respond uniformly to sounds at all frequencies. For example, the human ear is less sensitive to low and high frequencies than medium frequencies, which more closely correspond with human speech. In response to the sensitivity of the human ear to different frequencies, the A -weighted noise level (or scale), which corresponds better with people's subjective judgment of sound levels, has been developed. This A -weighted sound level, referenced in units of dB(A), is measured on a logarithmic scale such that a doubling of sound energy results in a 3 dB(A) increase in noise level. Typically, changes in a community noise level of less than 3 dB(A) are not noticed by the human ear.1 Changes from 3 to 5 dB(A) may be noticed by some individuals who are sensitive to changes in noise. A greater than 5 dB(A) increase is readily noticeable, while the human ear perceives a 10 dB(A) increase in sound level to be a doubling of sound. On the A -weighted scale, the range of human hearing extends from approximately 3 to 140 dB(A). Table 1, A -Weighted Decibel Scale, provides examples of A -weighted noise levels from common sources. Noise sources occur in two forms: (1) point sources, such as stationary equipment or individual motor vehicles; and (2) line sources, such as a roadway with a large number of point sources (motor vehicles). Sound generated by a point source typically diminishes (attenuates) at a rate of 6 dB(A) for each doubling of distance from the source to the receptor at acoustically "hard" sites and 7.5 dB(A) at acoustically "soft" sites.2 For example, if a noise source produces a noise level of 89 dB(A) at a reference distance of 50 feet, the noise level would be 83 dB(A) at a distance of 100 feet from the noise source, 77 dB(A) at a distance of 200 feet, and so on. Noise generated by a mobile source will decrease by approximately 3 dB(A) over hard surfaces and 4.5 dB(A) over soft surfaces for each doubling of distance. California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, 2013. Federal Highway Administration, Highway Noise Fundamentals, (1980) 97. Examples of "hard" or reflective sites include asphalt, concrete, and hard and sparsely vegetated soils. Examples of acoustically "soft" or absorptive sites include soft, sand, plowed farmland, grass, crops, heavy ground cover, etc. Impact Sciences, Inc. Eternal Valley Noise and Vibration Technical Study 1366.001 March 2022 2.0 Environmental Setting Table 1 A -Weighted Decibel Scale Typical A -Weighted Sound Levels Sound Level (dB(A), Leq) Threshold of Pain 140 Jet Takeoff at 100 Meters 125 Jackhammer at 15 Meters 95 Heavy Diesel Truck at 15 Meters 85 Conversation at 1 Meter 60 Soft Whisper at 2 Meters 35 Source: United States Occupational Safety & Health Administration, Noise and Hearing Conservation Technical Manual, 1999. Sound levels also can be attenuated by man-made or natural barriers (e.g., sound walls, berms, ridges), as well as elevational differences. Noise is most audible when traveling by direct line -of -sight, an interrupted visual path between the noise source and noise receptor. Barriers, such as walls or buildings that break the line -of -sight between the source and the receiver, can greatly reduce noise levels from the source since sound can only reach the receiver by diffraction. However, if a barrier is not high or long enough to break the line -of -sight from the source to the receiver, its effectiveness is greatly reduced. Solid walls and berms may reduce noise levels by 5 to 10 dB(A) depending on their height and distance relative to the noise source and the noise receptor.3 Sound levels may also be attenuated 3 dB(A) by a first row of houses and 1.5 dB(A) for each additional row of houses.4 The minimum noise attenuation provided by typical structures in California is provided in Table 2, Building Noise Reduction Factors. 3 Federal Highway Administration, Highway Noise Mitigation, (1980) 18. 4 California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, 2013. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4 Eternal Valley Noise and Vibration Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 2.0 Environmental Setting Table 2 Building Noise Reduction Factors Noise Reduction Due to Window Exterior of the Structure Building Type Condition (dB(A)) All Open 10 Ordinary Sash Light Frame (closed) 20 Storm Windows 25 Masonry Single Glazed 25 Double Glazed 35 Source: Federal Highway Administration, Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance. December 2011. Sound Rating Scales Various rating scales approximate the human subjective assessment to the "loudness" or "noisiness" of a sound. Noise metrics have been developed to account for additional parameters, such as duration and cumulative effect of multiple events. Noise metrics are categorized as single event metrics and cumulative metrics, as summarized below. In order to simplify the measurement and computation of sound loudness levels, frequency weighted networks have obtained wide acceptance. The A -weighted scale, discussed above, has become the most prominent of these scales and is widely used in community noise analysis. Its advantages are that it has shown good correlation with community response and is easily measured. The metrics used in this analysis are all based upon the dB(A) scale. Equivalent Noise Level Equivalent Noise Level (Leq) is the sound level corresponding to a steady-state A -weighted sound level containing the same total energy as several single event noise exposure level events during a given sample period. Leq is the "acoustic energy" average noise level during the period of the sample. It is based on the observation that the potential for noise annoyance is dependent on the total acoustical energy content of the noise. The equivalent noise level is expressed in units of dB(A). Leq can be measured for any period, but is typically measured for 15 minutes, 1 hour, or 24 hours. Leq for a 1-hour period is used by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for assessing highway noise impacts. Leq for 1 hour is referred to as the Hourly Noise Level (HNL) in the California Airport Noise Regulations and is used to develop Community Impact Sciences, Inc. 5 Eternal Valley Noise and Vibration Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 2.0 Environmental Setting Noise Equivalent Level values for aircraft operations. Construction noise levels and ambient noise measurements in this section use the Leq scale. Community Noise Equivalent Level Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a 24-hour, time -weighted energy average noise level based on the A -weighted decibel. It is a measure of the overall noise experienced during an entire day. The term "time -weighted" refers to the penalties attached to noise events occurring during certain sensitive periods. In the CNEL scale, 5 dB are added to measured noise levels occurring between the hours of 7 P.M. and 10 P.M. For measured noise levels occurring between the hours of 10 P.M. and 7 A.M., 10 dB are added. These decibel adjustments are an attempt to account for the higher sensitivity to noise in the evening and nighttime hours and the expected lower ambient noise levels during these periods. Existing and projected future traffic noise levels in this section use the CNEL scale. Day -Night Average Noise Level The day -night average sound level (Ldn) is another average noise level over a 24-hour period. Noise levels occurring between the hours of 10 P.M. and 7 A.M. are increased by 10 decibels (dB). This noise is weighted to take into account the decrease in community background noise of 10 dB(A) during this period. Noise levels measured using the Ldn scale are typically similar to CNEL measurements. Adverse Effects of Noise Exposure Noise is known to have several adverse effects on humans, which has led to laws and standards being set to protect public health and safety, and to ensure compatibility between land uses and activities. Adverse effects of noise on people include hearing loss, communication interference, sleep interference, physiological responses, and annoyance. Each of these potential noise impacts on people is briefly discussed in the following narrative. Hearing Loss Hearing loss is generally not a community noise concern, even near a major airport or a major freeway. The potential for noise -induced hearing loss is more commonly associated with occupational noise exposures in heavy industry, very noisy work environments with long-term exposure, or certain very loud recreational activities (e.g., target shooting and motorcycle or car racing). The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) identifies a noise exposure limit of 90 dB(A) for 8 hours per day to protect from hearing loss (higher limits are allowed for shorter duration exposures). Noise levels in neighborhoods, even in very noisy neighborhoods, are not sufficiently loud enough to cause hearing loss. Impact Sciences, Inc. 6 Eternal Valley Noise and Vibration Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 2.0 Environmental Setting Communication Interference Communication interference is one of the primary concerns in environmental noise. Communication interference includes speech disturbance and intrusion with activities such as watching television. Noise can also interfere with communications such as within school classrooms. Normal conversational speech is in the range of 60 to 65 dB(A) and any noise in this range or louder may interfere with speech. Sleep Interference Noise can make it difficult to fall asleep, create momentary disturbances of natural sleep patterns by causing shifts from deep to lighter stages, and cause awakening. Noise may even cause awakening that a person may or may not be able to recall. Physiological Responses Physiological responses are those measurable effects of noise on people that are realized as changes in pulse rate, blood pressure, and other physical changes. Studies to determine whether exposure to high noise levels can adversely affect human health have concluded that, while a relationship between noise and health effects seems plausible, there is no empirical evidence of the relationship. Annoyance Annoyance is an individual characteristic and can vary widely from person to person. Noise that one person considers tolerable can be unbearable to another of equal hearing capability. The level of annoyance depends both on the characteristics of the noise (including loudness, frequency, time, and duration), and how much activity interference (such as speech interference and sleep interference) results from the noise. However, the level of annoyance is also a function of the attitude of the receiver. Personal sensitivity to noise varies widely. It has been estimated that 2% to 10% of the population is highly susceptible to annoyance from any noise not of their own making, while approximately 20% are unaffected by noise.5 Attitudes may also be affected by the relationship between the person affected and the source of noise, and whether attempts have been made to abate the noise. Vibration Vibration consists of waves transmitted through solid material. Groundborne vibration propagates from a source through the ground to adjacent buildings by surface waves. Vibration may comprise a single pulse, a series of pulses, or a continuous oscillatory motion. The frequency of a vibrating object describes how 5 Wayne County Airport Authority. Background information on noise & its measurement, 2009 Impact