Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-10-22 - AGENDA REPORTS - REVIEW MC 21-205O Agenda Item: 2 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARINGS CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Li ' DATE: October 22, 2024 SUBJECT: CONFORMANCE REVIEW OF THE RIVERVIEW PROJECT - MASTER CASE 21-205 DEPARTMENT: Community Development PRESENTER: Justin Sauder RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council: 1. Conduct the public hearing; 2. Provide direction to staff on project -related issues; and 3. Continue the meeting to a date certain. BACKGROUND REQUEST The applicant, Integral Communities, is proposing a development consisting of a residential component with 318 residential units and a non-residential component with an approximately 127,000 square -foot light manufacturing building on the subject property. The project also includes a proposal to subdivide the subject property into five parcels with a Tentative Map that would allow for the creation of condominium lots for the residential units. PLANNING COMMISSION The project was introduced at the July 16, 2024, Planning Commission meeting. The meeting provided an opportunity for the community and the Planning Commission to receive a project introduction, discuss the project, and ask questions of the applicant and staff. Several members of the community spoke on the item as well as the applicant. The Planning Commission asked questions of the applicant, and staff asked the applicant to consider revising the project to address the Planning Commission's concerns and directed staff to bring the item back to the Page 1 Packet Pg. 263 O September 17, 2024, Planning Commission meeting. In summary, the Planning Commission asked for additional information regarding: • How the proposed project would impact the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) regulated in the Housing Element; • Whether the project would affect on -site oak trees; • Traffic impacts resulting from the project; • How the project would be designed in light of the mixed -use designation; • Operational characteristics of the proposed light manufacturing use; • How buffers might be constructed to separate transit corridors and the project; • Phasing of project amenities; • How the project would be affected by the Transportation Demand Management Program; • Whether the neighboring rehabilitation facility had been notified of the project; • Whether the affected school districts were notified regarding the project; and • How the Jobs Creation Overlay Zone (JCOZ) relates to the project. Upon submission of additional project materials, answers were able to be provided to the Planning Commission's questions at the September 17, 2024, Planning Commission meeting regarding the health of oak trees, traffic impacts, the buffers between transit corridors and the project, the Transportation Demand Management Program, and the notification of the neighboring rehabilitation facility and local schools. In addition, staff was able to provide information regarding the RHNA numbers and how the JCOZ relates to the project proposal. The applicant did not propose any changes to the project and consequently was unable to address the concerns of the Planning Commission regarding meeting the RHNA numbers for the suitable site; providing a commercial/retail use that would be more compatible with the residential use; the operational characteristics of the light manufacturing building; and the phasing of on -site amenities. After public comment and Planning Commission discussion, the Planning Commission's motion to deny the project resulted in no consensus with a 2-2 vote. Absent any alternate motion, with a deadlocked Planning Commission, the project can be considered denied and appealable to the City Council. On September 18, 2024, the item was called for Conformance Review by Councilmember Weste which necessitates a public hearing. An in-depth project description and analysis can be found in the staff reports for the July and September Planning Commission meetings (available in the City Clerk's reading file). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is located at 22500 Soledad Canyon Road (Assessor's Parcel Number 2836-011-018) within the Mixed -Use Corridor (MXC) zone in the community of Saugus. The project is also within the JCOZ and the High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The project site is directly adjacent to the Santa Clarita Metrolink Station and was formerly utilized as the Saugus Speedway. Currently, there is a swap meet on Sundays and Tuesdays at the subject property. The property is approximately 35 acres in size, and the majority of the site is relatively flat and paved, except for the northwest portion of the site which consists of a previously disturbed hillside. The overall Page 2 Packet Pg. 264 O cross slope of the site is approximately 14 percent. The project includes a Tentative Map that would divide the site into five planning areas. Four of the planning areas would contain the residential component of the project, and the fifth planning area would contain the non-residential, light manufacturing component. The four residential planning areas are on approximately 28 acres which would contain 318 total residential units. This total includes 122 detached single-family condos and 196 attached townhomes, 22 of which are identified as affordable for low income. o Planning Area 1 would include 17 buildings with 95 single-family attached units. o Planning Area 2 would include 60 single-family detached units. o Planning Area 3 would include 62 single-family detached units. o Planning Area 4 would include 31 buildings with 101 single-family attached units. The residential portion would also include several on -site amenities for residents including a pool, spa, bathroom, barbeque grills, picnic tables, dog park, tot lot, chess gaming tables, fire pit, and a community garden. There are also five seating nooks spread throughout the site which include benches, bike racks, and dog waste stations. Parking areas and landscaping are included within each planning area. Planning Area 5 encompasses approximately seven acres and includes an industrial building on the northwestern portion of the site. The building would include 116,790 square feet of light manufacturing and 10,000 square feet of office/mezzanine space with a maximum building height of 39 feet. The project also includes various on -site improvements such as landscaping, an employee break area, paving, parking and lighting, and 18 docking stations for trucks. The building is being contemplated for a light manufacturing use, but there is currently no tenant proposed for the building. Should the project be approved, the applicant has agreed to record an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City for Planning Area 5, in the event they are unable to secure a tenant for the light manufacturing portion of the project. The City may accept the offer on the third anniversary after the map recordation or when the Building Official issues a final certificate of occupancy for the last residential unit, whichever is soonest. REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATIONAND HOUSING ELEMENT The Riverview project site is identified as Suitable Site 923 in the Housing Element and was projected to have a capacity for 792 units with 225 units for low-income and 567 units for moderate -income levels. The project is proposing 22 units in the low-income category with the remaining 296 being market rate. The project does not propose any units in the moderate -income category. The Housing Element has a buffer of 345 low-income units and a buffer of 462 moderate -income units. If the project is approved as proposed, the low-income buffer would be reduced to 142 units. However, the moderate -income buffer would be depleted and would require 105 units to be included in the moderate -income category from the "B List" of housing sites of the Housing Element. There is adequate capacity in the "B List" to accommodate the project as proposed. Page 3 Packet Pg. 265 O The proposed project meets the definition of a housing development in accordance with Senate Bill 330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. This type of housing development cannot be denied if it meets the City's objective standards for development, unless the project, based upon a written standard, creates a health and safety concern that cannot be mitigated. State law also requires, if the project does not meet objective standards, that the City identifies those standards to the applicant within 30 days of the date the application was deemed complete, or conformance with those requirements is waived. No inconsistencies were identified by staff during this timeframe. As such, the project is subject to and must be evaluated based on compliance with the objective standards of the Unified Development Code for the MXC zone and the City's Community Character and Design Guidelines. TIMELINE The applicant submitted a similar project with a One Stop application and received comments in September 2019. The formal application was submitted on October 18, 2021, and subsequently deemed incomplete in November 2021, due to missing information including all technical reports required for the creation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The project included a residential component and a proposal for a sound studio for Shadowbox Studios. Staff issued comments to address the need for additional residential density and for the applicant to consider a mixed -use development with commercial/retail use at the east end of the project site in proximity to the Santa Clarita Metrolink Station. In addition, the applicant was encouraged to consider an affordable component for the project consistent with the Housing Element. With continued correspondence and coordination with the applicant, staff received the necessary technical reports and other items identified in the incomplete letter and the project was then deemed complete in January 2023. Between October 2021, when the application was submitted, and January 2023, when it was deemed complete, staff continued to review the project and provide comments to the applicant with two Development Review Committee (DRC) meetings. After the project was deemed complete an additional DRC meeting was held in March 2023 to provide additional feedback to the applicant. At various times during the design review process, the applicant considered revising the residential portion of the project based on the DRC comments to increase the density. One such proposal included the addition of accessory dwelling units, but the project has essentially remained the same and the residential density has not increased since the original submission. However, the applicant did revise the project to include 22 of the 318 units as affordable in the low-income category. In November 2023, the applicant notified staff that the non-residential portion of the project would need to be modified due to Shadowbox Studios no longer needing a studio at the project site. The applicant then provided an updated site plan with the approximately 127,000 square - foot building intended to be utilized for light manufacturing in February 2024, and the updated technical reports for the MND were subsequently submitted in April 2024. Staff provided updated comments on the site plan and comments on the technical reports on May 6, 2024, and the project was scheduled for the July 16, 2024, Planning Commission meeting. Page 4 Packet Pg. 266 O ENVIRONMENTAL Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration The project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared for the project by SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) and circulated for a public review period from June 25, 2024, to July 16, 2024. The draft IS/MND analyzed potential impacts to seven areas and determined that, with mitigation, none of the impacts from the project would be significant as mentioned previously in the July and September Planning Commission staff reports. Areas for Mitigation The draft IS/MND identified the seven areas as having impacts that, with mitigation, would be less than significant. The seven areas with mitigation measures are air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and tribal cultural resources. All other areas analyzed would have either less than significant impacts or no impacts. The majority of the potential impacts can be reduced to a level of less than significant, with mitigation measures that are considered standard best management practices. Staff received six comment letters regarding the draft IS/MND during the public review period ending on July 16, 2024. The draft IS/MND that was presented to the Planning Commission at the July 2024 Planning Commission meeting did not include a response to comments as comment letters were received the day of the meeting. The response to comments was also not included at the September 17, 2024, Planning Commission meeting as the technical studies needed in order to respond had not been provided by the applicant. However, since the September 17, 2024, Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has provided the necessary technical studies to respond to the comment letters that were received during the public review period for the IS/MND. The draft Final IS/MND includes the comment letters and responses that were received during the public review period. In conjunction with SWCA and the applicant, staff has provided responses to those comment letters as summarized below. After the close of the public review period and after the draft Final IS/MND was substantially complete, two additional comment letters were received on October 1, 2024, and October 8, 2024. Staff is working with the applicant to respond to these comment letters. The draft Final IS/MND is attached for reference and the following is a summarized response to comments included in the document. Department of Toxic Substance Control The Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) provided comments recommending that if any structures were to be demolished at the project site a survey should be conducted for the presence of lead, mercury, asbestos, or polychlorinated biphenyl caulk, and if found, the removal and disposal of any contaminated materials should be conducted in compliance with California environmental regulations. In addition, DTSC recommends that any imported soil and fill materials should be tested for contaminants. Page 5 Packet Pg. 267 O Surveys will be required for any buildings that will be demolished on -site to look for asbestos, lead, and other hazardous materials and require clean-up and disposal in accordance with the Universal Waste Rules. While these are standard requirements, the City will also provide for a condition of approval stating these requirements, if the project is approved. While the project is expected to balance all soil on -site, should the need arise to import material, the City will require that imported soil and fill material be tested to ensure that they meet screening levels outlined in the Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual noted by DTSC with a condition of approval, if the project is approved. Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts provided comments regarding the project's proximity to the Saugus Water Reclamation Plant and recommended that, if necessary, the MND analyze any potential impacts on the proposed project from the reclamation plant. The comment letter also detailed how and where wastewater will be handled and the application of connection fees. An analysis of the existing environment on the proposed project is not required per CEQA; therefore, it is not necessary to analyze the project's proximity to the Saugus Water Reclamation Plant. The remainder of the comments regarding wastewater and connection fees have been provided to the applicant, and it is not anticipated that the project would require the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities as the system has sufficient capacity to accommodate the project. This is affirmed by the will -serve letter received from the Sanitation District. South Coast Air Quality Management District The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) provided comments detailing concerns about the potential air quality impacts of a light manufacturing use next to a residential use, utilizing the cleanest technology for construction equipment to further mitigate emissions related to construction, recommendations for building filtration systems, and finally the need to acquire air permits from SCAQMD for the backup generator for the project. The applicant prepared a Health Risk Assessment (HRA), which includes an operational health risk analysis to estimate the increased health risk levels for people living and working near the project site associated with toxic air contaminants (TACs), consistent with SCAQMD guidelines. The purpose of the HRA is to document the increased cancer and noncancer health risk levels from project -related emissions of TACs on existing nearby sensitive receptors, including residents and workers. The results of the HRA demonstrated that all health risk levels to nearby receptors from the operational -related emissions would be below the SCAQMD's HRA threshold, and no significant health risk would occur from project operation emissions. Therefore, identification and analysis of mitigation measures are not required. The HRA also included aproject-specific construction health risk analysis, which evaluates construction -period health risk to off -site receptors and concluded that no significant health risk Page 6 Packet Pg. 268 O would occur from project construction emissions. As such, identification and analysis of additional mitigation, including the use of Tier 4 equipment, would not be required to reduce emissions to a less than significant level. The applicant has been made aware of the need to acquire permits from SCAQMD for the backup generator. California Department of Fish and Wildlife The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) provided comments regarding possible impacts to Crotch's bumble bee, the slender mariposa lily, and California Species of Special Concern. Following the submittal of the project, Crotch's bumble bee was identified as a California endangered species candidate. To address this concern, the applicant conducted a survey for Crotch's bumble bee using CDFW's guidelines and the results were negative. Therefore, the species is not expected to be found at the subject site. The survey also concluded that the opportunities for nesting habitat for Crotch's bumble bee are very low. The project, if approved, would result in the loss of foraging habitat for the bees. However, the impact on the foraging area is not expected to be significant due to the abundant natural open space areas surrounding the project site with potential foraging habitat. The IS/MND and the additional survey concluded that there is a less than significant impact with the incorporation of a mitigation measure. Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-3 has been revised to require a preconstruction survey and monitoring for Crotch's bumble bee prior to any ground disturbance. The amount of potential habitat for the slender mariposa lily that the project would impact is not expected to meet any of the Mandatory Findings of Significance as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15065. As such, the existing MM BIO-1 provides adequate compensation for the potential loss of any of the species. However, in response to CDFW's comment, MM BIO-1 has been revised to require that the project replace those specimens that may be lost through planting replacements within the project site. Neither Crotch's bumble bee nor the slender mariposa lily is listed as a Species of Special Concern. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 requires a preconstruction survey where any special -status species found would be relocated out of harm's way and MM BIO-3, which requires biological monitoring during the initial vegetation removal and grading, provides sufficient mitigation by avoiding and minimizing direct impacts to individuals of the species that may be present. As such, the mitigation measures within the draft Final IS/MND are adequate to mitigate any impacts to the species. Lozeau and Drury on behalf of SAFER The law firm Lozeau and Drury provided a comment letter on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) with potential concerns regarding noise. However, on September 23, 2024, staff received another letter from Lozeau and Drury stating that the issues brought up by SAFER had been resolved; and, therefore, have withdrawn their comment letter. Page 7 Packet Pg. 269 O Los Angeles County Office of the Sheri The comment letter from the Los Angeles County Sheriff s Office included recommendations to incorporate Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles, landscape maintenance, installation of security cameras, security plans, a Construction Traffic Management Plan, increasing visibility of building addresses, and installing a fence between the subject property and the railroad tracks. The letter also states that the increase in population due to the proposed residential component of the project would generate an increased demand for law enforcement services, which would require the applicant to pay a law enforcement facilities mitigation fee. The project would comply with applicable regulatory requirements related to security and safety during construction and operation. The project includes CPTED principles such as low- level exterior lighting and way -finding signage to enhance safety and security. The project entries would be constructed to City design standards, which would allow for access to emergency vehicles. Furthermore, the IS/MND has concluded that project -generated traffic would not substantially adversely affect the performance of nearby roadways. Therefore, emergency service response times and disaster evacuation routes would not be affected. The applicant has been made aware of the required fees from the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Office. Advocates for the Environment The comment letter from the Advocates for the Environment argued that the project should be required to be net -zero when it comes to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, that the MND should have analyzed all applicable plans concerning GHG, and finally that an Environmental Impact Report should be drafted. The comment letter was received on October 1, 2024, which is outside of the comment period that ended on July 16, 2024. As previously discussed, the IS/MND was substantially complete by the time this comment was received. However, the applicant and staff have reviewed the comment letter and are preparing a response. Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency The comment letter from Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency (SCV Water) states that it is a project that has a water demand equal to, or greater than, a 500-unit residential project; therefore, the preparation of a Water Supply Assessment must be prepared. It further states that the project is within the SCV Water's services area and the evaluation of impacts should address any needed new facilities either on -site or off -site to serve the proposed project and be included in the project description for the draft Final IS/MND. Finally, the comment letter concludes that mitigation measures should be required for the project to adhere to the low -impact development water quality and hydromodification standards and additionally require the payment of all water supply -related fees prior to the issuance of building permits. Page 8 Packet Pg. 270 O The comment letter was received on October 8, 2024, which is outside of the comment period that ended on July 16, 2024. As previously discussed, the draft Final ISMND was substantially complete by the time this comment was received. However, the applicant and staff have reviewed the comment letter and are preparing a response. PUBLIC NOTICING All notices required by law were completed which consisted of a legal advertisement in The Signal newspaper on October 1, 2024. A sign was also posted on the subject property on October 8, 2024. As of the writing of this staff report, staff has received no correspondence from the community. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the City Council receive a presentation from staff and the applicant, open the public hearing, provide direction to staff, and continue the meeting to a date certain. ALTERNATIVE ACTION Other actions as determined by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action. ATTACHMENTS Public Notice MC21-205 Riverview Final ISMND MC21-205 Riverview ISMND Response to Comments Agenda - Tuesday, July 16, 2024 (available in the City Clerk's reading file) Agenda - Tuesday, September 17, 2024 (available in the City Clerk's reading file) Page 9 Packet Pg. 271 2.a CITY OF SANTA CLARITA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT -�' 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT TITLE: Riverview Project APPLICATION: Master Case 21-205: Architectural Design Review 21-025, Conditional Use Permit 21-014, Development Review 21-019, Initial Study 21-008, Landscape Plan Review 21-015, Minor Use Permit 21-027, Oak Tree Permit 21-003, and Tentative Tract Map 83605 PROJECT APPLICANT: Integral Communities PROJECT LOCATION: 22500 Soledad Canyon Road (Assessor's Parcel Number 2836-011-018) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant, Integral Communities, is requesting to construct 318 residential units (122 detached single-family condos and 196 attached townhomes, 22 of which are identified as affordable) and an approximately 127,000 square -foot light manufacturing industrial building. The project also includes a community recreation area and other on -site improvements, including on -site parking and landscaping. The project site is approximately 35.2 acres in size on a property formerly occupied by the Saugus Speedway, and is directly adjacent to the existing Santa Clarita Metrolink Station. The site is zoned Mixed Use Corridor and is within the Jobs Creation Overlay Zone and the Alquist Priolo Fault Zone. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: On September 17, 2024, the Planning Commission's motion to deny the project resulted in no consensus with a 2-2 vote. On September 18, 2024, the item was called for Conformance Review by the City Council which necessitates a public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: An Initial Study (IS) and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) have been prepared for the proposed project and are available for public review. A copy of the draft IS/MND and all supporting documents is located 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 is available on the Planning Division's website. https:Hsantaclarita.gov/planning/environmental The City of Santa Clarita City Council will conduct a public hearing on this matter on the following date: DATE: Tuesday, October 22, 2024 TIME: At or after 6:00 p.m. LOCATION: City Hall, Council Chambers 23920 Valencia Blvd., First Floor Santa Clarita, CA 91355 If you wish to challenge the action taken on this matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Clarita at, or prior to, the public hearings. If you wish to have written comments included in the materials the City Council receives prior to the public hearing, it must be submitted to the Community Development Department by Friday, October 11, 2024. For further information regarding this proposal, you may contact the project planner, by appointment, at the City of Santa Clarita, Permit Center, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 140, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Packet Pg. 272 2.a Telephone: (661) 255-4330. Website: www.santaclarita.wv/planning. Send written correspondence via e-mail to jsauderksantaclarita.gov, or by US mail to: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Project Planner: Justin Sauder, Associate Planner. Mary Cusick, MMC City Clerk Published: The Signal, October 1, 2024 PROPOSED PROJECT SITE 22500 Soledad Canyon Road Assessor's Parcel Number 2836-011-018 Packet Pg. 273 2.b Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Riverview Development Project, Santa Clarita, California dUNEOCTOBER 2024 PREPARED FOR City of Santa Clarita Planning Division PREPARED BY SWCA Environmental Consultants Packet Pg. 274 2.b Ln 0 N r N d N c4 U L .F+ Ccu C_ .F+ V Q .O L CL d d > Ids d N� V C cu E L 0 W C 0 U Z C IL d a� LO 0 N r N U c a� E v Q Packet Pg. 275 2.b ^a��FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE RIVERVIEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA Prepared for City of Santa Clarita, Planning Division 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, California 91355 Attn: Justin Sauder Prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants 320 North Halstead Street, Suite 120 Pasadena, California 91107 (626) 240-0587 www.swca.com SWCA Project No. 75841 Jae October 2024 Packet Pg. 276 2.b Ln 0 N r N d N c4 U L .F+ Ccu C_ .F+ V Q .O L CL d d > Ids d N� V C cu E L 0 W C 0 U Z C IL d a� LO 0 N r N U c a� E v Q Packet Pg. 277 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration CONTENTS Acronymsand Abbreviations...................................................................................................................iii 1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 California Environmental Quality Act...................................................................................... I 1.2 Project Location and Environmental Setting............................................................................. 1 1.3 General Plan and Zoning Designations..................................................................................... 4 1.4 Project Description.................................................................................................................... 5 1.4.1 Project Overview............................................................................................................... 5 1.4.2 Proposed Buildout............................................................................................................... 5 1.4.3 Access, Circulation, and Parking........................................................................................ 7 1.4.4 Landscaping........................................................................................................................ 9 1.4.5 Utility and Drainage Improvements.................................................................................... 9 1.4.6 Grading............................................................................................................................... 9 1.4.7 Lighting.............................................................................................................................10 1.4.8 Off -site Improvements...................................................................................................... 10 1.4.9 Construction Schedule and Equipment............................................................................. 10 1.5 Required Discretionary Approvals.......................................................................................... 10 1.6 Intended Uses of this Document.............................................................................................. 11 2 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation..............................................................12 I. Aesthetics................................................................................................................................ 13 IL Agriculture and Forestry Resources........................................................................................ 15 III. Air Quality............................................................................................................................... 17 IV. Biological Resources............................................................................................................... 27 V. Cultural Resources.................................................................................................................. 37 VI. Energy..................................................................................................................................... 41 VII. Geology and Soils................................................................................................................... 43 VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions..................................................................................................... 49 IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials........................................................................................... 54 X. Hydrology and Water Quality................................................................................................. 60 XI. Land Use and Planning............................................................................................................ 67 XII. Mineral Resources................................................................................................................... 69 XIII. Noise........................................................................................................................................70 XIV. Population and Housing.......................................................................................................... 75 XV. Public Services........................................................................................................................ 76 XVI. Recreation................................................................................................................................79 XVII. Transportation......................................................................................................................... 80 XVIIL Tribal Cultural Resources........................................................................................................ 84 XIX. Utilities and Service Systems.................................................................................................. 89 XX. Wildfire................................................................................................................................... 94 XXL Mandatory Findings of Significance....................................................................................... 99 3 Literature Cited................................................................................................................................101 4 List of Preparers...............................................................................................................................108 Packet Pg. 278 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ........................................... 5.1 Statutory Requirements........................................................................ 5.2 Administration of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 5.3 Mitigation Measures............................................................................. Appendices Appendix A. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analyses Appendix B. Biological Resource Reports Appendix C. Archaeological Resources Technical Report Appendix D. Built Environment Report Appendix E. Paleontological Resources Technical Memorandum Appendix F. Hazardous Materials Assessment Appendix G. Hazardous Materials Technical Memorandum Appendix H. Hydrology Technical Memorandum Appendix I. Noise and Vibration Assessments Appendix J. Transportation Assessment Appendix K. LACSD Will Serve Letter Figures .................................109 ................................. 