Sciences, Inc. % Eternal Valley Noise and Vibration Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 2.0 Environmental Setting rapidly it is oscillating and is measured in hertz (Hz). Most environmental vibrations consist of a composite, or "spectrum' of many frequencies, and are generally classified as broadband or random vibrations. The normal frequency range of most groundborne vibration that can be felt generally starts from a low frequency of less than one Hz to a high of about 200 Hz. Vibration is often measured in terms of the peak particle velocity (PPV) in inches per second (in/sec) when considering impacts on buildings or other structures, as PPV represents the maximum instantaneous peak of vibration that can stress buildings. Because it is a representation of acute vibration, PPV is often used to measure the temporary impacts of short-term construction activities that could instantaneously damage -built structures. Vibration is often also measured by the Root Mean Squared (RMS) because it best correlates with human perception and response. Specifically, RMS represents "smoothed" vibration levels over an extended period of time and is often used to gauge the long-term chronic impact of a Project's operation on the adjacent environment. RMS amplitude is the average of a signal's squared amplitude. It is most commonly measured in decibel notation (VdB). Vibration energy attenuates as it travels through the ground, causing the vibration amplitude to decrease with distance away from the source. High frequency vibrations reduce much more rapidly than low frequencies, so that in the far -field from a source, the low frequencies tend to dominate. Soil properties also affect the propagation of vibration. When groundborne vibration interacts with a building, there is usually a ground -to -foundation coupling loss (i.e., the foundation of the structure does not move in sync with the ground vibration), but the vibration can also be amplified by the structural resonances of the walls and floors. Vibration in buildings is typically perceived as rattling of windows or items on shelves, or the motion of building surfaces. At high levels, vibration can result in damage to structures. Manmade groundborne vibration is generally limited to areas within a few hundred feet of certain types of construction activities, especially pile driving. Road vehicles rarely create enough groundborne vibration to be perceptible to humans unless the road surface is poorly maintained and there are potholes or bumps. If traffic induces perceptible vibration in buildings, such as window rattling or shaking of small loose items (typically caused by heavy trucks in passing), then it is most likely an effect of low -frequency airborne noise or ground characteristics. Human annoyance by vibration is related to the number and duration of events. The more events or the greater the duration, the more annoying it will be to humans. Construction vibration damage criteria are assessed based on structural category (e.g., reinforced -concrete, steel, or timber). The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidelines consider 0.2 inch/sec PPV to be the significant impact level for non -engineered timber and masonry buildings. Structures or buildings constructed of reinforced concrete, steel, or timber have a vibration damage criterion of 0.5 inch/sec PPV Impact Sciences, Inc. 8 Eternal Valley Noise and Vibration Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 2.0 Environmental Setting pursuant to FTA Guidelines.6 The FTA Guidelines include a table showing the vibration damage criteria based on structural category and is presented below in Table 3, Construction Vibration Damage Criteria. Table 3 Construction Vibration Damage Criteria - Building/Structural Category I. Reinforced -concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3 111. N on -engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September 2018. 2.2 NOISE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS Noise -sensitive land uses are generally considered to include those uses where noise exposure could result in health -related risks to individuals, as well as places where quiet is an essential element of their intended purpose. Residential dwellings are of primary concern because of the potential for increased and prolonged exposure of individuals to both interior and exterior noise levels. Additional land uses such as parks, historic sites, cemeteries, and recreation areas are considered sensitive to increases in exterior noise levels. Schools, churches, hotels, libraries, and other places where low interior noise levels are essential are also considered noise -sensitive land uses. The project site is relatively isolated from noise sensitive receptors. The closest noise -sensitive receptors surrounding the project site include the Faith Community Church approximately 800 feet to the northeast; and LA North Studios (movie studios) approximately 950 feet to the south. 2.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS Transportation noise is the main source of noise in urban environments, largely from the operation of internal combustion engines and frictional contact between vehicles and ground and air.7 The City of Santa Clarita's General Plan Noise Element identifies noise contours based on traffic volumes and other noise Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September 2018. World Health Organization, https://www.who.int/docstore/12eh/noise/Comnoise-2.12df. Accessed July 2, 2020. Impact Sciences, Inc. V Eternal Valley Noise and Vibration Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 2.0 Environmental Setting sources identified from field measurements.8 The noise contour maps indicate that traffic noise at the project location would be below 60 dBA CNEL. To the east of the project site, SR-14 and Sierra Highway are shown to have noise contours of 60 dBA CNEL approximately 250 feet west of the centerline of Sierra Highway and up to 70 dBA CNEL 150 feet west of the centerline of Sierra Highway. To the north along Newhall Avenue, the noise contour map also shows roadway noise reaching up to 70 dBA CNEL. However, these noise contours do not reach the project site on the western portion of the Eternal Valley Memorial Park and Mortuary. Therefore, existing noise levels based on the noise contour maps are shown to be below 60 dBA CNEL. The site is relatively isolated from noise sensitive receptors, which are located approximately 700 feet away or farther. Figure 2, Noise Sensitive Receptors, maps the closest sensitive receptors relative to the project site. The primary sources of ground borne vibration in the project site vicinity are heavy-duty vehicles (e.g., refuse trucks, delivery trucks, and school buses) traveling on local roadways. Trucks and buses typically generate groundborne vibration velocity levels of around 63 VdB, and these levels could reach 72 VdB where trucks and buses pass over bumps in the road.9 8 City of Santa Clarita. 2011. General Plan Noise Element. Available at: httos://www. codeoublishine.com/CA/SantaClarita/html/SantaClaritaGP/5%20-%2ONoise%20EIement. odf 9 California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, 2013. Impact Sciences, Inc. 10 Eternal Valley Noise and Vibration Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 SOURCE: Esri, 2022 FIGURE 2 IMPACT SCIENCES Noise Sensitive Receptors 1366.001.02/22 3.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 3.1 STATE REGULATIONS Title 24, California Code of Regulations The California Noise Insulation Standards of 1988 (California Code of Regulations Title 24, Section 3501 et seq.) require that interior noise levels from the exterior sources not exceed 45 dBA Ldn/community noise equivalent level (CNEL)10 in any habitable room of a multi -residential use facility (e.g., hotels, motels, dormitories, long-term care facilities, and apartment houses and other dwellings, except detached single- family dwellings) with doors and windows closed. Where exterior noise levels exceed 60 dBA CNEL/Ldn, an acoustical analysis is required to show that the building construction achieves an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL/Ldn or less. 3.2 LOCAL PLANS AND POLICIES City of Santa Clarita General Plan Noise Element The City of Santa Clarita General Plan Noise Element is a comprehensive program for including noise management in the planning process, providing a tool for planners to use in achieving and maintaining land uses that are compatible with existing and future environmental noise levels. The Noise Element identifies current noise conditions within the planning area, and projects future noise impacts resulting from continued growth allowed by the Land Use Element. Table 4, Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments, shows the land use compatibility guidelines established by the California Department of Health Services which is recognized by the Noise Element. The guidelines rank noise land use compatibility in terms of "normally acceptable," "conditionally acceptable," "normally unacceptable," and "clearly unacceptable" noise levels for various land use types. Table 4 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments _ Community Noise Exposure (Ldn or CNEL, dBA) Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly Land Use Cateeory Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Residential - - Low Density, Single -Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes 50 - 60 55 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 85 Residential - Multiple Family 50 - 65 60 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 85 Transient Lodging - Motel, Hotels 50 - 65 60 - 70 70 - 80 80 - 85 10 Measurements are based on Ldn or CNEL. Impact Sciences, Inc. 12 Eternal Valley Noise and Vibration Technical Study 1366.001 March 2022 3.0 Regulatory Framework Community Noise Exposure (Ldn or CNEL, dBA) Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly Land Use Category Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes 50-70 60-70 70-80 80-85 Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters NA 50 — 70 NA 65 — 85 Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator Sports NA 50 — 75 NA 70 — 85 Playgrounds, Neighborhood Park 50 — 70 NA 67.5 — 75 72.5 — 85 Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries 50 — 75 NA 70 — 80 80 — 85 Office Buildings, Business Commercial and Professional 50 — 70 67.5 — 77.5 75 — 85 NA Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture 50 — 75 70 — 80 75 — 85 NA Notes: NA = Not Applicable, Ldn = Day/Night Average, CNEL = community noise equivalent level, dBA = A -weighted decibels Normally Acceptable - Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. Conditionally Acceptable - New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. Normally Unacceptable - New construction or development should be discouraged If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Clearly Unacceptable — New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Source: California Office of Planning and Research. General Plan Guidelines and Technical Advisories. Appendix D: Noise Element Guidelines. Available at: https://opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR Appendix D final.pa The Noise Element identifies noise -sensitive land uses and noise sources and defines areas of noise impact for the purpose of developing programs to ensure that residents in the City's planning area will be