109 ................................. 109 ................................. 109 Figure1. Project vicinity............................................................................................................................... 2 Figure2. Project location.............................................................................................................................. 3 Figure3. Site plan......................................................................................................................................... 6 Figure4. Site access...................................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 5. Fire Hazard Severity Zones for Local and State Responsibility Areas in a 1-mile radius fromthe project site................................................................................................................. 96 Tables Table1. Project Components Summary....................................................................................................... 5 Table 2. Proposed Buildout by Planning Area.............................................................................................. 7 Table 3. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.......................................................................... 18 Table 4. Localized Significance Thresholds for Source -Receptor Area 13 (Santa Clarita Valley) ............ 19 Table 5. Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions ................................. 21 Table 6. Estimated Maximum Daily Operation Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions ...................................... 22 Table 7. Localized Significance Thresholds Analysis for the Project (Prior to Application of MM AIR-1)...................................................................................................................................... 24 Table 8. Estimated Annual Operation GHG Emissions.............................................................................. 52 Table 9. Population and Employment Growth Forecast for the City of Santa Clarita................................ 75 Table 10. Mitigation and Monitoring Program......................................................................................... 110 Packet Pg. 279 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS OF degrees Fahrenheit µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter AB Assembly Bill Alquist-Priolo Act Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act amsl above mean sea level APN Accessor's Parcel Number Applicant Riverview Owner LPV, LCC AQMP Air Quality Management Plan Basin Plan Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Basin BMP best management practice CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code Caltrans California Department of Transportation CAP Climate Action Plan CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board CBC California Building Code CCR California Code of Regulations CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CDOC California Department of Conservation CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CH4 methane CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System City City of Santa Clarita CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CO carbon monoxide COz carbon dioxide COze carbon dioxide equivalents W m m m c c� E 0 c 0 U 0 z E c ii m m R LO 0 N N U r c m E U r r Q Packet Pg. 280 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration CRHR California Register of Historical Resources dB decibel(s) dBA A -weighted decibel(s) Design Guidelines City of Santa Clarita Community Character and Design Guidelines DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control DWR California Department of Water Resources EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FAR floor area ratio Farmland Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone FTA Federal Transit Administration GeoSoils GeoSoils Consultants, Inc. GHG greenhouse gas HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning I- Interstate in/sec inch per second IS Initial Study IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration JCOZ Jobs Creation Overlay Zone LACDPW Los Angeles County Department of Public Works LACFD Los Angeles County Fire Department Ldn day -night average sound level Leq hourly average LOS level of service LST localized significance threshold MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act mgd million gallons per day MM Mitigation Measure MND Mitigated Negative Declaration MRZ Mineral Resource Zone MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System MT metric tons V) 0 N N m M CU m N M r L) m 0 L- a 3 m m W 3 m m m c c� E 0 4- c 0 U 0 z E c U- 3 m m LO 0 N N U r c m E U r Q Packet Pg. 281 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MTCOze metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents MXC Mixed Use Corridor N20 nitrous oxide NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAHC Native American Heritage Commission Ninyo and Moore Ninyo and Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOx oxides of nitrogen NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places 03 ozone OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment OPR Governor's Office of Planning and Research PA/Lot planning area/lot PEA preliminary endangerment assessment Plan Cultural Resource Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery Plan PM,o coarse particulate matter PM2.5 fine particulate matter ppm parts per million PPV peak particle velocity PRC California Public Resources Code project Riverview Development project RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy RV recreational vehicle RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board S.A.F.E. Solvents/Automotive/Flammables/Electronics SB Senate Bill SCAB South Coast Air Basin SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCCIC South Central Coast Information Center LO 0 N N m M U m N M r U a) 0 L- a 3 m m W 3 m m m c M E 0 4- c 0 CU 0 z E M c ii 3 m m LO 0 N N U r c m E r Q Packet Pg. 282 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SCE Southern California Edison SCUDC Santa Clarita Unified Development Code SCV-GSA Santa Clarita Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency SCV Water Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency SEMS Superfund Enterprise Management System SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company STC sound transmission class SOX sulfur oxides SR State Route SRA source -receptor area SVP Society of Vertebrate Paleontology SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TAC toxic air contaminant USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey UWMP Urban Water Management Plan VMT vehicle miles traveled VOC volatile organic compound WEAP Worker Environmental Awareness Program WRP wastewater reclamation plant LO 0 N N a) M CU m N M r m 0 L_ a 3 m m M 3 m m m c M E 0 4- c 0 CU 0 z E c ii 3 m m LO 0 N N U r c d E t U r r Q Packet Pg. 283 2.b Riverview Development Project n,�f+ Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 INTRODUCTION The Riverview Owner LPV, LCC (Applicant), is proposing to develop the Riverview Development project (project) in the city of Santa Clarita, California, which requires review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) evaluates the environmental effects of the project. The project would include the construction of 318 single-family units and a 126,790square foot building designated for light manufacturing use on a 35.2-acre property. 1.1 California Environmental Quality Act CEQA (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.), as amended, applies to proposed projects initiated by, funded by, or requiring discretionary approvals from state or local government agencies. The State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Section 15000 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]), as revised) states that a "lead agency" is "the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project." Therefore, the City of Santa Clanta (City) is the Lead Agency responsible for compliance with CEQA for the proposed project. As Lead Agency, the City must complete an environmental assessment of the project to determine whether implementation of the project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts. To fulfill the purpose of CEQA, this Initial Study (IS) has been prepared to consider the potential environmental impacts the project could cause. Based on the nature and scope of the proposed project and the evaluation contained in the IS environmental checklist (contained herein), the City, as the Lead Agency, concluded that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is the proper level of environmental documentation for this project. The IS shows that impacts caused by the proposed project are either less than significant or significant but mitigable with incorporation of appropriate mitigation measures as defined herein. This conclusion is supported by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, which states that an MND can be prepared when "(a) the initial study shows that there is not 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 (1) 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." 1.2 Project Location and Environmental Setting The project site is located in the city of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California (Figure 1). The site is south of Soledad Canyon Road and encompasses 35.2 acres (Figure 2). The address of the site is 22500 Soledad Canyon Way. The Assessor's Parcel Number [APN] is 2836-011-018 and the site can be found within Section 23, Township 4 North, Range 16 West, as shown on the Newhall, California, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle. Packet Pg. 284 2.b Riverview Development Project n�ft Flnal Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - + " �[elv r A GELES r LCLk 1I: 'N 4TIONAL' ti... `RERwit ST .�. _.. LOS ANGHES'COUNTY- e castaiC Lake } - anta Clarity t � SA tv rA. s vSANA Yam 4 upM1 TA RO 1441 U REAGAN FIN nu Valbey--,�1roUQtnai + r Ism z as�vorth < 1 servoir .w^ +•ry I v Van Nu Afr arc WY 14 SAN GABRIEL MOUNTAIrI< g NATIONAL MONUMFri- Can ff ,f� an N/ Fqr L i'outenlion Gbnplm©.Nano. M G. ✓,Esr. UERDU 0 Project Location Los Angeles County, CA 0 2.5 5Miles NAB 1483 UTM Zone 11N IKil—tars County Boundary 34.41761N 118.5297'W 0 3 s N A 1:3oa,000 Base Map: ESRI ArcGfS Online. access d 4125 2024 Updated_ 4125l2024 ,Vq'r// y '�� SW Project No. 00075811.000-PAS Lay0Ut, 075841_VIC0tyMap ENYIAONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Figure 1. Project vicinity. 2 Packet Pg. 285 2.b Riverview Development Project naf+ Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Project Area Los Angeles County, CA 1,r20 F NCO, USGS 7.5' Quadrangle; �Me:— Public Lard Survey System (PLSS) Newhall, CA- 1995 0 25D 502 T4N R16W Section 23 NAD 1983 UTM Zone 11N 34.41771N 118.5296°W N A _ 1:24,000 Base Map: ESRI A,.GfS Online. UpUasterJ_Ap,4125126o224 Prole NO0007584T.000.PASa S CA Layout. 075841 L—t-Hap ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Figure 2. Project location. 3 Packet Pg. 286 2.b Riverview Development Project n,�f+ Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration The project site is located on the former Saugus Speedway in the City of Santa Clarita, and is bordered by Soledad Canyon Road to the north, Commuter Way to the east, and a Southern Pacific Railroad line to the south, which is used by the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Metrolink. The Metrolink Santa Clarita station is located adjacent to the project site and is shown in Figure 2. The project site is generally flat, with the exception of the northwestern portion of the site, which includes hillside terrain with native vegetation. The elevation across the project site ranges from approximately 1,185 to 1,295 feet above mean sea level (amsl) (GeoSoils Consultants, Inc. [GeoSoils] 2022). The project site is currently occupied by a decommissioned speedway track and associated structures and is now used primarily as the Santa Clarita Swap Meet, which is hosted every Tuesday and Sunday. The first outdoor market was held in 1963. The speedway was retired in 1995 due to decaying facilities and the grandstands were later demolished in 2012. The majority of the project site is paved with asphalt. Surrounding land uses include the Santa Clara River and floodplain followed by residential to the north and northeast, commercial to the southeast and northwest, Metrolink rail stop and undeveloped hillsides to the south, and a family counseling center to the northwest. The Santa Clarita region has a Mediterranean climate with cool, wet winters and hot, dry summers. August is the average warmest month with an average high temperature of 92 degrees Fahrenheit ff) and December is the coolest month on average with a low of 42°F. Rainfall occurs primarily between October and April, with the maximum average precipitation in January. The mean annual rainfall for the region is approximately 17.35 inches of rain per year (Los Angeles County Department of Public Works [LACDPW] 2022). Soils in the project site are characterized as a mix of Hanford series soils, river wash, sandy alluvial land, and the Saugus series soils (Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] 2023). The depth to groundwater on the project site ranges between approximately 20 to 30 feet below ground surface, and groundwater flow direction is toward the west-northwest (Dudek 2022). Yearly variation in depth to groundwater is common in the area where the project site is located; groundwater in this area is highly dependent on precipitation and recharge from the nearby Santa Clara River. 1.3 General Plan and Zoning Designations As identified in the City of Santa Clarita General Plan, the project site has the land use and zoning designation of Mixed Use Corridor (MXC) and is within the Jobs Creation Overlay Zone (JCOZ). The MXC zone is intended for mixed -use development along specified commercial corridors in which revitalization of underutilized parcels or aging buildings is encouraged. Mixed uses in the MXC may be either vertical or horizontal, provided that residential uses in these areas should be protected from high -volume arterial streets and should typically be located an appropriate distance from the roadway. Non-residential uses consistent with the MXC zone include those in the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) and Community Commercial (CC) districts. The residential density range in this zone is between 11 to 30 dwelling units per acre, and maximum floor area ratio for the non-residential portion of the development is 1.0. The purpose of the JCOZ is to support the General Plan objective of promoting the creation of strong regional and local economies via the implementation of strategic land use planning policies. Specifically, the JCOZ intends to 1) attract and promote the creation of high -quality jobs within the City's four targeted industries —aerospace, biomedical, entertainment, and technology —and other industries at the discretion of the Director; 2) enhance the city's overall jobs/housing balance; and 3) provide greater employment opportunities throughout the entire city. The project site is identified as a Suitable Site (Housing Site 23) in the Housing Element of the General Plan. A Suitable Site is a site that may be feasibly developed for housing to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The project site is suitable for very lower and moderate income units. Packet Pg. 287 2.b Riverview Development Project n,�f+ Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1.4 Project Description 1.4.1 Project Overview The Applicant proposes construction and operation of a mixed -use development with 318 single-family units and 126,790 square foot building that would be used by a light manufacturing tenant on an approximately 35.2-acre site (APN 2836-011-018). Table 1 provides a summary of project components, and each component is described further below. Table 1. Project Components Summary Project Component Description Proposed Buildout Single-family residential units 318 single-family residential units Manufacturing use 126,790 square feet of a light manufacturing use (one large building) Access, Circulation, Parking Site access Access via four driveways along Soledad Canyon Road: two driveways for residential uses and two for the manufacturing use Parking spaces and structure 819 residential parking spaces and 219 parking spaces for the light manufacturing use Grading Cut and fill Approximately 500,000 cubic yards of cut and 420,000 cubic yards of fill Utility Improvements Sewer connections Site connection into County Los Angeles County Sanitation District Drainage basins Four drainage basins for stormwater management are proposed, one at the southern border of PA-4/Lot-4 and PA-3/Lot-3, one at the southern border of PA-3/Lot-3, one at the southern border of PA-2/Lot-2 and one between PA-4/Lot-4 and the manufacturing portion of the site (Lot 5). Off -site Improvements Transit improvements Bus stop along eastbound Soledad Canyon Road, including a permanent shelter structure with a bench, trash receptacle, and lighting A new bus turnout along Soledad Canyon Road with a pedestrian path from the project site to the bus stop Street improvements Curbs and gutters, base paving, and 5-foot minimum sidewalks along Soledad Canyon Road and Commuter Way, as well as modification of the Soledad Canyon Road median The existing Southern California Edison —owned streetlights along Soledad Canyon Road and Commuter Way would be removed and replaced with current City standard streetlights Telecommunications conduit Telecommunications conduit for the installation or future installation of fiber-optic cable along Soledad Canyon Road 1.4.2 Proposed Buildout Figure 3 shows a general site plan for the project. The project site would be split into five planning areas/lots (PA/Lots). PA/Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 are located on the southeast two-thirds of the parcel and would be dedicated to residential development, including landscaping improvements, recreational amenities, and a community open space area. Packet Pg. 288 2.b Riverview Development Project n�ft Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 7 Al �'' -ate ,, ` • "", ,�+ S�I!y.. r a. 'a .; ,�' 'c "> � ,r e� e 4 r� y� ► ,� y\_ w AL dty _� c�R` c�"�p$� rpm (� `✓ �� i /`• \ x y a "*w l t �♦* iM1r4',`r i 5. .'mow ? y •-`\ j. \\•�L % �� ! was' ,� i+ '"o"p;4�n'�'R .� *, .; t„�.+.^., xY�;, � �{ �• � �� / '� w ® Project Area Los Angeles County, CA 0 200 40 NAD 1983 11TM Zone 11N Feet 34.4177°N 118.5296°W Meters 0 50 1tl0 N A 1:4,500 Base Map: ESRI ArcG15 OnUne. accessetl June2024 SW ] }� Updaierl: 6./20%2024 V`y, Prolea No. 00075841.000-PAS LaynUI. 075841_Si1eP1anMap_P ENVIIIONMENTALCONSULTANTS Figure 3. Site plan. Packet Pg. 289 2.b Riverview Development Project n,�f+ Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planning area/Lot 5 is located on the northwest one-third of the parcel and would be dedicated to a 126,790square foot building that would be used by a light manufacturing tenant. A total of 1,038 parking spaces would be provided, with 819 for residential uses and 219 for the light manufacturing building. Table 2 provides a summary of the project's proposed buildout by planning area Table 2. Proposed Buildout by Planning Area Planning Area/Lot Acreage Proposed Use Type Proposed Buildout Parking Spaces PA-1 8.64 Single Family Residential Attached 95 units 239 11 dwelling units per acre) PA-2 5.45 Single Family Residential Detached 60 units 162 PA-3 5.64 Single Family Residential Detached 62 units 157 PA-4 9.18 Single Family Residential Attached 101 units 261 Residential Total 28.91 acres 318 units 819 PA-5 6.49 Light Manufacturing Building 126,790 square feet 219 (including 10,000 square feet of office/mezzanine space) 1.4.3 Access, Circulation, and Parking Vehicular access to the residential portion of the project site would be provided by three proposed driveways along Soledad Canyon Road (Figure 4). The westerly residential driveway fter would allow right and left turns into the residential portions of the project site, btit only a4lew €er and right turns out of the project site. The center residential driveway would allow right and left turns into the residential portion of the project site and right turns out of the project site. The easterly driveway would be a full access, signalized driveway at Commuter Way and Soledad Canyon Road, which would be shared with the traffic to and from the adjacent Santa Clarita Metrolink Station. Vehicular access to the light manufacturing land use would be accessed via a main driveway at the northeast corner of PA-5/Lot-5 with a secondary right -turn in -and -out driveway at the northwest corner of PA-5/Lot-5. All driveways providing access to the site would be 36 feet wide, and internal driveways would be 28 feet wide. Driveways and drive aisles serving trucks and other large vehicles would be wider as necessary to accommodate these vehicles. Sidewalks would be provided on all internal roadways that are not alley -type driveways. A total of 819 parking spaces would be provided for the residential portions of the site. The manufacturing portion of the project site would provide 219 parking spaces including 44 electric vehicle spaces and 2 parking spaces for truck trailers. Clean Air Vehicle parking spaces and electric vehicle charging stations would be provided for both commercial and residential portions of the site. Short- and long-term bicycle parking would be provided for the commercial portions of the site, as required by the City. City standards indicate that bicycle parking spaces would be provided at minimum a ratio of one space per 25 vehicle parking stalls for nonresidential components, and one space per five units for residential components. Pedestrian access would be provided by the existing sidewalk along Soledad Canyon Road. The sidewalk would connect to the proposed driveways, which lead into the residential portion of the project site. Within the residential area, internal pathways would be located throughout the project site connecting to a series of open space and community recreation amenities, such as a central community lawn, a dog park, a community garden area, seating nooks, and reading areas. 7 Packet Pg. 290 2.b Riverview Development Project Q�a#Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration .� Extsttng CondrttonsV IL , k J0 ii A, $ \ k�' .. r - of . `�, � J • * �� � � - j S 1 l Ato :. • > h :; /y Traffic Direction • Traffic Signal Q Project Area Figure 4. Site access. Los Angeles County, CA NAD 1583 UTM Zone 11N 34.4182°N 118.5293°W Base Map: EMArcGlS Onlrna, accessed October 2024 lJpdated_ 10,a72024 Project N, 00075941-000-PAS Layout: 075d41 _51teAccessMap 0 175 350 F � Meters 0 37.5 75 P 1:3,800 SWC A ! ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 8 Packet Pg. 291 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Access to the Metrolink Station would be provided via a pedestrian pathway connecting to Commuter Way. A new bus turnout along Soledad Canyon Road would be provided at a proposed bus stop, as well as a pedestrian path from the project site to the bus stop. Other street improvements include curbs and gutters, base paving, and 5-foot minimum sidewalks along Soledad Canyon Road and Commuter Way. 1.4.4 Landscaping The development of the project site would include extensive landscaping consistent with those typical to support a residential community and a light manufacturing land use. The project design includes a landscaping plan, which provides for vegetation, plantings, amenities, and design features that would be included in the development. Features of the landscaping plan include, but are not limited to, community recreation areas, a dog park, shade structures, playgrounds, pool facilities, and the provision for a range of plant and tree species, which would be planted throughout the project site. In total, the landscaping plan shows that 647 trees would be planted, in addition to various shrubs, grasses, and groundcovers. 1.4.5 Utility and Drainage Improvements The project would involve construction of new utility lines, connection to existing utilities, and off -site improvements to upgrade utility infrastructure. The project would be served by the following public utilities: • Water — Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency • Sewer — Los Angeles County Sanitation District • Electric — Southern California Edison (SCE) • Gas — Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) • Telephone — AT&T • Cable TV — Charter Communications The project would connect to the Los Angeles County Sanitation District trunk sewer in Soledad Canyon Road. Prior- to isstianee of the fir-st building pefmil, the site would be wqttir-ed to be aaa&ied into th-e Cow" Sanita4ion Pis4fiet, per- the Development Review Commit4ee Comments (City of San�a Par -it -2n� The on -site sewer would be publicly maintained. The project would also involve construction of a new telecommunications conduit for the installation or future installation of fiber-optic cable due to street improvements associated with the project along Soledad Canyon Road. Four drainage basins for stormwater management are proposed, one at the southern border of PA-4/Lot-4 and PA-3/Lot-3, one at the southern border of PA-3/Lot-3, one at the southern border of PA-2/Lot-2 and one between PA-4/Lot-4 and the manufacturing portion of the site (Lot 5). 1.4.6 Grading The project would require approximately 500,000 cubic yards of cut and approximately 420,000 cubic yards of fill. Grading would consist of lowering the isolated hill area at the western part of the site and raising most of the remaining site. The hilltop would be lowered by up to 100 feet and the area to the east would be raised by up to approximately 10 to 11 feet. Cut slopes at a gradient of 2:1 are proposed at the southern side of the site to a maximum height of approximately 25 feet. Fill slopes are proposed at a Packet Pg. 292 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration gradient of 2:1 to a maximum height of approximately 10 feet. A 5-foot-high retaining wall is proposed along the northern part of the site, south of Soledad Canyon Road. 1.4.7 Lighting Exterior lighting would be subject to compliance with the Santa Clarita Municipal Code (Section 17.51.050), which requires all lights to be directed downward and be of a cut-off design to prevent illumination of other properties and off -site glare. In addition, the Municipal Code requires that all light fixtures at building entrances be on between sundown and 10 p.m. or 1 hour past the close of the business. All outdoor lighting would be required to be off between the hours of 10 p.m. and sunrise, except where uses are in operation past 10 p.m. 1.4.8 Off -site Improvements Off -site improvements would be needed to upgrade transportation and utility infrastructure along Soledad Canyon Road and Commuter Way and accommodate the project and its proposed uses. The project would encourage transit use and provide a bus stop along eastbound Soledad Canyon Road, including a permanent shelter structure with a bench, trash receptacle, and lighting. A new bus turnout along Soledad Canyon Road would also be provided at the proposed bus stop. The bus turnout would be located and designed per Transit Division specifications. The bus stop may require construction in a City right-of-way as approved by the City Engineer. A pedestrian path from the project site to the bus stop would also be provided. Other street improvements include curbs and gutters, base paving, and 5-foot minimum sidewalks along Soledad Canyon Road and Commuter Way, as well as modification of the Soledad Canyon Road median. Streetlights would be provided along Soledad Canyon Road and Commuter Way per the Applicant's Street Light Plan, as approved by the City's Engineering Services Division. Street lighting systems would be required to use light -emitting diode (LED) fixtures approved by the City's Streetlight Maintenance District Division to maximize efficiency. The existing SCE -owned streetlights along Soledad Canyon Road and Commuter Way would be removed and replaced with current City standard streetlights. As described above, the project would also construct a new telecommunications conduit for the installation of fiber-optic cable along Soledad Canyon Road. 1.4.9 Construction Schedule and Equipment The project would involve demolition of existing on -site structures, site preparation and grading, building construction, utility and infrastructure improvements, paving, and landscaping. It is anticipated that the project site would begin to be prepared and graded in late 2024, with this phase of construction concluded by December 2025. Building construction would begin in 2026 and be phased over four to five years, depending on market conditions. 1.5 Required Discretionary Approvals The City has the primary authority over the project's discretionary approvals. Pennits and approvals required for implementation include the following: • Architectural Design Review approval to ensure compliance with the City's architectural standards. • Conditional Use Permit approval to permit light manufacturing in the MXC zone. 10 Packet Pg. 293 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration • Development Review approval to review the proposed development, including the site plan. • Landscape Plan Review approval to ensure the project conforms with the City's landscaping standards. • Hillside Development Review Class II approval to review the proposed development on parcels that have an average cross slope of 10 to 15 percent. • Minor Use Permits (for both the residential and manufacturing components). • Oak Tree Permit Class IV approval to manage the removal of nine oak trees including one Heritage Oak. • Tentative Tract Map approval to allow new lots and/or condominium units. In addition, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) could require air permits for new stationary emission sources and portable equipment, if the equipment requires air permits. The project would be required to comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules and permitting_ requirements prior to operating. If a permit is required from SCAQMD for project equipment or features, the agency would be considered a Responsible Agency for the project. 1.6 Intended Uses of this Document The intent of this IS/MND is to 1) determine whether project implementation would result in potentially significant or significant impacts on the physical environment, and 2) incorporate mitigation measures into the project design, as necessary, to eliminate the project's potentially significant impacts or reduce them to a less -than -significant level. This document is intended to facilitate public involvement in the planning process by providing opportunities for public review and comment on the project. When the Lead Agency is a State agency or the project is of Statewide concern, the public review period shall be as long as the review period established by the State Clearinghouse, which is normally 30 days. Given the Lead Agency for this project is the City of Santa Clarita and not a State agency, this IS/MND will be circulated for at least 20 days for public and agency review, during which time individuals and agencies may submit comments on the adequacy of the environmental review. Following the public review period, the City will consider any comments received on the IS/MND when deciding whether to adopt the document. 11 Packet Pg. 294 2.b Riverview Development Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The proposed project could have a "potentially significant impact" for environmental factors checked below. Please refer to the attached pages for discussion on mitigation measures or project revisions to either reduce these impacts to less -than -significant levels or to require further study. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture and Forestry Resources ® Air Quality ® Biological Resources ® Cultural Resources ❑ Energy ® Geology and Soils ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ® Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology and Water Quality ❑ Land Use and Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ® Noise ❑ Population and Housing ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation ® Tribal Cultural Resources ❑ Utilities and Service Systems ❑ Wildfire ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ 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 measure 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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Date: 10/8/24 Signed: 12 Packet Pg. 295 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration I. Aesthetics Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than Environmental Issues Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact p Incorporated Impact p Except as provided in PRC Section 21099, would the project: (a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ (b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (c) In non -urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point.) 