protected from excessive noise intrusion. As development proposals are reviewed in the future, the City will evaluate each proposal with respect to the Noise Element to ensure that noise impacts are reduced through planning and project design. Through implementation of the policies and programs of the Noise Element, current and future adverse noise impacts will be reduced or avoided in order to protect the general health, safety, and welfare of the community. The following goals and policies from the Noise Element would be applicable to the project: Goal N 1: A healthy and safe noise environment for Santa Clarita Valley residents, employees, and visitors. Objective N 1.1: Policy N 1.1.1 Protect the health and safety of the residents of the Santa Clarita Valley by the elimination, mitigation, and prevention of significant existing and future noise levels. Use the Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines (see Table 4), which are consistent with State guidelines, as a policy basis for decisions on land use and development proposals related to noise. Impact Sciences, Inc. 1366.001 13 Eternal Valley Noise and Vibration Technical Report March 2022 3.0 Regulatory Framework Policy N 1.1.2: Continue to implement the adopted Noise Ordinance and other applicable code provisions, consistent with state and federal standards, which establish noise impact thresholds for noise abatement and attenuation, in order to reduce potential health hazards associated with high noise levels. Policy N 1.1.3: Include consideration of potential noise impacts in land use planning and development review decisions. Policy N 1.1.4: Control noise sources adjacent to residential, recreational, and community facilities, and those land uses classified as noise sensitive. Goal N 2: Protect residents and sensitive receptors from traffic -generated noise. Objective N 2.1: Prevent and mitigate adverse effects of noise generated from traffic on arterial streets and highways through implementing noise reduction standards and programs. Policy N 2.1.1: Encourage owners of existing noise -sensitive uses, and require owners of proposed noise sensitive land uses, to construct sound barriers to protect users from significant noise levels, where feasible and appropriate. Policy N 2.1.2: Encourage the use of noise absorbing barriers, where appropriate. Goal N 3: Protect residential neighborhoods from excessive noise. Objective N 3.1: Prevent and mitigate significant noise levels in residential neighborhoods. Policy N 3.1.1: Require that developers of new single-family and multi -family residential neighborhoods in areas where the ambient noise levels exceed 60 CNEL provide mitigation measures for the new residences to reduce interior noise levels to 45 CNEL, based on future traffic and railroad noise levels. Policy N 3.1.2: Require that developers of new single-family and multi -family residential neighborhoods in areas where the projected noise levels exceed 65 CNEL provide mitigation measures (which may Impact Sciences, Inc. 14 Eternal Valley Noise and Vibration Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 3.0 Regulatory Framework include noise barriers, setbacks, and site design) for new residences to reduce outdoor noise levels to 65 CNEL, based on future traffic conditions. This requirement would apply to rear yard areas for single-family developments, and to private open space and common recreational and open space areas for multi- family developments. Policy N 3.1.3: Through enforcement of the applicable Noise Ordinance, protect residential neighborhoods from noise generated by machinery or activities that produce significant discernable noise exceeding recommended levels for residential uses. Policy N 3.1.4: Require that those responsible for construction activities develop techniques to mitigate or minimize the noise impacts on residences and adopt standards that regulate noise from construction activities that occur in or near residential neighborhoods. City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code The City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code (SCMC) Noise Ordinance provides exterior noise standards within the 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 produced noise which is received on property occupied by another person within the designated region, in excess of the following levels, except as expressly provided otherwise herein: 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 shall be used. B. Corrections to Noise Limits. The numerical limits given in subsection (A) of this section shall be adjusted by the following corrections, where the following noise conditions exist: Impact Sciences, Inc. 15 Eternal Valley Noise and Vibration Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 3.0 Regulatory Framework Noise Condition Correction (in dB) (1) Repetitive impulsive noise -5 (2) Steady whine, screech or hum -5 (3) Noise occurring more than 5 but less than 15 minutes per hour +5 (4) Noise occurring more than 1 but less than 5 minutes per hour +10 (5) Noise occurring less than 1 minute per hour +20 11.44.070 Special Noise Sources —Machinery, Fans, and Other Mechanical Devices Any noise level from the use or operation of any machinery, equipment, pump, fan, air conditioning apparatus, refrigerating equipment, motor vehicle, or other mechanical or electrical device, or in repairing or rebuilding any motor vehicle, which exceeds the noise limits as set forth in SCMC Section 11.44.040 at any property line, or, if a condominium or rental units, within any condominium unit or rental unit within the complex, shall be a violation of this chapter. 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 (300) feet of a residentially zoned property except between the hours of seven a.m. to seven p.m., Monday through Friday, and eight a.m. to six p.m. on Saturday. Further, no work shall be performed on the following public holidays: New Year's Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas, Memorial Day, and Labor Day. Emergency work is permitted at all times. As defined in SCMC 11.44.020: Emergency work shall mean work made necessary to restore property to a safe condition following a public calamity, or work required to protect persons or property from an imminent exposure to danger, or work by private or public utilities when restoring utility service. The Department of Community Development may issue a permit for work to be done "after hours provided, that containment of construction noises is provided. Impact Sciences, Inc. 16 Eternal Valley Noise and Vibration Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 4.0 NOISE ANALYSIS 4.1 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The impacts of the proposed Project related to noise would be considered significant if they would exceed any of the following Standards of Significance, in accordance with Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines: • Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project Site in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; • Generation of excessive ground -borne vibration or ground -borne noise levels; and • For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two 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. 4.2 METHODOLOGY Noise levels associated with project -related construction activities were calculated using the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). Noise levels were compared to the City's noise ordinance which includes provisions regarding construction noise levels. An analysis of traffic noise was conducted to determine if the project would have a perceptible increase in traffic related noise. Studies have shown that a 3 dB(A) increase in sound level pressure is barely detectable by the human ear. A 3 dB(A) increase in roadway noise levels requires an approximate doubling of roadway traffic volume, assuming that travel speeds and fleet mix remain constant.11 The project's potential to result in significant noise impacts from on -site operational noise sources was assessed by identifying sources of on -site noise sources and considering the impact that they could produce given the nature of the source (i.e., loudness and whether noise would be produced during daytime or more -sensitive nighttime hours), distances to nearby sensitive receptors, surrounding ambient noise levels, the presence of similar noise sources in the vicinity, and maximum allowable noise levels permitted by the SCMC. 11 California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Protocol. September 2013. Impact Sciences, Inc. 17 Eternal Valley Noise and Vibration Technical Study 1366.001 March 2022 4.0 Noise Analysis 4.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS Impact NOI-1 Would the proposed Project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project Site in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Less than Significant). Construction Impacts Temporary On -Site Construction Activity Noise Construction activities are anticipated to include rough grading, with 92,600 cubic yards of cut and fill to be balanced on site. An additional 100,300 cubic yards of dirt will be removed and recompacted onsite. No soil import or export is anticipated at this time. The primary construction equipment noise sources used during construction would be during earthwork activities (use of graders, excavators, dozers), and building construction (use of forklifts, tractors/loaders/backhoes, and a crane). Graders typically generate the highest noise levels, emitting approximately 85 dBA at a distance of 50 feet (pile driving would not be required for this project). During all construction phases, noise -generating activities could occur at the project site between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M. Monday through Friday, and 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. on Saturday in accordance with Section 11.44.080 of the SCMC. The shielding of buildings, topography, and other barriers that interrupt line -of -sight conditions further reduce noise levels from point sources. The projected noise impact from construction activity is shown in Table 5, Construction Noise Impacts at Off -Site Sensitive Receptors, and summarized below. Table 5 Construction Noise Impacts at Off -Site Sensitive Receptors Maximruum Distance to Constction Sensitive LU Noise Level Rece for Receptor (feet) (dBA Leg) 1. Faith Community Church 700 62.1 2. LA North Studios (movie studio) 1 950 1 59.4 Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. 2022. See Appendix A to this report. The City has established noise standards for construction activity in SCMC Section 11.44.080 Special Noise Sources — Construction and Building. Pursuant to SCMC Section 11.44.080, construction noise is prohibited Impact Sciences, Inc. 18 Eternal Valley Noise and Vibration Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 4.0 Noise Analysis between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on Saturday, and/or any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. However, the Project Site is located more than 300 feet from any residential area and therefore would not expose residential uses to temporary excessive noises associated with construction activity from the project site. As such, the project would comply with applicable regulations of the SCMC and impacts from construction activities on the nearest sensitive receptors would be less than significant. Temporary Off -Site Construction Activity Noise Construction haul trucks would generate noise off -site during construction activities at the project site. This would include removal of materials from the project site, base materials, and demolished materials. While this vehicle activity would increase ambient noise levels along the haul route, ambient noise levels would not be expected to significantly increase ambient noise levels by 3 dBA or greater at any noise sensitive land use. Studies have shown that a 3 dBA increase in sound level pressure is barely detectable by the human ear. A 3 dBA increase in roadway noise levels requires an approximate doubling of roadway traffic volume, assuming that travel speeds and fleet mix remain constant.12 While this vehicle activity would marginally increase ambient noise levels along the haul route, it would not be expected to significantly increase ambient noise levels by 5 dBA or greater at any noise sensitive land uses. Though the addition of haul trucks would alter the fleet mix of the Project haul route, the addition of these trucks to local roadways would be de-minimis. Specifically, construction related traffic would not be doubled on the local roads; thus, traffic volumes and would not produce 5 dBA or more ambient noise increases. As a result, off -site construction noise impacts related to haul trips would be considered less than significant. Operational Impacts Permanent Operational Traffic Noise As discussed above, a 3 dBA increase in roadway noise levels requires an approximate doubling of roadway traffic volume, assuming that travel speeds and fleet mix remain constant. A 3 dBA noise level increase is the minimum noise level increase required for a human to perceive a change in ambient noise. The project is not anticipated to significantly increase the amount of overall traffic going to and from the project site.13 Therefore, it is unlikely that there would be an increase in traffic volumes significant enough 12 California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Protocol. September 2013. 13 While a detailed project traffic analysis has not been conducted for the Project, according to estimates from the Project's CalEEMod data, the Project would only generate an average of approximately 50 daily vehicle trips. Impact Sciences, Inc. 19 Eternal Valley Noise and Vibration Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 4.0 Noise Analysis to cause an audible increase in traffic noise. As such, any noise increase would be imperceptible and impacts would be less than significant. Permanent Operation Stationary Noise Regulatory compliance with SCMC Sec. 11.44.070 would ultimately ensure that noises from sources such as heating, air conditioning, and ventilation systems not increase ambient noise levels at neighboring occupied properties by more than 5 dBA. Given this regulation, ambient noise levels, and the relatively quiet operation of modern HVAC systems, these on -site noise sources would not be capable of causing the ambient noise levels of nearby uses to increase above the noise limits set forth in SCMC Sec. 11.44.040 and impacts would be less than significant. Parking noise typically generates noise levels of approximately 60 dBA at 50 feet. The isolated parking areas from parking at Eternal Valley would ensure that parking noise would be virtually imperceptible to nearby sensitive land uses. Therefore, parking noise would result in a less than significant impact. Impact NOI-2 Would the proposed Project result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Less than Significant). The Federal Transit Administration provides ground -borne vibration impact criteria with respect to building damage during construction activities. PPV, expressed in inches per second, is used to measure building vibration damage. Construction vibration damage criteria are assessed based on structural category (e.g., reinforced -concrete, steel, or timber). FTA guidelines consider 0.2 inch/sec PPV to be the significant impact level for non -engineered timber and masonry buildings. Structures or buildings constructed of reinforced concrete, steel, or timber have a vibration damage criterion of 0.5 inch/sec PPV pursuant to FTA guidelines.14 The vibration velocities at nearby sensitive receptors are shown below in Table 6, Vibration Levels at Off -Site Sensitive Uses from Project Construction. 14 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September 2018. Impact Sciences, Inc. 20 Eternal Valley Noise and Vibration Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 4.0 Noise Analysis Table 6 Vibration Levels at Off -Site Sensitive Uses from Project Construction Receptor Significance Distance to Project Threshold PPV Estimated PPV Sensitive Uses Off -Site Site (ft.) (in./sec) (in/sec) a 1. Faith Community Church 700 0.2 0.001 2. LA North Studios (movie studio) 950 0.2 0.000 Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. 2022. See Appendix A to this report. As shown in Table 6 above, the distances from the project site to the nearest sensitive receptors would ensure that any vibration impact would be virtually non-existent. These nearby structures are considered to be a non -engineered timber or masonry buildings and would not experience a PPV groundborne vibration level that exceed the 0.2 in/sec PPV threshold. Therefore, vibration impacts associated with building damage due to construction activities would result in a less than significant impact. Impact NOI-3 For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise? (No Impact). The project site is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip or airport land use plan. The Project Site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. Whiteman Airport in the community of Pacoima is located approximately 8.56 miles southeast of the project site. As such, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive airport -related noise levels. No impact would occur from the proposed Project and no further analysis is required. Impact Sciences, Inc. 21 Eternal Valley Noise and Vibration Technical Report 1366.001 March 2022 5.0 REFERENCES California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, 2013. California Office of Planning and Research. General Plan Guidelines and Technical Advisories. Appendix D: Noise Element Guidelines. Available at: https://ol2r.ca.gov/docs/OPR Appendix D final.pdf City of Santa Clarita. 2011. General Plan Noise Element. Available at: https://www. codel2ublishing. com/CA/SantaClarita/html/SantaClaritaGP/5%20- %20Noise%20Element.pdf Federal Highway Administration, Highway Noise Fundamentals, (1980). Federal Highway Administration, Highway Noise Mitigation, (1980). Federal Highway Administration, Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance. December 2011. Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September 2018 Wayne County Airport Authority. Background information on noise & its measurement, 2009 World Health Organization, httl2s://www.who.int/docstore/12eh/noise/Conmoise-2.12df Impact Sciences, Inc. 22 Eternal Valley Noise and Vibration Technical Study 1366.001 March 2022 ATTACHMENT A Noise and Vibration Technical Appendix l7" y r R EL Y[7ha'_ Elsme�,e Canyo- _ t V.) f "vi norial Parke r rtLjary 23.287 SS( r Hwy ` B&'I wig tirg ! � Y - r LA North Studios (`S a fr k a r _ Goo le Earth - � ♦ �;' �s� _ � � � � - g i ',' NN SOURCE: Esri, 2022 FIGURE 2 IMPACT SCIENCES Noise Sensitive Receptors 1366.001.02/22 Eternal Valley Construction Noise - Unmitigated Reference Noise Distance 100 Reference Noise Level 79 Maximum Construction Distance Attenuation Noise Level Sensitive Receptor (feet) Factors (RCNM) 1. Faith Community Church 700 0 62.1 2. LA North Studios 1 9501 0 59.4 3. Reference at 100 feet 100 0 79.0 A 6 dBA attenuation was given for hard ground surfuce. Ref= Reference vibration level (PPV) RefD= Reference distance for Reference vibration level (Feet; Vibration PPV Ref= 0.089 Based on type of equipment RefD= 25 D= 700 Distance from equipment to sensitive receptor Equip= 0.001 Annoyance VdB Ref= 87 Based on type of equipment RefD= 25 D= 700 Distance from equipment to sensitive receptor Equip= 44 Peak demolition vibration based on utilizing a large bulldozer. Source: FTA Tranist Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2006. Ref= Reference vibration level (PPV) RefD= Reference distance for Reference vibration level (Feet; Vibration PPV Ref= 0.089 Based on type of equipment RefD= 25 D= 950 Distance from equipment to sensitive receptor Equip= 0.000 Annoyance VdB Ref= 87 Based on type of equipment RefD= 25 D= 950 Distance from equipment to sensitive receptor Equip= 40 Peak demolition vibration based on utilizing a large bulldozer. Source: FTA Tranist Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2006. APPENDIX K Traffic Memorandum A s s o c i a t e s MEMORANDUM TO: Andy Olson and Ian Pari FROM: Michael Green, Clark & Green Associates SUBJECT: Eternal Valley Memorial Park Traffic Review DATE: August 23, 2021 Andy and Ian, We have worked on cemetery entitlement projects across the U.S. and several in Southern California including two very recent parks that need to consider a VMT analysis requirement. We have had to prepare formal traffic studies only twice, once in Florida and once in Oceanside, California at Eternal Hills. Although all of these cemetery expansions were larger than the 15 acres in Eternal Valley Area 6, it was determined in each case that the level of traffic generation was less than significant. 1. Cemeteries are very low traffic generators in general with the largest visitation traffic levels on Sundays and certain holidays such as Memorial Day when burial services are absent. When burial services do occur during the weekdays and occasionally on Saturday, they are purposely scheduled between the hours of 9 am and 3 pm outside peak traffic periods and when visitation is lower. The occasional large funeral processions are tightly controlled and scheduled to not overlap with each other. As such, the city should have no history of traffic problems related to Eternal Valley. 2. In terms of overall volume or volume growth, as cemeteries expand, traffic does not increase but shifts from older areas where visitation is decreasing with the passing of time to newer areas with more recent sales, funeral services and, hence, visitations. The death rate is steady in any given geographic area (except for this past year) so when a cemetery expands, there is not additional business to be gained. Fortunately, as we enter late 2021, the death rate has already settled back down to closer to the average number of annual interments and inurnments at Eternal Valley. Another factor in the reduction of visitations and larger attendance at funeral services from past years is the shift from traditional lawn burials to cremation inurnments. Cremation placements are lightly attended compared to traditional lawn burials due to the smaller available areas to accommodate people just as mausoleum entombments are also lightly attended due to much less room to accommodate a mausoleum service. The family and the funeral service provider will opt to have the large gathering at the offsite or onsite chapel or church or other celebration center and not at both the chapel and the cemetery as often occurred in the past years. Lie. # CA 2311, 4233 15420 Laguna Canyon Road, Suite 210, Irvine, California 92618 (714) 434-9803 3. It seems that traffic analyses can never say there will be no additional traffic, so they usually settle on a number. In the City of Los Angeles, the Bureau of Engineering does have a formula for VMT for cemeteries. We are processing a 28-acre expansion to an existing cemetery, Eden Memorial Park. This is twice the size of the Eternal Valley project site. The city's formula indicated less than 250 daily vehicle trips. They did not give an estimated number just that it fell below the 250-trip threshold that would require a traffic assessment. The initial study describing this is attached as Attachment A with highlighted sections. 