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 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Setting The project site is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Santa Clarita on a site that was historically a speedway racetrack. The visual character of the project site is dominated by concrete and asphalt paved parking lots and a decommissioned speedway. Ancillary structures such as concession stands, office buildings, and horse stables are located across the project site. Trees border the perimeter of the speedway and are sparsely located throughout the parking lots and along Soledad Canyon Road. The northeastern extent of the project site is an undeveloped lone hill, covered in sparse scrub vegetation. To the north of the project site across Soledad Canyon Road is the Santa Clara River, which is braided and supports riparian vegetation. The Santa Clara River floodplain is approximately 1,000 feet across at its widest point adjacent the project site. The project site is immediately surrounded by undeveloped land to the south and the Santa Clarita Metrolink Station and the Villa Metro housing development to the east. Undeveloped hillsides dominate the visual landscape to the southwest of the project site. Environmental Evaluation a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. Scenic vistas generally refer to views of expansive open space or other natural features, such as mountains, undeveloped hillsides, large natural water bodies, or coastlines. Scenic vistas generally refer to views that are accessible from public vantage points, such as public roadways and parks. The city is aesthetically characterized by scenic mountains and canyons, including backdrops, hillsides, and ridgelines. These landforms are considered important components of the city's scenic views. However, the City's General Plan Conservation Element does not specifically list any local scenic vistas (City of Santa Clarita 2011a). The City also designates certain ridgelines subject to development restrictions. There are no such protected ridgelines within the project site (City of Santa Clarita 2023). The project would involve the alteration of a hill located at the northwestern portion of the parcel, with the reduction of approximately 100 feet in height to accommodate the manufacturing portion of the project. The view from Soledad Canyon Road would be altered by the removal of this hill, however the City does not consider the existing site to be a scenic vista. The alteration of this hill would not change the viewshed significantly, as the project site is framed by mountainous landscape on the far side 13 Packet Pg. 296 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration of the railroad tracks. The proposed project would not affect a scenic vista and therefore impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. The nearest officially designated state scenic highway is a portion of State Highway 2 that extends through the San Gabriel Mountains, beginning just north of the city of La Canada Flintridge (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2019). The portion of State Highway 2 that is officially designated as a State Scenic Highway is located approximately 22 miles southeast of the project site. The nearest eligible state scenic highway is Interstate 5, which is approximately 2.6 miles west of the project site. Due to distance and intervening development/topography, the project site is not within the viewshed of a State Scenic Highway, and the proposed project would not substantially affect any scenic resources within State Highway 2 or Interstate 5. Therefore, no impact on scenic resources within a state scenic highway would occur as a result of the proposed project. c) In non -urbanized areas, would the project 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 a publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? No Impact. Per PRC Section 21071, an "urbanized area" is defined as "(a) An incorporated city that meets either of the following criteria: (1) Has a population of at least 100,000 persons [or] (2) Has a population of less than 100,000 persons if the population of that city and not more than two contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least 100,000 persons." Because Santa Clarita is an incorporated city that has a population that exceeds 100,000 persons, the project site is located within an urbanized area. Therefore, pursuant to this threshold, a potentially significant impact to visual character only would occur if the project were to conflict with applicable and/or other City of Santa Clarita regulations governing scenic quality. Implementation of the project would result in the visual conversion of the site from parking lots and a speedway, to a housing development and manufacturing building with associated parking, access roads, utility infrastructure, landscaping, exterior lighting, and signage. The project would be compatible with the size, scale, and aesthetic/decorative architectural and landscaping features of other existing high - density housing subdivisions constructed to the north and east of the project site. Furthermore, the project would be required to comply with the applicable development standards and design guidelines contained in the Santa Clarita Zoning Ordinance, which regulates the visual quality of new development and ensures that new development does not detract from any scenic attributes/qualities in the surrounding area. Because the project would be developed in an area that is generally urbanized and the project would not conflict with applicable regulations governing scenic quality, impacts would be less than significant. d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less than Significant Impact. The project is located within an urbanized area with moderate levels of ambient lighting, including street lighting, vehicle headlights, architectural and security lighting, and indoor building illumination, all of which are common to densely populated areas. Under existing conditions, the project site contains lights in the parking lot and stadium -style light towers at the speedway. The lights are used as needed during events are hosted at the speedway. In addition, streetlights are present along the project site's frontage with Soledad Canyon Road. The Applicant 14 Packet Pg. 297 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration proposes to develop the site with a subdivision including 318 individual residential units and a 126,790square foot manufacturing building, 10,000 square feet of which would be dedicated to office space. New lighting elements to illuminate parking areas, building entrances, and residential uses would be introduced to the project site. The development would be required to comply with lighting requirements as set forth in the City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 17.51.050. All lights would be required to be directed downward and be of a cut-off design to prevent illumination of other properties and off -site glare. In addition, the Municipal Code requires that all light fixtures at building entrances be on between sundown and 10 p.m. or 1 hour past the close of the business. Outdoor lighting would be required to be off between the hours of 10 p.m. and sunrise, except where uses are in operation past 10 p.m. Mandatory compliance with the Municipal Code would ensure that the project would not introduce any permanent design features that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. This impact would be less than significant. With respect to glare, a majority of project building materials would consist of concrete panels, which are non -reflective. While window glazing has a potential to result in minor glare effects, such effects would not adversely affect daytime views of surrounding properties, including motorists along adjacent roadways, because proposed buildings would be set back from adjacent roadways at a distance, and proposed landscaping would provide a buffer between all proposed glass surfaces and the public right-of- way. Thus, glare impacts from proposed building elements would be less than significant. Conclusion The project would not result in a significant adverse impact to aesthetics; no mitigation measures are necessary. II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources Potentially Less Than Less Than Environmental Issues Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact p Incorporated p In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: (a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Williamson Act contract? (c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 forest land (as defined in PRC Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by PRC Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? (d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ land to non -forest use? 15 Packet Pg. 298 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than Environmental Issues Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact (e) Involve other changes in the existing environment ❑ 0 ❑ 0 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? Setting The project site is designated Urban Built -Up Land classification by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (California Department of Conservation [CDOC] 2018). The project site is not located on land designated as Williamson Act contract land and is not designated or zoned as agricultural land. Additionally, the project site is not located on land designated as forest land or timberland and is not currently used for agricultural purposes. Environmental Evaluation 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? No Impact. The project site is not within Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, according to the CDOC's Farmland Monitoring and Mapping Program (CDOC 2018). The Farmland Monitoring and Mapping Program designates the project site as "Urban and Built -Up Land." Examples of Urban and Built -Up Land include commercial, residential, industrial, airports, institutional facilities, golf courses, cemeteries, sewage treatment, water control structures, and sanitary landfills. No conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use would take place within the project site. Thus, no impact would occur, and no Mitigation measures are necessary. b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. As previously noted, the project site is zoned as MXC. No land is zoned for forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production within or near the project site. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning, or cause the rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. No impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are necessary. c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in PRC Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by PRC Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? No Impact. As stated in the response above, the project site is zoned as MXC. No land is zoned for forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production within or near the project site. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning, or cause the rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. No impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are necessary. 16 Packet Pg. 299 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? Less than significant impact. The project site is previously developed and does not support forest land on -site. Trees are located around the speedway providing intermittent shade, and along Soledad Canyon Road. There are 10 protected oak trees on the project site. Nine of the 10 oak trees are proposed for removal, including one Heritage Oak; an Oak Tree Permit Class IV approval would be acquired for their removal. As part of the project design, approximately 647 new trees would be planted throughout the subdivision and surrounding community areas. With the removal of sparse trees, and planting of new trees as part of project landscaping, the project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use, and impacts would be less than significant. 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? No Impact. The project site is not zoned for agricultural use and no agricultural activities occur on -site or within the project vicinity. Additionally, the project site is not zoned for forest land and there are no forestry operations occurring on -site or within the project vicinity. Therefore, no Farmland or forest land would be converted or otherwise affected by the project. No impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are necessary. Conclusion The project would not result in a significant adverse impact to agriculture and forestry resources; no mitigation measures are necessary. III. Air Quality Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than No Environmental Issues Significant with Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact 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 ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ applicable air quality plan? (b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? The analysis for this section is based on the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum for the Riverview Development in Santa Clarita, California (LSA 2024a) and the Health Risk Assessment for the Riverview Development in Santa Clarita, California (LSA 2024b) which are both included in Appendix A. 17 Packet Pg. 300 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Setting The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes all of Orange County and the urban portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Air quality in the SCAB is regulated by the Sout>, rveast Air- Qttalit-y r,r.,r.,,.oment Dist iet (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD has adopted thresholds to address the significance of air quality impacts resulting from a project. A project would result in a substantial contribution to an existing air quality violation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for ozone (03), which is a nonattainment pollutant, if the project's construction mass emissions would exceed SCAQMD's volatile organic compound (VOC) or oxides of nitrogen (NOx) significance thresholds (Table 3). Table 3. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds Criteria Pollutants Mass Daily Thresholds Pollutant Construction (pounds per day) Operation (pounds per day) VOCs 75 55 NOx 100 55 CO 550 550 sox 150 150 PM10 150 150 PM2.5 55 55 Lead* 3 3 Toxic Air Contaminants and Odor Thresholds TACst Maximum incremental cancer risk>_ 10 in 1 million Cancer burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas >_ 1 in 1 million) Chronic and acute hazard index >_ 1.0 (project increment) Odor Project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants* NO2 1-hour average SCAQMD is in attainment; project is significant if it causes or contributes to an exceedance of the NO2 annual arithmetic mean following attainment standards: 0.18 ppm (state) 0.030 ppm (state) and 0.0534 ppm (federal) CO 1-hour average SCAQMD is in attainment; project is significant if it causes or contributes to an exceedance of the CO 8-hour average following attainment standards: 20 ppm (state) and 35 ppm (federal) 9.0 ppm (state /federal) PM10 24-hour average 10.4 pg/m3 (construction)§ PM10 annual average 2.5 pg/m3 (operation) 1.0 pg/m3 PM2.5 24-hour average 10.4 pg/m3 (construction)§ 2.5 pg/m3 (operation) Source: SCAQMD (2019). Notes: SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; VOCs = volatile organic compounds; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM1o= coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; TAC = toxic air contaminant; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; ppm = parts per million; p/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions thresholds for industrial projects, as added in the March 2015 revision to the SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, were not include included in this table as they are addressed within the GHG emissions analysis and not the air quality study. * = The phaseout of leaded gasoline started in 1976. Since gasoline no longer contains lead, the project is not anticipated to result in impacts related to lead; therefore, it is not discussed in this analysis. t = TACs include carcinogens and non -carcinogens. $ = Ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants are based on SCAQMD Rule 1303, Table A-2, unless otherwise stated. § = Ambient air quality threshold is based on SCAQMD Rule 403. 18 Packet Pg. 301 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration These emission -based thresholds for 03 precursors are intended to serve as a surrogate for an "ozone significance threshold" (i.e., the potential for adverse 03 impacts to occur) because 03 itself is not emitted directly, and the effects of an individual project's emissions of 03 precursors (VOCs and NO,,) on 03 levels in ambient air cannot be determined through air quality models or other quantitative methods. The SCAB is also nonattainment for the state coarse particulate matter (PM,o) and federal and state fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standards. In addition to the emission -based thresholds listed in Table 3, SCAQMD also recommends the evaluation of localized air quality impacts to sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the project site as a result of construction activities. Such an evaluation is referred to as a localized significance threshold (LST) analysis. SCAQMD published its Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology in July 2008, recommending that all air quality analyses include an assessment of air quality impacts to nearby sensitive receptors.8 This guidance was used to analyze potential localized air quality impacts associated with construction of the proposed project. Localized significance thresholds (LSTs) are developed based on the size or total area of the emission source, the ambient air quality in the source -receptor area (SRA), and the distance to a project site. LSTs are based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant within the project SRA and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. For the proposed project, the appropriate SRA for the LST is the Santa Clarita Valley area (SRA 13). SCAQMD provides LST screening tables for 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500-meter source -receptor distances. The nearest sensitive receptor land use is the Action Family Rehab facility, located approximately 65 feet west of the project site. In cases where receptors may be closer than 82 feet (25 meters), any distance within the 82-foot (25- meter) buffer zone can be used. As such, the minimum distance of 25 meters was used for purposes of the LST assessment. Based on the anticipated construction equipment that would be used onsite, it is assumed that the maximum daily disturbed acreage for the proposed project would be 3.5 acres. As such, a 3.5-acre threshold was derived for construction of the proposed project using interpolation. The maximum 5-acre threshold was applied for project operation. Table 4 lists the emissions thresholds that apply during project construction and operation. Table 4. Localized Significance Thresholds for Source -Receptor Area 13 (Santa Clarita Valley) Emission Source Pollutant Emissions Threshold (lbs/day) NOx c0 PM10 PM2.5 Construction 205.0 1,261.0 9.0 5.0 Operations 246.0 1,644.0 3.0 2.0 Source: SCAQMD (2008). Notes: Source Receptor Area 13, based on a 3.5acre construction disturbance daily area and 5-acre operational disturbance area, at a distance of 25 meters from the project boundary. NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter. Environmental Evaluation a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the SCAB, which includes the non -desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties and all of Orange County, and is within the jurisdictional boundaries of SCAQMD. 