4. In Loma Linda, a proposed expansion of 18 acres to the Montecito Memorial Park was reviewed by a traffic engineer for that initial study preparation. He concluded the daily trip generation for that 18-acre site would be less than 100 peak hour trips and was exempt from a traffic impact analysis for level of service based on County of San Bernardino criteria. See Attachment B with highlighted sections. 5. In the City of San Jose, a zoning application for the remaining 40 acres of undeveloped land to Cemetery Use was approved and the traffic description similar to that in item 1 and 2 above was accepted by staff as part of the environmental clearance for the project. This is a very old and famous 200-acre cemetery in the city (the Donner Party members are interred there) and there was no history of traffic related issues in spite of the huge number of annual burials. See Attachment C with highlighted sections. 6. In Oceanside, the proposed 20-acre expansion of Eternal Hills Memorial Park had a complete traffic analysis completed. As mentioned, this level of analysis has been the exception not the rule. This included taking traffic counts and other analyses. At the conclusion of all of this, this expansion was determined to only add a 79 ADT increase in and out, which was noted as a relatively small increase with less than significant impact and no mitigation measures. See Attachment D with highlighted sections. The key with all of these projects is that there was a long history of cemetery use and related traffic issues if any available for review and in every case there was no record of traffic problems. Historically, cemeteries had a much larger visitation rate particularly on key holidays as mentioned above such as Memorial Day for remembering the past sacrifices of service members and others. With the changes in society and the increased distance from events such as WWI and WWII, these kinds of special situations have declined in frequency and volume. Cemeteries are still incredibly important to the community and this has been amplified by the events of the past year, but not at the frequency we once witnessed. Even then the traffic generation was easily absorbed into the local street network and the park itself. Please let us know what questions you have. We hope this will suffice for the traffic review. 2 XVII. TRANSPORTATION Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b. Conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b)? c. Substantially increase hazards due to a ❑ ❑ ® ❑ geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d. Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the project conflicts with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. The Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) has reviewed the proposed project, and on August 7, 2019, determined that no traffic study is required since daily vehicle trips are expected to be less than 250. LADOT verified this information in an email dated February 25, 2020. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b) Less Than Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 describes specific considerations for evaluating a project's transportation impacts. Generally, vehicle miles traveled is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts; "vehicle miles traveled" refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non -motorized travel. The City of Los Angeles Transportation Assessment Guidelines state that a transportation assessment is required under the following circumstances: • If the Development Project is estimated to generate a net increase of 250 or more daily vehicle trips and requires discretionary action, a transportation assessment for a Development Project is required. ENV-2019-1539-MND PAGE 69 City of Los Angeles Initial Study April 2021 • If a Transportation Project is likely to either: (1) induce additional vehicle miles traveled by increasing vehicle capacity; or (2) reduce roadway through -lane capacity on a street that exceeds 750 vehicles per hour per lane for at least two (2) consecutive hours in a 24- hour period after the project is completed, a transportation assessment is generally required. • A transportation assessment is required by City ordinance or regulation. According to information provided by LADOT on August 7, 2019, and more recently, on February 25, 2020, no LADOT review is required since total vehicle trips are expected to be less than 250. Therefore, the proposed project does not conflict with and is not inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, and any impacts are less than significant. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur if the proposed project would substantially increase an existing hazardous design feature or introduce incompatible uses to the existing traffic pattern. The proposed project would not include unusual or hazardous design features and the proposed project is compatible with existing uses. d) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The nearest emergency route is Brand Boulevard, approximately 0.8 mile to the south of the project site (City of Los Angeles, Safety Element of the Los Angeles City General Plan, Critical Facilities and Lifeline Systems, Exhibit H, November 1996.) The proposed project would not require the closure of any public or private streets and would not impede emergency vehicle access to the project site or surrounding area. Additionally, emergency access to and from the project site would be provided in accordance with requirements of the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD). Therefore, the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and no impact would occur. ENV-2019-1539-MND PAGE 70 City of Los Angeles Initial Study April 2021 Initial Study for the Expansion of Montecito Memorial Park Project City of Loma Linda Page 42 collection of developer impact fees would ensure impacts to parks are reduced to a less than significant level. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVI. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing () () () (✓) neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or () () () (✓) require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Impact Discussion: a, b) No Impact. The Proposed Project consists of the expansion of an existing memorial park and does not include any housing. The Proposed Project does not include recreational facilities, or will increase the use of existing parks, or will require the construction or expansion of existing recreation facilities. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impact No Impact XVII. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project: a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy () () (✓) ( ) addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with () () () (✓) CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a () () (✓) ( ) geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? () () (✓) ( ) Initial Study for the Expansion of Montecito Memorial Park Project Impact Discussion: City of Loma Linda Page 43 VMT measures how much actual auto travel (additional miles driven) a proposed project would create on California roads. If the project adds excessive car travel onto our roads, the project may cause a significant transportation impact. a) Less than Significant Impact. A Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Travelled Screening Analysis, dated April 13, 2021, was completed by Ganddini Group (available at City offices for review) to assess the potential project Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) impact for compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Senate Bill 743 requirements. The VMT Screening predicted project trip generation based upon rates obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition, 2017) based on ITE Land Use Code 566 — Cemetery. Through a comprehensive program of transportation and land use planning, the City will ensure that there is sufficient roadway capacity to accommodate traffic generated by planned future development. According to the VMT, the Proposed Project is forecast to generate fewer than 100 peak hour trips and it is not located within 300 feet of an intersection of two streets designated as Collector or higher. Assuming roadway any roadway improvements shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City of Loma Linda Public Works Department as a standard condition of approval, there are no apparent safety or operational concerns with implementation of the project. Therefore, further traffic analysis is not required for the Proposed Project. The City of Loma Linda Measure V requires that long-term traffic Levels of Service should be maintained at Level of Service C (or better), except where the current level is lower than Level of Service C. At locations where the Level of Service is below Level of Service C, the Project shall be required to provide improvements that maintain Levels of Service that are no worse than those existing at the time an application for development is filed. Measure V does not specify criteria for determining the need to prepare a transportation impact analysis for Level of Service evaluations; however, based on the relatively low Project trip generation, as demonstrated by exemption under the County of San Bernardino criteria, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to appreciably contribute Level of Service degradation. Additionally, the Proposed Project would contribute to any applicable City and Regional development impact fees for transportation improvements. Therefore, the Proposed Project is anticipated to have a negligible effect on Levels of Service and would not conflict with Measure V requirements. Existing bike facilities occur north of the Project Site, along Barton Road. The Project Site does not intersect or connect to any bike facilities within the City. Omnitrans is the primary provider of public transportation within the western portion of San Bernardino County, including the City of Loma Linda. Omnitrans operates five routes that traverse Loma Linda. The Riverside Transit Authority also operates one route that connects Loma Linda to downtown Riverside. There are about 60 bus stops in the City. The City facilitates pedestrian travel through the design of pedestrian -oriented neighborhoods with well-connected streets and sidewalks. The City also provides convenient and safe sidewalk routes to shopping, schools and recreation areas. One such route connects Hulda Crooks Park to Beaumont Avenue thus encouraging pedestrian travel. In addition, the City provides an off -road trail system designed for walking and hiking activities. Initial Study for the Expansion of Montecito Memorial Park Project City of Loma Linda Page 44 The Proposed Project is not anticipated to require additional bike facilities, public transportation, pedestrian facilities, or any additional circulation. The Proposed Project consists of a quasi -public land use and the Proposed Project's VMT characteristics are comparable to those of a public park. Therefore, the Proposed Project can be presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact. No significant impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. b) No Impact. According to the VMT, the Proposed Project's VMT impact has been assessed in accordance with guidance from the County of San Bernardino TIS Guidelines for CEQA. The County of San Bernardino TIS Guidelines identify screening criteria for certain types of projects that typically reduce VMT and may be presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact. Since the City of Loma Linda does not have City -specific criteria for the preparation of transportation impact studies, the VMT refers to the County of San Bernardino criteria. The criteria for assessing the need to prepare a transportation impact study is specified in the County of San Bernardino Transportation Impact Study Guidelines (July 2019) ["TIS Guidelines"]. As specified in the County of San Bernardino TIS Guidelines, the requirement to prepare a transportation impact study (with Level of Service analysis) should be based upon one or more of the following criteria: • If a project generates 100 or more trips without consideration of pass -by trips during any peak hour. • If a project is located within 300 feet of: o The intersection of two streets designated as Collector or higher in the County's General Plan or the Department's Master Plan; or, o An impacted intersection as determined by the Traffic Division. • If this project creates safety or operational concerns. • The project has the potential to generate VMT that could result in a transportation impact as noted in the significance criteria presented later in this memorandum. • If a project generates less than 100 trips without consideration of pass -by trips during any peak hour, a study maybe required if there are special concerns. The Proposed Project is forecast to generate fewer than 100 peak hour trips. The Proposed Project is exempt from preparation of a transportation impact analysis for Level of Service based on the County of San Bernardino criteria as adopted for use by the City of Loma Linda. The Proposed Project is anticipated to have a negligible effect on Levels of Service and would not conflict with Measure V requirements. As such, the Proposed Project shall not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 Subdivision (b)(1). Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required. c, d) Less than Significant Impact. Final Project site plans would be subject to City review and approval to ensure that the Proposed Project would not create substantial hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. Primary access to the site would continue to be provided via Waterman Avenue. A new entry is also proposed from Oakwood Drive, Initial Study for the Expansion of Montecito Memorial Park Project City of Loma Linda Page 45 an existing cul-de-sac within the jurisdiction of the City of Colton, that would be extended to allow for a second entry point that would be equipped with a security gate. An emergency fire access only point is also proposed from Sierra Vista Drive located east of Oakwood Drive and within the jurisdiction of the City of Loma Linda. The site plan design is not expected to cause a substantial increase in hazards or provide inadequate emergency access. Plans will be subject to review and approval by the City Fire and Police Departments. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than Significant With Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21704 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. 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. Impact Discussion: a,b) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Section V of this document, a Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation, dated December 4, 2020, was prepared by McKenna et al. (McKenna) for the Project Site and is available for review at the City of Loma Linda Community Development Department. The report was prepared to determine impacts to historical resources that may occur on the Project Site, including Native American cultural resources. McKenna consulted with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for determining the presence/absence of sacred or religious sites in the vicinity of the project area. A response was received on September 14, 2020, noting "positive" findings Attachment C January 29, 2002 Mr. Dave Reynolds Page 3 7, Traffic Oak Hill's proposed new development will not add new traffic but just move existing traffic to new areas of the park and away from older areas. This has been the pattern of all cemeteries as older areas decrease in visitation. Oak Hill actively manages and coordinates all services and processions. These high traffic events are of short duration and generally occur during the day and on weekends, not during rush hour periods. Fencing Staff would prefer low or no fencing along the property line along Sunrise Hill adjacent to the permanent open space area to the west of the cemetery. This is acceptable to Oak Hill. 9. Architectural Style Most of the proposed buildings and/or envelopes will not be "constructed for up to twenty or more years. Oak Hill proposes to ,provide generic sketches and rendering of rnausolea which will be consistent with the final proposed product. We. would request that the conditions placed on the project include the ability for staff reviews of proposed architectural elevations for consistency with adjacent existing buildings/particularly those deemed historically significant. Proposed text for this condition may be as follows: "Oak Hill Memorial Park contains many existing structures of varied architcctural style and content, Proposed structures or additions should be compatibla.with the architectural style of the adjacent existing structures. Oak Hill will provide a photo survey of adjacent structures at the time of building permit application for staff review and pay architectural review fees as necessary, Any building proposed for construction within 300 feet of the Great Mausoleum will require review by the Historical Review Board", 10. Project Phasing Oak Hill will provide a tentative phasing of the proposed developments. This phasing will not be time specific but will indicate a tentative chronology of improvements. 11. Fire Safety Issues All proposed structures in the last undeveloped areas of the cemetery are mausoleum structures. These structures are all concrete, non-combustible structures used for storage of human remains. We would like acknowledgement of the lack of fire safety issues in this PD Zoning effort to provide clarification for future building permit review on this issue. - We have attached* memos regarding this issue per the most recent mausoleum submittal. Attachment D Eternal Hills Memorial Park CUP Amendment Traffic 4.6 Traffic KFM Engineering, Inc. conducted a traffic analysis of the Eternal Hills Cemetery Expansion project and prepared a traffic impact report dated December 2006.' The complete Traffic Impact Report is included in Appendix F. The following discussion summarizes the contents of the report. The traffic analysis is focused on Sunday traffic because that day of the week has the highest volume of cemetery traffic, and represents the worst case scenario. 4.6.1 Existing Conditions On -Site Parkin Existing on -site parking adjacent to the mortuary building consists of 66 regular stalls, 2 handicapped curb spaces, and one green curb space for the elderly, expectant or new mothers. An additional 16 spaces are located at the Administration building in the center of the cemetery. Visitors to cemetery plots normally park along the internal roadway network. Eternal Hills Memorial Park has a long-standing informal shared parking agreement with the church directly across Fire Mountain Road. On some occasions, the cemetery uses the church parking lot for funerals attended by an unusually large number of people. Funeral Processions and Memorials The Oceanside Police Department and/or the California Highway Patrol are notified when a funeral procession involves a deceased officer, city official, etc. The agency notified depends upon the travel route of the funeral procession. Eternal Hills Memorial Park requires that private traffic escorts accompany funeral processions from off -site churches or funeral homes. Memorial Day services are an annual evening ceremony at the cemetery. These services are coordinated with the Oceanside Police Department Traffic Control Division. Eternal Hills also contracts with a private security firm to assist in traffic control for this event. The Eternal Hills staff -training program includes on -site traffic management. Existing Traffic Conditions The existing local circulation network includes El Camino Real and Fire Mountain Road. El Camino Real is designated by the General Plan Circulation Element as a north -south prime arterial with three travel lanes in each direction. The speed limit is posted at 45 miles per hour. Fire Mountain Road is an east -west local collector with one travel lane in each direction. The speed limit is posted at 30 miles per hour. The El Camino Real/Fire Mountain Road/Skyline Drive Intersection is signalized (see Figure 4.6.1). The intersection approach legs are comprised of the following: Northbound One left -turn lane. Two through lanes. One shared through/right-turn lane. Southbound One left -turn lane. Two through lanes. 4.6-1 1 /31 /08 Eternal Hills Memorial Park CUP Amendment Traffic One shared through/right-turn lane. Eastbound One left -turn lane. One shared through/right-turn lane. Westbound One shared left-turn/through lane. One right -turn lane. Existing Traffic Volumes Table 4.6.1 summarizes the existing plus project ADT volumes; for a full discussion of traffic volumes please see Appendix F. The 20.54-acre project would add 70 ADT to El Camino Real north of Fire Mountain Road, 80 ADT to El Camino Real south of Fire Mountain Road, and 10 ADT to Fire Mountain Road west of the cemetery entrance. Figure 4.6.1 depicts the existing ADT for the street segments and the Sunday peak -hour turning movements at the intersection. The Sunday peak -hour occurs between noon and 2:00 p.m. Existing Operations Table 4.6.2 summarizes the existing Level of Service (LOS) operations at the El Camino Real/Fire Mountain Road/ Skyline Drive intersection. This table shows that the intersection operates at LOS B. Table 4.6.3 summarizes the existing LOS operations on El Camino Real and Fire Mountain Road. This table shows that the affected street segments operate at LOS A. For a full discussion of LOS, please see Appendix F. 4.6.2 Thresholds of Significance Thresholds for significant traffic impacts are based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, and the policies and regulations of the City of Oceanside. A significant traffic impact would occur if the proposed project would: • Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections). • Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. • Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. • Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). • Result in inadequate emergency access. • Result in inadequate parking capacity. • Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). 