19 Packet Pg. 302 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SCAQMD administers SCAB's Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which is a comprehensive document outlining an air pollution control program for attaining all CAAQS and NAAQS. The most recent adopted AQMP for the SCAB is the 2016 AQMP (SCAQMD 2017), which was adopted by SCAQMD's Governing Board in March 2017. The 2016 AQMP focuses on available, proven, and cost- effective alternatives to traditional strategies while seeking to achieve multiple goals in partnership with other entities seeking to promote reductions in greenhouse gases (GHGs) and toxic risk, as well as efficiencies in energy use, transportation, and goods movement (SCAQMD 2017). The purpose of a consistency finding with the AQMP is to determine if a project is consistent with the assumptions and objectives of the regional air quality plans, and if it would interfere with the region's ability to comply with federal and state air quality standards. SCAQMD has established criteria for determining consistency with the currently applicable AQMP in Chapter 12, Sections 12.2 and 12.3 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD 1993). These criteria are: • Whether the project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of the ambient air quality standards or interim emission reductions in the AQMP. • Whether the project would exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase. To address the first criterion, project -generated criteria air pollutant emissions have been estimated and analyzed for significance and are addressed below in the analysis for threshold b). Detailed results of this California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) 2022.1 Emissions Outputs used for this analysis are included in Appendix A. As presented in threshold b), construction and operation of the project would not generate criteria air pollutant emissions that exceed SCAQMD's thresholds. The second criterion regarding the project's potential to exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase is primarily assessed by determining consistency between the project's land use designations and its potential to generate population growth. In general, projects are considered consistent with, and not in conflict with or obstructing implementation of, the AQMP if the growth in socioeconomic factors is consistent with the underlying regional plans used to develop the AQMP (per Consistency Criterion No. 2 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook). SCAQMD primarily uses demographic growth forecasts for various socioeconomic categories (e.g., population, housing, employment by industry) developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG) for its Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) (SLAG 2020a). This document, which is based on general plans for cities and counties in the SCAB, is used by SCAQMD to develop the AQMP emissions inventory (SCAQMD 2017). The SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS and the associated Regional Growth Forecast are generally consistent with the local plans; therefore, the 2016 AQMP is generally consistent with local government plans. The project site is located within the City's MXC zone, which allows the use of the property as proposed. In addition, the implementation of the project would not generate an increase in growth demographics that would conflict with existing projections within the region. Accordingly, the project is consistent with the SCAG RTP/SCS forecasts used in the SCAQMD AQMP development. In summary, based on the considerations presented for the two criteria, impacts relating to the project's potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable AQMP would be less than significant. 20 Packet Pg. 303 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration b) Would the project 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? Less than Significant Impact. Air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. The nonattamment status of regional pollutants is a result of past and present development, and SCAQMD develops and implements plans for future attainment of ambient air quality standards. Based on these considerations, project -level thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants are relevant in the determination of whether a project's individual emissions would have a cumulatively significant impact on air quality. Construction Emissions Proposed construction activities would result in the temporary addition of pollutants to the local airshed caused by on -site sources (i.e., off -road construction equipment, soil disturbance, and VOC off -gassing) and off -site sources (i.e., on -road vendor trucks, and worker vehicle trips). Construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity; the specific type of operation; and, for particulate matter, the prevailing weather conditions. Therefore, such emission levels can only be approximately estimated. The CalEEMod Version 2022.1 was used to estimate emissions from construction of the project. Internal combustion engines used by construction equipment, trucks, and worker vehicles would result in emissions of VOCs, NO, CO, PM,o, and PM2.5. PM,o and PM2.5 emissions would also be generated by entrained dust, which results from the exposure of earth surfaces to wind from the direct disturbance and movement of soil. The project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 to control dust emissions generated during any dust -generating activities. Standard construction practices that would be employed to reduce fugitive dust emissions include watering of the active dust areas two times per day, with additional watering depending on weather conditions. The CalEEMod default assumptions were used for estimating fugitive dust emissions from grading on -site. The project would involve application of architectural coating (e.g., paint and other finishes) for painting the interior and exterior of the building as well as parking lot striping. The contractor is required to procure architectural coatings from a supplier that complies with the requirements of SCAQMD's Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings). Table 5 presents the estimated maximum daily construction emissions generated during construction of the project. Details of the emission calculations are provided in Appendix A. Table 5. Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions VOc NOx co sox PM,o PM2.5 Year (pounds per day) Year 1 (analysis assumed 2025) 8.2 50.0 40.7 0.02 22.2 5.0 Year 2 (analysis assumed 2026) 42.3 23.1 34.4 <0.1 4.9 1.7 Maximum 42.3 50.0 40.7 0.02 22.2 5.0 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Note: VOC = volatile organic compound; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PMio = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter. As shown in Table 5, project construction would not exceed SCAQMD's daily thresholds. The construction schedule that was used in the air quality analysis contained in Appendix A was based on construction beginning in January 2025 and closing June 2026. However, construction is anticipated 21 Packet Pg. 304 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration be phased and is expected to occur over several additional years. Because the air quality analysis assumed all phases of construction (grading, site preparation, building construction, paving, and architectural coating/painting) in a single year (i.e., 2026), it is a very conservative analysis. A longer construction duration, as anticipated for the project and described in Section 1.4, Project Description, would only decrease the air quality emissions anticipated for the project. Therefore, construction impacts associated with criteria air pollutant emissions would be less than significant. Operational Emissions Emissions from the operational phase of the project were estimated using CalEEMod. Operational year 2026 was assumed to be the first year following completion of construction. Table 6 presents the emissions during operation. Table 6. Estimated Maximum Daily Operation Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Emissions Source VOc NOx CO sox (pounds per day) PM10 PM2.5 Area 15.8 0.0 23.3 <0.1 <0.01 <0.1 Energy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mobile 9.7 8.9 95.9 0.2 22.0 5.7 Offroad 1.0 6.5 8.0 <0.1 0.2 0.2 Stationary 0.1 0.3 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0,1 Total 26.6 15.7 127.5 0.3 22.2 5.9 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Note: VOC = volatile organic compound; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PMio = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter. As shown in Table 6, the project would not exceed SCAQMD's significance thresholds during operations. Therefore, operational impacts associated with criteria air pollutant emissions would be less than significant. Cumulative Impacts In considering cumulative impacts from the project, the analysis must specifically evaluate a project's contribution to the cumulative increase in pollutants for which the SCAB is designated as nonattainment for the CAAQS and NAAQS. If a project's emissions exceed SCAQMD's significance thresholds, it would be considered to have a cumulatively considerable contribution to nonattainment status in the SCAB. If a project does not exceed thresholds and is determined to have less -than -significant, project - specific impacts, it may still contribute to a significant cumulative impact on air quality. The basis for analyzing the proposed project's cumulatively considerable contribution is if the project's contribution accounts for a considerable proportion of the cumulative total emissions (i.e., it represents a "cumulatively considerable contribution" to the cumulative air quality impact) and consistency with SCAQMD's 2016 AQMP, which addresses cumulative emissions in the SCAB. The SCAB has been designated as a federal nonattainment area for 03 and PM2.5 and a state nonattainment area for 03, PM,o, and PM2.5. The nonattainment status is the result of cumulative emissions from various sources of air pollutants and their precursors within the SCAB, including motor vehicles, off -road equipment, and commercial and industrial facilities. Construction of the project would generate VOC and NOx emissions (which are precursors to 03) and emissions of PM,o and PM2.5. As indicated in Tables 5 22 Packet Pg. 305 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and 6, project -generated construction and operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD's emission - based significance thresholds for VOCs, NOx, CO, PMIo, or PM2.5. Cumulative localized impacts would potentially occur if a construction project were to occur concurrently with another off -site project. Construction schedules for potential future projects near the project site are currently unknown; therefore, potential construction impacts associated with two or more simultaneous projects would be speculative. However, future projects would be subject to CEQA and would require an air quality analysis and, where necessary, mitigation if the project would exceed SCAQMD's significance thresholds. Criteria air pollutant emissions associated with construction activity of future projects would be reduced through implementation of control measures required by SCAQMD. Cumulative PMIo and PM2.5 emissions would be reduced because all future projects would be subject to SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), which sets forth general and specific requirements for all construction sites in the SCAQMD. Since criteria pollutant mass emissions impacts shown in Tables 5 and 6 would not be expected to exceed any of the air quality significance thresholds, cumulative air quality impacts would also be expected to be less than significant. SCAQMD cumulative air quality significance thresholds are the same as project - specific air quality significance thresholds. Therefore, potential adverse impacts from implementing the project would not be "cumulatively considerable" as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(1) for air quality impacts. Per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(4), the mere existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone shall not constitute substantial evidence that the project's incremental effects are cumulatively considerable. The SCAQMD's guidance on addressing cumulative impacts for air quality is as follows: "As Lead Agency, the SCAQMD uses the same significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts for all environmental topics analyzed in an Environmental Assessment or EIR.... Projects that exceed the project -specific significance thresholds are considered by the SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable. This is the reason project -specific and cumulative significance thresholds are the same. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the project -specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant" (SCAQMD 2003:D-3). Based on the previous considerations, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions of nonattainment pollutants, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Sensitive receptors are those individuals more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the population at large. People most likely to be affected by air pollution include children, the elderly, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. According to SCAQMD, sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long-term healthcare facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes (SCAQMD 1993). The nearest sensitive receptor land use is the Action Family Rehab facility, located approximately 65 feet northwest of the project site and existing single and multi -family residences located approximately 1,110 feet northeast of the project site's northern boundary. Additional sensitive receptors include single and multi -family residences located in the Villa Metro Gated Community approximately 1,220 feet east of the project site's eastern boundary. The SCAQMD recommends the evaluation of localized air quality impacts to sensitive receptors such as residential land uses in the immediate vicinity of a project site as a result of construction activities. The thresholds are based on standards established by the SCAQMD in its LST Methodology and are measured against emissions that occur on a specific project site. However, as described by the SCAQMD, the use of LSTs is voluntary and only applies to projects that must undergo an environmental analysis 23 Packet Pg. 306 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA and are five acres or less. The SCAQMD recommends that proposed projects larger than five acres in area undergo air dispersion modeling to determine localized air quality (SCAQMD n.d.). The project site is greater than 5 acres; however, a localized significance analysis was prepared for informational screening purposes. As stated by the SCAQMD, if the calculated emissions for the proposed construction or operational activities are below the LST emission levels found on the LST lookup tables, then the proposed construction or operation activity is not significant. Proposed projects whose calculated emission budgets for the proposed construction or operational activities are above the LST emission levels found in the LST lookup tables should not assume that the project would necessarily generate adverse impacts. Detailed emission calculations and/or air dispersion modeling may demonstrate that pollutant concentrations are below recommended thresholds (SCAQMD 2008). Project construction and operation emission were compared to the LST screening tables in SRA 13, based on a 25-meter source -receptor distance. The results of the LST analysis are summarized in Tables 7. As shown in Tables 7, results of the LST analysis indicate that the proposed project would result in an exceedance of the SCAQMD LST for PMto during project construction but would not result in an exceedance of the SCAQMD LST during project operation. However, as stated by the SCAQMD, if the project exceeds any applicable LST when the mass rate look -up tables are used as a screening analysis, then project specific air quality modeling may be performed. As discussed above, proposed projects whose calculated emission budgets for the proposed construction or operational activities are above the LST emission levels found in the LST lookup tables should not assume that the project would necessarily generate adverse impacts. Detailed emission calculations and/or air dispersion modeling may demonstrate that pollutant concentrations are below localized significance levels. As such, a project -specific Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was prepared for the proposed project (LSA 2024b). The results of the HRA are summarized in Table 7, which presents conditions prior to mitigation. Table 7. Localized Significance Thresholds Analysis for the Project (Prior to Application of MM AIR-1) Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day) LST Criteria (pounds per day) Exceeds LST? Construction NOxx 48.8 205.0 No CO 35.3 1,261.0 No PM10 16.5 9.0 Yes PM2.5 3.1 5.0 No Operation NOx 7.3 246.0 No CO 36.7 1,644.0 No PM10 1.3 3.0 No PM2.5 0.5 2.0 No Source: LSA (2024a) Notes: LST = localized significance threshold; NOx = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5= fine particulate matter. See Appendix A for detailed results. Source Receptor Area 13, based on a 3.5-acre construction disturbance daily area, at a distance of 25 meters from the project boundary. The emissions represent worst -case operating scenario during construction. 24 Packet Pg. 307 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration As shown in the table, construction emissions for PM,o could exceed the applicable LST. As demonstrated in the HRA, with implementation of MM AIR-1, all health risk levels to nearby receptors from project -related emissions of TACs would be below the SCAQMD's thresholds. However, with implementation of MM AIR-1, all health risk levels to nearby receptors from project -related emissions would be below the SCAQMD's thresholds. As such, no significant health risk would occur from project - related emissions with implementation of MM AIR-1. Carbon Monoxide Hotspots Traffic -congested roadways and intersections have the potential to generate localized high levels of CO. Localized areas where ambient concentrations exceed federal and/or state standards for CO are termed CO "hotspots." CO transport is extremely limited and disperses rapidly with distance from the source. Under certain extreme meteorological conditions, however, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthy levels affecting sensitive receptors. Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with severely congested intersections operating at an unacceptable level of service (LOS) (LOS E or worse is unacceptable). Projects contributing to adverse traffic impacts may result in the formation of a CO hotspot. Additional analysis of CO hotspot impacts would be conducted if a project would result in a significant impact or contribute to an adverse traffic impact at a signalized intersection that would potentially subject sensitive receptors to CO hotspots. Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 93.123(c)(5), Procedures for Determining Localized CO, PM10, and PM2.5 Concentrations (Hot -Spot Analysis), states that "CO, PM10, and PM2.5 hot -spot analyses are not required to consider construction -related activities, which cause temporary increases in emissions. Each site which is affected by construction -related activities shall be considered separately, using established `Guideline' methods. Temporary increases are defined as those which occur only during the construction phase and last five years or less at any individual site" (40 CFR 93.123). While project construction would involve on -road vehicle trips from trucks and workers during construction, construction activities would last five years or less and would not require a project -level hotspot analysis In addition, at the time that the SCAQMD Handbook (1993) was published, the SCAB was designated nonattainment under the CAAQS and NAAQS for CO. In 2007, the SCAQMD was designated in attainment for CO under both the CAAQS and NAAQS as a result of the steady decline in CO concentrations in the SCAB due to turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities. Based on CO modeling the SCAQMD conducted for the 2003 AQMP, CO concentrations at congested intersections would not exceed the 1-hour or 8-hour CO CAAQS unless projected daily traffic would be at least over 100,000 vehicles per day (SCAQMD 2003). Because the project is not anticipated to increase daily traffic volumes at any study intersection to more than 100,000 vehicles per day (Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. 2023), a CO hotspot is not anticipated to occur. Toxic Air Contaminants A toxic substance released into the air is considered a toxic air contaminant JAC). Adverse health effects associated with exposure to TACs may include carcinogenic (i.e., cancer -causing) and noncarcinogenic effects. Noncarcinogenic effects typically affect one or more target organ systems and may be experienced on either short-term (acute) or long-term (chronic) exposure to a given TAC. As previously noted, an HRA was prepared for the project (LSA 2024b; see Appendix A). As demonstrated in the HRA, with implementation of MM AIR-1 all health risk levels to nearby receptors from project -related emissions of TACs would be well below the SCAQMD's HRA thresholds. As these results show, with implementation of MM AIR-1, all health risk levels to nearby receptors from project- 25 Packet Pg. 308 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration related emissions of TACs would be well below the SCAQMD's HRA thresholds. As such, no significant health risk would occur from project -related emissions. Conclusion Based on the analysis of LSTs, CO hotspots, and toxic air contaminants, the prcject's construction emissions for PM,o could exceed the applicable LST. However, with implementation of MM AIR-1, all health risk levels to nearby receptors from project -related emissions would be below the SCAQMD's thresholds. In addition, no other significant health risk impacts would have the potential of occurring. Impacts related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant with implementation of MM AIR-1. d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Less than Significant Impact. The project could have a significant impact if it would create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD 1993) identifies certain land uses as sources of odors. Land uses and industrial operations associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food - processing plants, chemical plants, composting operations, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding facilities (SCAQMD 1993). Construction activities associated with the project may generate detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust and architectural coatings. However, the nearest sensitive receptor land use is located approximately 650 feet west of the project site and construction -related odors would be short-term in nature and cease upon project completion. The project would be required to comply with CCR Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485, which requires either shutting off construction equipment when not in use or reducing the idling time to no more than 5 minutes. This would reduce the detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust. The project would also be required to comply with the SCAQMD Rule 1113—Architectural Coating, which would minimize odor impacts from emissions of reactive organic gases during architectural coating. Any odor impacts to existing adjacent land uses would be short term and not substantial. Therefore, 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. Conclusion The project would include implementation of MM AIR -I to address potentially significant air quality impacts. Upon implementation of this project -specific mitigation measure, impacts to air quality would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measures MM AIR-1 Diesel -powered Construction Equipment Requirements. During construction of the proposed project, the project contractor shall ensure all off -road diesel -powered construction equipment of 50 horsepower or more used for the project construction at a minimum meets the California Air Resources Board Tier 2 emissions standards equipped with level 3 diesel particulate filters. Verification shall be provided to the City of Santa Clarita Planning Division for confirmation, to the satisfaction of City staff. 26 Packet Pg. 309 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration IV. Biological Resources Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant with Environmental Issues Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact p Incorporated p Would the project: (a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 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 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? This section is based on Appendix B: Biological Resources Reports. Refer to Appendix B for full details of existing conditions, applicable regulations, and methodologies. A brief summary is provided below. Setting This section is based, in part, on the following documents included in Appendix B: • Biological Resources Technical Report: Riverview Project Prepared by Dudek, dated March 2024 (Dudek 2024a). • Focused California Gnatcatcher Survey Results for the Riverview Development Project, City of Santa Clarita, California, prepared by Dudek, dated July 31, 2023 (Dudek 2023a). Refer to Appendix B for full details of existing conditions, applicable regulations, and methodologies. A brief summary is provided below. For this section, "biological study area" refers to the project site and a 500-foot buffer around the project site. Nine vegetation communities and four land cover types were identified within the biological study area during the survey: California Buckwheat Scrub (Eriogonum fasciculatum Shrubland), California Sagebrush Scrub (Artemisia californica Shrubland), Chamise Chaparral (Adenostoma fasciculatum Shrubland), Coast Live Oak Woodland and Forest (Quercus agrifolia Forest and Woodland), Fremont Cottonwood Forest and Woodland (Populus fremontii- Fraxinus velutina- Salix gooddingii Forest and Woodland Alliance), Scale Broom 27 Packet Pg. 310 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Lepidospartum squamatum) scrub, eucalyptus —tree of heaven —black locust groves (Eucalyptus spp. Ailanthus altissima Robinia pseudoacacia), pepper tree or Myoporum groves (Schinus (mole, terebinthifolius) Myoporum laetum), Upland Mustards or Star -Thistle Fields (Brassica nigraCentaurea (solstitialis, melitensis) Herbaceous Semi -Natural), disturbed habitat, parks and ornamental plantings, urban/developed, and non -vegetated channel. These vegetation communities and land cover types are described in the Biological Resources Technical Report (see Appendix B). Eleven species of wildlife were observed during the survey. Some common bird species observed were American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), California scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), lesser goldfinch (Spinus psaltria), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna), and house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus). No amphibian species were observed. One reptile species was observed: western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis). One mammal species, California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), was observed. Other common mammal species that could occur within the biological study area include coyote (Canis latrans), common raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginica), with the possibility of bats foraging over the biological study area. Thirty special -status plant and 45 wildlife species have potential to occur in the area mapped on the USGS 7.5-minute Newhall quadrangle and the surrounding eight USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles, as well as wildlife species included within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaQ list generated for the biological study area (California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] 2022; California Native Plant Society 2022; USFWS 2022). No special -status bird species were observed within the biological study area during the survey. Eleven species have a moderate or high potential to occur within the biological study area, with five of those species with potential to occur within the project site. Environmental Evaluation a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction of the project would have the potential to result in direct removal of special -status plant species if present within the project site. In addition, construction activities have the potential to result in direct (e.g., take) or indirect (e.g., noise, dust, light pollution) disturbance to special -status wildlife species if present within the project site. Potential impacts to special -status plant and wildlife species and the mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to less than significant are described below. Direct Impacts SPECIAL -STATUS PLANTS One special -status plant species, slender mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis), has a moderate potential to occur in the biological study area (Dudek 2024a). The species could be directly impacted during vegetation removal and grading; however, this portion of the project site is not expected to support a large population of the species due to the limited suitable habitat present (approximately I I acres) and the density of the shrubs that compose those habitats limiting interspatial potential for the species to occur. As such, impacts to slender mariposa lily would be less than significant with the 28 Packet Pg. 311 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-1 (Pre -Construction Rare Plant Survey and Seed Collection). SPECIAL -STATUS WILDLIFE Four species have a moderate potential to occur (Southern California legless lizard [Anniella stebbinsi], California glossy snake [Arizona elegans], Blainville's horned lizard [Phrynosoma blainvillii], and San Diego desert woodrat [Neotoma lepida intermedia]) and one species (coastal whiptail [Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri]) has a high potential to occur in the project site. One mammal species (San Diego desert woodrat) has a moderate potential to occur. These species are all designated as CDFW Species of Special Concern. Due to the presence of suitable habitat, and/or documented occurrences of these species within the vicinity of the project site, there is potential for these species to occur on site. If these species are determined to occur on the project site prior to construction, project -related impacts could be considered significant if the impact causes the greater population of either species to drop below self-sustaining levels. These species are vulnerable to mortality or injury during vegetation and ground -disturbing activities associated with construction in the native vegetation communities. It is highly unlikely that short-term construction activities could cause the greater population of these special -status species to drop below self-sustaining levels due to the relatively small area of construction activity and the short-term nature of the construction schedule. However, mortality or injury to species individuals is a reasonable possibility, so direct permanent impacts are possible and would be significant. Implementation of MM BIO-2 (Pre -construction Wildlife Survey) and MM BIO-3 (Biological Monitoring) would reduce impacts to less than significant. Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) habitat exists in the vicinity of the project site, and focused surveys were conducted between April 12 and June 16, 2023. The coastal California gnatcatcher is a CDFW Species of Special Concern and is listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. As shown in the Focused California Gnatcatcher Survey Results (see Appendix B), no California gnatcatchers were observed or audibly detected during the surveys. Coastal California gnatcatcher is currently considered absent from the biological study area, and it is not expected to occur on the project site. Therefore, the potential for impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher would be less than significant. On July 11, 2024, CDFW requested additional information regarding the Crotch's bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), a candidate species under the California Endangered Species Act. A habitat assessment and survey were conducted on July 19, 2024 by Helix Environmental Planning. As well, two follow-on surveys were completed at least two weeks apart within the Crotch's bumble bee colony active period (April to August). Crotch's bumble bee surveys were conducted b shy walking throughout suitable habitat within the project site, accounting for suitable Crotch's bumble bee nesting locations, pollen and nectar sources, and foraging bumble bee activity. Focused surveys were completed on August 23, 2024. Crotch's bumble bee individuals or nests were not detected during the survey effort and are presumed to be absent from the project site. Multiple honey bee (Apis mellifera) hives were observed within the project site, which may outcompete bumble bees for nectar sources at the project site (Helix Environmental Plannine 2024). Indirect Impacts SPECIAL -STATUS PLANTS Any special -status plants in the areas adjacent to the project site could be inadvertently impacted should construction workers or vehicles stray out of the project footprint. Invasive plant species could be introduced during construction and landscape installation, that could alter the habitat for special -status 29 Packet Pg. 312 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration plants in the project vicinity. Invasive plants could compete with special -status plants for resources (i.e., water) and space. These indirect impacts could be potentially significant. SPECIAL -STATUS WILDLIFE Indirect short-term and long-term impacts to special -status wildlife species may include both habitat degradation and effects on individuals. Indirect construction impacts to wildlife habitat may include fugitive dust; runoff, sedimentation, chemical pollution, and erosion; litter; and accidental clearing, grading, and trampling, as well as attracting predators. Trash and other garbage associated with construction activities can degrade vegetation communities and wildlife habitat and can attract nuisance and pest species that affect several of the wildlife guilds. Trash and debris include discarded construction - related materials, such as packaging materials, which may be dispersed into natural areas by wind. Trash generated by construction personnel, such as food packaging and cigarette butts, also can be dispersed by wind and water into natural areas. Additionally, invasive plant species could be introduced during construction and landscape installation that could alter the habitat for special -status wildlife. These indirect impacts could be potentially significant. Implementation of MM 13I0-1 through MM BIO-5 would reduce potential indirect impacts to plants and wildlife species to less -than -significant levels. b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant Impact. Potential indirect impacts to the Santa Clara River and the riparian and sensitive communities it supports (Populus fremontii-Salix laevigata and Eriogonum fasciculatum- Lepidospartum squamatum alluvial fan) could result from construction activities. Erosion and chemical pollution (releases of fuel, oil, lubricants, paints, release agents, and other construction materials) produced during construction may affect wetlands and jurisdictional waters downstream of the project site due to sheet wash flowing through the project site and passing through the culvert under Soledad Canyon Road and into the Santa Clara River. The project would be subject to Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements and the City's Municipal Code Chapter 17.90 for preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP),' which includes erosion control measures, such as covering exposed soil stockpiles, lining the perimeter of construction areas with sediment barriers, and protecting storm drain inlets. In addition, through MM BIO-5, the SWPPP shall be required to include site -specific best management practices (BMPs) that specifically address the sensitive location of the project site near and upstream from wetlands and jurisdiction waters. As stipulated by MM BIO-5, the project would be required to incorporate the following into the SWPPP: (1) the regular use of water trucks or other means of site irrigation to minimize fugitive dust during earthmoving and prevent fugitive dust from escaping the property boundary; (2) prohibition of vehicle fueling on -site; and (3) requirement that secondary containment be used for the temporary use all hazardous materials during construction activities and such containment shall be located as far as feasible from jurisdictional resources. In addition, a silt fence barrier shall be required prior to the start of construction activities, as described in MM BIO-5. Implementation of the SWPPP and the additional required measures in MM BIO-5 would ' The Biological Resources Technical Report dated March 2024 (see Appendix B), includes a mitigation measure for the preparation and implementation of a project -specific SWPPP. This is a regulation for all projects based on requirements set forth by the RWQCB and per regulation in the City's Municipal Code Chapter 17.90 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Compliance. Therefore, it is not included as a separate mitigation measure in this document as it is already considered a requirement of the project. 