4.6.3 Impact Analysis Parking and Funeral Processions The existing parking lot and internal roadways are used for parking by visitors to the cemetery and for graveside services as noted above. Additional on -site parking would be available as the 4.6-2 1 /31 /08 Eternal Hills Memorial Park CUP Amendment Traffic internal roadway network is expanded. The additional roadway parking will provide an adequate number of parking spaces for visitors to gravesites and mausolea in the cemetery expansion area. As discussed in Section 2.3.1, 98% of the existing grave spaces have been sold and the cemetery expansion project would not result in an increased number of internments on an annual basis, but would allow Eternal Hills to continue operating for a longer period of time. Consequently, the demand for on -site funeral parking in the future will be essentially the same as the existing demand. No change in the funeral processions would occur as a result of the cemetery expansion. Project Traffic Generation As shown in Table 4.6.4, the proposed 20.54-acre project would generate 158 ADT (79 in and 79 out). The peak -hour trips are based on Sunday trips by gravesite visitors entering and leaving the cemetery. Twenty-two peak -hour trips are expected during the peak -hour. The Sunday peak -hour of noon to 2:00 p.m. is based on manual traffic counts taken at the site. Protect Trip Distribution and Assignment Traffic generated by the cemetery project was distributed to the local circulation network based upon engineering judgment and discussions with the City of Oceanside staff. Figure 4.6.2 depicts the project's traffic percentage distribution. Figure 4.6.3 depicts the assignment of project trips to the local circulation network. Existing and project traffic volumes are depicted on Figure 4.6.4 and in Table 4.6.1. In Figure 4.6.4, peak -hour turning movements are shown at the intersection; ADT's are shown for the street segments. Existinq Plus Project Operations Table 4.6.2 shows that the El Camino Real/Fire Mountain Road/Skyline Drive intersection will continue to operate at LOS B. Thus, the cemetery traffic will not result in a significant impact because the LOS will remain the same. Table 4.6.3 shows that with or without the project, El Camino Real north and south of Fire Mountain Road, and Fire Mountain Road, will continue to operate at LOS A. Thus, the cemetery traffic will not result in a significant impact because the LOS will remain the same. Table 4.6.5 shows that with or without the project the intersection delay time for the El Camino Real/Fire Mountain/Skyline Drive intersection will be 11.8 seconds. Thus, the cemetery traffic will not result in a significant impact because the delay time will remain the same. Table 4.6.6 summarizes the change in volume -to -capacity ratio that would occur as a result the project traffic. The greatest increase (0.002) would occur on El Camino Real south of Fire Mountain Road. This increase in volume -to -capacity ratio is not a significant impact because the street segments operate at LOS A as shown in Table 4.6.3. Desian Features and Access The proposed project would not result in any traffic hazards because no off -site roadway improvements are required and traffic patterns associated with the cemetery operation would remain unchanged. Similarly, the existing ingress and egress to the cemetery would remain the same. No additional emergency access points are required to serve the cemetery expansion. The project would not affect air traffic patterns because no flight -path obstructions would be constructed. 4.6-3 1 /31 /08 Eternal Hills Memorial Park CUP Amendment Traffic Conclusion Based on the significance thresholds, the relatively small amount of traffic generated by the Eternal Hills Memorial Park project would not result in significant direct or indirect impacts at the El Camino Real/Fire Mountain/Skyline Drive intersection or on the street segments in the area. The intersection and street segments would continue to operate at LOS B or better following project implementation. 4.6.4 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required for the expansion of the cemetery because no significant traffic impacts have been identified for the Eternal Hills Memorial Park expansion project. 4.6.5 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse traffic impacts would result from the cemetery expansion project. 4.6-4 1 /31 /08 Eternal Hills Memorial Park CUP Amendment Traffic Table 4.6.1 Traffic Volumes Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Street Segment Existing Existing' + Change Projectb El Camino Real North of Fire Mountain Road 27,800 27,870 70 South of Fire Mountain Road 28,230 28,310 80 Fire Mountain Road West of El Camino Real 4,480 4,490 10 Notes a Twenty-four hour machine counts were conducted by KFM Engineering, Inc. on Sunday August 4, 2002 and Sunday November 3, 2002 to identify daily traffic volumes, peak -hour, and the peak -hour factor. The Sunday peak -hour was identified to be between noon and 2:00 p.m. KFM conducted manual counts on Sunday August 18, 2002 to identify intersection turning movements and the Sunday peak - hour. b The project ADT have been adjusted to reflect the currently proposed cemetery expansion of 20.54 acres. Source: KFM Engineering, Inc., Traffic Impact Report Eternal Hills Cemetery Expansion, December 2006. Table 4.6.2 Intersection Operations Intersection Existing Existing + Project ',b El Camino Real -Fire Mountain B B Road & Skyline Drive Notes: a Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology (1997) was utilized in the existing and existing + project Level of Service (LOS) analysis for the El Camino Real/Fire Mountain Road/Skyline Drive Intersection. b The original 55.05-acre project. Source: KFM Engineering, Inc., Traffic Impact Report Eternal Hills Cemetery Expansion, December 2006. 4.6-5 1 /31 /08 Eternal Hills Memorial Park CUP Amendment Traffic Table 4.6.3 Street Se ment Operations Street Segments Existinga Existing + Projectb El Camino Real North of Fire Mountain Road A A South of Fire Mountain Road A A Fire Mountain Road A A West of El Camino Real Notes a City of Oceanside Level of Service criteria was utilized in the existing and existing + project LOS analysis for the street segments. b The original 55.05-acre project. Source: KFM Engineering, Inc., Traffic Impact Report Eternal Hills Cemetery Expansion, December 2006. Table 4.6.4 Tri Generation Data Trip ADTb Peak -hour` Area Acres Generation Total In Out In Out Rate Eternal Hills Expansion 20.54 7.62 158 79 79 11 11 Notes a 7.62 ADT/acre for cemetery land use as stated in the "Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation Manual." b ADT = Average Daily Trips. Peak -hour trips are 14% of ADT with 50% in and 50% out. Source: KFM Engineering, Inc., Traffic Impact Report Eternal Hills Cemetery Expansion, December 2006. 4.6-6 1 /31 /08 Eternal Hills Memorial Park CUP Amendment Traffic Table 4.6.5 Intersection Delay Time Summary Delay Time (seconds) Intersection ExistingExistinga+ Change Project El Camino Real/Fire Mountain Road/Skyline Drive 11.8 11.8 No Change Notes: a The original 55.05-acre project. Source: KFM Engineering, Inc., Traffic Impact Report Eternal Hills Cemetery Expansion, December 2006. TABLE 4.6.6 Road Segment Volume To Capacity (V/C) Ratio Summary Volume to Capacity Ratio Existing Conditions Existing + Project Road Segment Change ADT PCPHPLa V/C ADT PCPHPLa V/C El Camino Real north of Fire 27,800 649 0.324 27,870 650 0.325 +0.001 Mountain Road El Camino Real south of Fire 28,230 659 0.329 28,310 661 0.331 +0.002 Mountain Road Fire Mountain Road west of El 4,480 314 0.224 4,490 315 0.225 +0.001 Camino Real Notes a Passenger car per hour per lane. Assuming a 50 mph free flow speed, 2000 passenger cars per hour per lane (PCPHPL) is the capacity for a multilane highway (Highway Capacity Manual Chapters 7 & 8). 2,800 passenger cars per hour, both directions, is capacity for a two-lane street. Project's peak -hour factor is 14%. Source: KFM Engineering, Inc., Traffic Impact Report Eternal Hills Cemetery Expansion, December 2006. 4.6-7 1 /31 /08 u Source: KFM Engineering, Inc. Traffic Impact Report Eternal Hills Cemetery Expansion, December 2006, Figure 3. A.D. Hinshaw Associates I Existing Traffic Volumes I Figure 4.6.1 4.6-8 12/19/06 OCEANS I OE BOULEVARD vl PROJECT SITE 5� FIRE MOUNTAIN DRIVE S11 CITY OF OCEANSIDE Ln VISTA WAY VI STA WAY 78 TO TC) F-SC01111 l p© Sig/ -M- i Source: KFM Engineering, Inc. Traffic Impact Report Eternal Hills Cemetery Expansion, December 2006, Figure 4. A.D. Hinshaw Associates Traffic Distribution Figure 4.6.2 4.6-9 1/31/08 OCEANSIDE BOULEVARD n l0 (0 o a� 5 0 tt�o 5 fl 1- ADT FIRE MOUNTAIN DRIVE 1 1 a PEAK HOUR TRIPS � cr a o Q ii m a CITY OF J W OCEANSIDENOT TO SCALE S11 VISTA WAY VISTA WAY 78 78 TO 5 To ESCO S11 Source: KFM Engineering, Inc. Traffic Impact Report Eternal Hills Cemetery Expansion, December 2006, Figure 5. A.D. Hinshaw Associates Project Traffic Volumes Figure 4.6-10 1/31/08 Source: KFM Enaineerina. Inc. Traffic Impact Report Eternal Hills December 2006. Fiaure 6. A.D. Hinshaw Associates I Existing and Project Traffic Volumes I Figure 4.6.4 4.6-11 1/31/08 Eternal Hills Memorial Park CUP Amendment Traffic References 1 KFM Engineering, Inc., Traffic Impact Report Eternal Hills Cemetery Expansion, Oceanside, County of San Diego, California, December 2006. 4.6-12 1 /31 /08 APPENDIX L Tribal Consultation City aj SANTA CLARITA 23920 Valencia Boulevard • Suite 300 • Santa Clarita, California 91355.2196 Phone: (661) 259-2489 - FAX: (661) 259-8125 www. san ta-clarita. com February 2, 2022 Jairo Avila, Tribal Historic and Cultural Preservation Officer Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians 1019 Second Street, Suite 1 San Fernando, CA 91340 Subj ect: Master Case 20-231: Eternal Valley Memorial Park Expansion Proj ect Assembly Bill (AB) 52 Tribal Consultation Dear Mr. Avila: In accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52, Public Resources Code (PRC) § 21080.3.1, the City of Santa Clarita (City) is contacting all groups that have previously requested formal notification of projects for which a Notice of Preparation, Notice of Mitigated Negative Declaration or Notice of Negative Declaration is filed on or after July 1, 2015 (Stats. 2114, ch. 532, § 11 (c)). This correspondence is intended as formal notification of the Eternal Valley Memorial Park Expansion Project (proposed project; Master Case 20-231) pursuant to AB 52. Eternal Valley Memorial Park is an existing cemetery located in the southern portion of the City of Santa Clarita. The site is located at 23287 Sierra Highway and has served as a cemetery for decades. The proposed project is a 13.6-acre expansion onto undeveloped land adjacent to the top of the existing cemetery. The project site is generally bounded on the north by undeveloped land, on the east by the existing cemetery, on the south by the Needham Ranch fire station pad and helipad, and on the west by Needham Ranch Parkway. The project area was originally identified for cemetery use by Los Angeles County in 1969, but has yet to be developed. A site plan showing the overall cemetery and project location is attached for your reference. The applicant has applied for the following permits: a Ridgeline Alteration Permit, a Hillside Development Review (Class 4) Permit, an Architectural Design Review Permit, a Development Review Permit, an Oak Tree Permit (Class II), and Initial Study. The project site would be developed as cemetery grounds, including a new loop road and landscaping as well as burial plots. In addition, the project would construct a new 3,665 square -foot mausoleum with capacity for 780 caskets and with a 260 square -foot room with niches for urns at the top of the existing cemetery. The project would cut and fill 92,600 cubic yards of earth, to be balanced on site, and would also remove and recompact 100,300 cubic yards of earth for remedial grading. A grading plan is attached for further reference. The City is interested in knowing if you have any knowledge of tribal cultural resources (TCRs) as defined in PRC § 21074 (a)(I)(A)-(B), that may be impacted by the proposed project. If you have any comments or concerns regarding potential impacts to TCRs, please contact me within 30 calendar days from receipt of this letter to notify us in writing that you wish to consult (PRC § 21080.3.1 (b)(1). I can be reached by phone at 661.255.4973 or by e-mail at aolson(a Santa-clarita.com. Sincerely, Andy, AICP, Associate Planner AO: ao NEEDHAM RANCH PROJECT PHASE 1 EXISTING AND PROPOSE CEMETERY GROUNDS - consist of traditional Lawn Burial Area, Cremation Inurnment Gardens, Religious Themed Gardens, Family Burial Estates, Special Features, and Statuary, and Community and Family Mausoleums. NORTH �1 o 10 20' aoo 21 SLOPE TO BE MAINTAINED / BY NEEDHAM RANCH r PROPOSED DECORATNE 6' TUBU R STEEL J5 PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATI FENCING PLACED AT TOP 21 SLOPE "- NDA //EMERCO%ICY / LI IIT OF GRADING jj�;-ETAI fiH LOCKED STEEL GA CTED ACCESS EXISTI S--- OF' ' EXISTI 3 rSTO M I— r u , r — ls, sm � v o \ �1 PROPOSED DECORATIVE— " PRIVATE DraAY ° 6' TUBULAR S - �— �� FENC LA T szo P ERTY LINE s3o E i MOPE NE LINE s3o E � ° MIT OF DING bs ED 25' WIDE ROAD \o 1 PRNA DRIVEWAY AND FIRE fAl EXISTING OUR LADY OF EXISTING LAWN PROPOSED PROPOSED MAUSOLEUM LOURDES BURIAL GARDEN BURIAL GARDEN AND WALKWAYS ROAD CONNECTION RETAINING WALL WITH BARRIER LEGAL DESCR PT ON LOTS 2 AND 3 OF CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR RAILING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT TO A P SED I J���J�/ ROAD CON NEQ N 11 8�g / I � r ExRsnNo _ LA = BUR- L GARDEN A iA `1 LOCATION MAP =s00, UIT EI EERNADL�VALLEY NET EXPORT j�MORMEL PARKCUT -ERC) - MASS EXCAVATION 92,600YAR2AAC FI,3300 (I199,300I(CYl AMA L/71%ATTCO L�TT71�/ OS RNKAGEAVATION 100,300 1I"", ("I9.300) [NTilTC: A 7�7T1U GP,4D�./JI�TgG P�.i�.�N. TOTALS 192,900 7.52AC 192.900 9.58AC 0 lilj/1' j],(��/ 1[1�V���+% / ®HUN GAKE0.1 L E OSUFI IN li�.ijil c 1 CIATES LLO AN cNIES, INC xil48ine Pn 1. v�lew, Gsuss � �'d�� PoIWI �TIO 16611 nFYAt OOjO'fAt �1OI From: Andy Olson AOLSON@santa-clarita.com f Subject: RE: AB52 Consultation - MC20-231: Eternal Valley Memorial Park Expansion Project Date: February 3, 2022 at 6:15 PM To: Laura Kaufman Ikaufman@ envicomcorporation.com, Dan Kaufman dkaufman@envicomcorporation.com Good evening, The Tribe responded and requested formal consultation. I will forward this to you for your records. Once the Cultural report is updated per Wayne's peer review and you verify it is satisfactory, I will provide it to the Tribe. Thank you, Andy From: Andy Olson Sent: Wednesday, February 2, 2022 4:01 PM To: 'Laura Kaufman' <Ikaufman@ envicomcorporation.com>; Dan Kaufman <dkaufman @envicomcorporation.com> Subject: FW: AB52 Consultation - MC20-231: Eternal Valley Memorial Park Expansion Project Good afternoon, We have sent our formal consultation letter to the Tataviam Tribe today. I will keep you informed if the Tribe requests formal AB52 consultation. Thank you, Andy From: Andy Olson Sent: Wednesday, February 2, 2022 3:24 PM To: 'Jairo Avila' <jai ro. avi la @ tataviam-nsn. us> Cc: Patrick Leclair <PLECLAIR@santa-clarita.com> Subject: AB52 Consultation - MC20-231: Eternal Valley Memorial Park Expansion Projecl Good afternoon Jairo, I hope this email finds you well. Attached is our letter providing formal notification of the Eternal Valley Memorial Park Expansion Project (proposed project; Master Case 20-231) pursuant to AB 52. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you, Andy Andy Olson, AICP Associate Planner Planning Division City of Santa Clarita Phone: (661) 255-4973 Email: aolson@santa-clarita.com Web: http://www.santa-clarita.com City of MM CUL-1 Archaeological Monitoring Prior to the commencement of construction, a qualified archaeologist shall create a separate Worker's Environmental Awareness Program pamphlet that will be provided as training to construction personnel to understand regulatory requirements for the protection of cultural resources. This training shall include examples of cultural resources to look for and protocols to follow if discoveries are made. The archaeologist shall develop the training and any supplemental materials necessary to execute said training. Archaeological resources monitoring shall be conducted by an archaeological resource monitor, during project related earth -disturbing activities, per the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) standards, under the supervision of a qualified Lead Archaeologist. Monitoring will entail visual inspection of project related earth- disturbing activities (i.e. trenching, shoring, utility installation, etc.) The project proponent shall retain a professional Native American Monitor procured by the Femandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians or consulting Tribes under AB52 to observe all ground -disturbing activities ae4vifie�i-that involve excavation of previously undisturbed soil. Monitoring will entail visual inspection project related earth -disturbing activities. If an archaeological resource is encountered during construction when a monitor is not on site, all construction shall cease within at least 50 feet of the discovery and the Principal Investigator and Lead Archaeologist must be notified. Work cannot resume in the direct area of the discovery until the it is assessed by the Principal Investigator and/or Lead Archaeologist and indicates that construction can resume. If an archaeological discovery cannot be preserved in situ and requires an excavation team or requires additional time to collect cultural resources, a Discovery and Treatment Plan (DTP) will be developed and the area will be cordoned off and secured so that an archaeological resources excavation team, led by the Principal Investigator and Lead Archaeologist, may recover the cultural resources out of that contained area. Once the Principal Investigator has determined that the collection process is complete for a given area or locality, construction activity will resume in that localized area. If human remains are encountered at any point during project construction, the local Native American most likely descendent (MLD) must be notified if not already on site and the procedures dictated by law must be implemented. The Lead Agency and project proponent shall, in good faith, consult with the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians on the disposition and treatment of Tribal Cultural Resources encountered during Project implementation. All significant cultural resources collected will be prepared in a properly equipped laboratory to a point ready for curation. Following laboratory work, all cultural resources will be identified, catalogued, analyzed, and delivered to an accredited museum repository for permanent curation and storage. Any cultural resources collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. Accompanying notes, maps, and photographs shall also be filed at the repository. The cost of curation is assessed by the repository and is the responsibility of the project proponent. At the conclusion of laboratory work and museum curation, a final report will be prepared describing the results of the cultural mitigation monitoring efforts associated with the project. The report will include a summary of the field and laboratory methods, an overview of the cultural background within the project vicinity, a list of cultural resources recovered (if any), an analysis of cultural resources recovered (if any) and their scientific significance, and recommendations. A copy of the report will also be submitted to the designated museum repository (if applicable). MM CUL-2 Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains In the event of Native American human remains being inadvertently uncovered during project construction, the project proponent would immediately cease activity in the vicinity of the discovery and notify the local Native American most likely descendent (MLD) if not already on site and the procedures dictated by law must be implemented. The inadvertent discovery of human remains is always a possibility during ground disturbances; State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 addresses these findings. This code section states that in the event human remains are uncovered, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination as to the origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The Coroner must be notified of the find immediately, together with the City and the property owner. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify a MLD. The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials and an appropriate re -internment site. The City, as Lead Agency, and a qualified archaeologist shall also establish additional appropriate mitigation measures for further site development, which may include additional archaeological and Native American monitoring or subsurface testing. MM PAL-1 Paleontological Discovery Protocol If potentially significant intact deposits are encountered that are within an undisturbed context, then a fossil "discovery" protocol will be followed, which will be developed prior to project grading. If project excavation is in native soil or bedrock, then a paleontological monitor should be on site to watch for fossil resources. Such monitoring will be outlined in the "discovery" protocol, developed prior to grading. If significant prehistoric or larger fossil materials are recovered in native original context, then all work in that area shall be halted or diverted away from the discovery to a distance of 50-feet until a qualified senior archaeologist or paleontologist can evaluate the nature and/or significance of the find(s). If a senior archaeologist or paleontologist (not the field monitor) confirms that the discovery is potentially significant, then the Lead Agency will be contacted and informed of the discovery. Construction will not resume in the locality of the discovery until consultation between the senior archaeologist or paleontologist, the owner's project manager, the City, and all other concerned parties, takes place and reaches a conclusion approved by the City. If a significant resource is discovered during earth -moving, complete avoidance of the find is preferred. However, if the discovery cannot be avoided, further survey work, evaluation tasks, or data recovery of the significant resource may be required by the City. The City may also require changes to the Monitoring Plan, based on the discovery, if fossil material is encountered. All costs for the additional monitoring, discovery assessment, discovery evaluation, or data recovery of will be the responsibility of the applicant, within the cost parameters outlined under CEQA. All individual reports, including the final project Monitoring Report, will be submitted to the NHM at the conclusion of the project.