30 Packet Pg. 313 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration address construction -related debris and sedimentation and would prevent the project from degrading water quality in the Santa Clara River. Therefore, indirect impacts to riparian habitat and sensitive communities would be less than significant. c) Would the project 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? Less than Significant Impact. Jurisdictional wetlands and waters were not identified on the project site Therefore, there would be no direct impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and waters. As mentioned above, implementation of the SWPPP and project design features, including water quality treatment basins that would improve water quality before it flows downstream to the stormwater drainage basins, would reduce potential indirect impacts to the Santa Clara River system. Therefore, indirect impacts related to federally protected wetlands would be less than significant. d) Would the project 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? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site does not function as a wildlife corridor or habitat linkage and is not within any designated wildlife corridors or habitat linkages. The project would not limit or prohibit the use of the Santa Clara River wash for movement of fish and terrestrial wildlife species. Direct impacts to wildlife corridors and habitat connectivity are not anticipated; implementation of MM BIO-6 (Invasive Plant Species Prevention) would ensure that construction activities would not introduce nonnative species to the project site and impacts would therefore be less than significant. Lighting associated with the completed development could cause indirect impacts to wildlife movement in the Santa Clara River wash and adjacent open space areas that could be significant. The implementation of MM BIO-7 (Exterior Permanent Lighting) would reduce impacts to less than significant. The project would be required to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code by preventing the disturbance of nesting birds during construction activities. This would generally involve clearing a project site of all vegetation outside the nesting season (from September 1 through January 31) or, if construction would commence within the nesting season (which generally runs from February 1 through August 31 and as early as February 1 for raptors), conducting a pre -construction nesting bird survey to determine the presence of nesting birds or active nests at a construction site. Any active nests and nesting birds must be protected from disturbance by construction activities through buffers between nest sites and construction activities. The buffer areas may be removed only after the birds have fledged. Compliance with the MBTA would ensure that the implementation of the project would not interfere with the nesting of any native bird species. Therefore, direct and indirect impacts would be less than significant due to compliance with regulations. The implementation of MM BIO-8 (Nesting Bird Avoidance) would reduce impacts to less than significant. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The City of Santa Clarita's Oak Tree Ordinance (Ordinance 88-34) is the only local policy or ordinance that protects biological resources within the city. The analysis in Appendix B shows that of the 10 protected oak trees on the project site, nine are proposed for removal as part of this project, including one Heritage Oak. The remaining 31 Packet Pg. 314 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration protected oak tree would not be encroached upon as it is approximately 135 feet from proposed development. Direct impacts to trees protected under City's Oak Tree Ordinance would be significant. With the implementation of MM BIO-9 (Protected Tree Replacement), impacts to oak trees would be reduced to less -than -significant levels. 1J Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The biological study area is not within an area covered by any Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan (CDFW 2023). The biological study area is not within a County of Los Angeles -designated Significant Ecological Area (County of Los Angeles 2023). Therefore, there is no impact to a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Conclusion The project would include implementation of MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-9. Upon implementation of these project -specific mitigation measures, impacts to biological resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measures MM 13I0-1 Pre -Construction Rare Plant Survey and Seed rolleeti0f Conservation. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall have a qualified biologist (the Applicant shall submit the qualifications of the biologist to the City for review and approval) conduct a focused rare plant survey for slender mariposa lily within the undeveloped portion of the project site during the appropriate blooming period (March through June). The sttfvey would eensist ef thfee passes, with ene in Apfil, May, and Affie. The survey shall consist of a maximum of three passes from March to June. Reference site checks would be made for the species to determine if the species is blooming in the project vicinity. If the reference site check is positive for the species, then the following survey shall determine the presence or absence of the species at the project site. The surveys would conform to the California Native Plant Society's Botanical Survey Guidelines (2001); CDFW's Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (2018); and USFWS' Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants (2000). The results of the surveys would be documented in a report and submitted to the City. If the species is found at the project site, then construction of the occupied location shall be delayed, and one of the following measures shall be implemented: 32 Packet Pg. 315 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Alternative No. 1: The project shall compensate for the loss of the species at a 1:1 ratio through the planting of replacement slender mariposa lily bulbs within the landscaped areas of the residential portion of the project, which will be maintained by the future homeowner's association in perpetuity. Alternative No. 2: If replacement slender mariposa lily bulbs cannot be reasonably located to implement the first alternative, the project shall compensate for the loss of discovered specimens by collecting the seeds of the onsite individuals. Seed collection and storage will be conducted by an entity extensive experience performing those tasks (such as S&S Seeds or the California Botanical Garden) and approved by the City. The project Applicant will then work with City-gpproved local conservation organization (e.g., Friends of Santa Clara River) to be used in restoration projects. The Applicant shall provide the City with documentation of the seeds use. MM BI0-2 Pre -construction Wildlife Survey. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a qualified biologist (the Applicant shall submit the qualifications of the biologist to the City for review and approval) shall conduct a survey of the proposed impact areas and 50-foot buffer within 72 hours of the proposed activities. Any coastal whiptail, Southern California legless lizard, California glossy snake, or Blainville's horned lizard found would be relocated to a City -approved off -site location in suitable habitat for each species. If a San Diego desert woodrat midden is discovered during the survey, then the biologist would methodically relocate the midden material to suitable habitat (dense shrubs) within 50 feet of its location and outside of the project disturbance limits. The procedure would be implemented at a rate that would allow for the woodrat to flush from the midden. The results of the survey would be documented in a letter report to be submitted to the City. MM BI0-3 Biological Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit the qualifications of the biologist(s) to the City for review and approval. The Applicant shall fund a City -approved Biological Monitor during project construction to monitor construction activities and to ensure compliance with all mitigation measures. The Biological Monitor shall be present on -site during all native vegetation removal and initial ground -disturbing activities in undeveloped areas. Each day, before project activities begin, the Biological Monitor shall be responsible for conducting a pre -construction clearance survey and any wildlife (common or special -status) would be relocated off -site to a City -approved area. With regard to the Crotch's bumble bee only, if construction activity would impact the 6.04 acres of potential foraging and nesting habitat (native vegetation communities) during the Crotch's bumble bee nesting period (February 1 through October 31), the Biological Monitor shall conduct a pre -construction survey for Crotch's bumble bee within the aforementioned 6.04 acres of natural vegetation area prior to the start of ground -disturbing construction activities within that 6.04 acres occurring during the Crotch's bumble bee nesting period (February 1 through October 31). The survey ensure that no nests for Crotch's bumble bee are located within that 6.04-acre area. The pre -construction survey shall be based on recommendations described in the "Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species," released by CDFW on June 6, 2023, or the most current at the time of construction. The focused survey shall be performed by a Biological Monitor with a CDFW-issued Scientific Collection Permit (SCP) in surveying for bumble bees and include at least three 33 Packet Pg. 316 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (3) survey passes that are not on sequential days or in the same week, preferablyspaced two to four weeks apart. The timing of these surveys shall coincide with the Colony Active Period (April 1 through August 31 for Crotch's bumble bee). Surveys mgy occur between I hour after sunrise and 2 hours before sunset. Surveys shall not be conducted during wet conditions (e.g., fogmy, raining, or drizzling) and surveyors shall wait at least I hour following rain. Survey be conducted earlier than April I if other bees or LO butterflies are flying in the native vegetation communities on the project site. Surveys N shall not be conducted when it is windy(i.e., sustained winds greater than 8 mph). Within N non -developed habitats, the Biological Monitor shall look for nest resources suitable for N bumble bee use. Ensuring that all nest resources receive 100 percent visual coverage, the biologist shall watch the nest resources for up to five minutes, looking for exiting or entering worker bumble bees. Worker bees should arrive and exit an active nest site with N frequency, such that their presence would be apparent after five minutes of observation. If a bumble bee worker is detected, then a representative shall be identified to species. If a nest is suspected, the Biological Monitor can block the entrance of the possible nest with a sterile vial or jar until nest activity is confirmed (no longer than 30 minutes). a 3 Identification shall include the SCP-permitted Biological Monitor netting/capturing the T representative bumble bee in appropriate insect nets, per the protocol in U.S. National Protocol Framework for the Inventory and Monitoring of Bees. The bee shall be placed in > a clear container for observation and photographic documentation if able. The bee shall be photographed using a macro lens from various angles to ensure recordation of key m identifying characteristics. If bumble bee identifying characteristics cannot be adequately captured in the container due to movement, the container shall be placed in a cooler with ice until the bumble bee becomes inactive (generally within 15 minutes). Once inert, the bumble bee shall be removed from the container and placed on a white sheet of paper or card for examination and photographic documentation. The bumble bee shall be released E 0 into the same area from which it was captured upon completion of identification. Based c on implementation of this method on a variety of other bumble bee species, they become Lj active shortly after removal from the cold environment, so photography must be o performed quickly. zz CO If Crotch's bumble bee nests are not detected, no further mitigation would be required. The mere presence of foraging Crotch's bumble bees would not require implementation =_ of additional minimization measures because they can forage up to 10 kilometers from U- 3 their nests. If nest resources occupied by Crotch's bumble bee are detected within the construction area, no construction activities shall occur within 100 feet of the nest, or as m determined by the SCP-permitted Biological Monitor through evaluation of topographic > features or distribution of floral resources. The nest resources shall be avoided for the LO LO duration of the Crotch's bumble bee nesting period (February I through October 31). N Outside of the nesting season, it is assumed that no live individuals would be present N within the nest as the daughter queens (gam) usually leave by September, and all other v individuals (original queen, workers, males) die. c m A written survey report shall be submitted to the City within 30 days of the pre- E construction survey. The report shall include survey methods, weather conditions, and survey results, including a list of insect species observed and a figure showing the Q locations of any Crotch's bumble bee nest sites or individuals observed. The survey report shall include the qualification/resume of the SCP-permitted Biological Monitor for identification of photo vouchers, detailed habitat assessment, and photo vouchers. If Crotch's bumble bee nests are observed, the surveyport shall also include recommendations for avoidance, and the location information shall be submitted to the 34 Packet Pg. 317 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) at the time of, or prior to, submittal of the surveyport. NM 13I04 Demarcation of Disturbance Limits. Prior to commencement of earthwork in the undeveloped portion of the project site, the construction limits shall be clearly demarcated (e.g., installation of flagging or temporary high -visibility construction fence), as recommended by the Biological Monitor. All construction activities including equipment staging and maintenance shall be conducted within the marked disturbance limits to prevent inadvertent disturbance to sensitive vegetation communities outside the limits of work. The flagging shall be maintained throughout construction. MM BI0-5 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Prior to issuance of a grading permits for construction activity that would require more than one acre of earthwork, the project developer shall develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that provides for require erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented during construction activities. The SWPPP shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit. For construction activities on individual lots that are less than one acre in size, a site -specific listing of BMPs shall be prepared using appropriate and feasible measures included in the primary SWPPP document and shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The site -specific SWPPP shall include measures including, but not be limited to: (1) the regular use of water trucks or other means of site irrigation to minimize fugitive dust during earthmoving and prevent fugitive dust from escaping the property boundary; (2) prohibition of vehicle fueling on -site; and (3) requirement that secondary containment be used for the temporary use all hazardous materials during construction activities and such containment shall be located as far as feasible from jurisdictional resources. Subsequent to approval by the City, the requirements of the SWPPP shall be implemented prior to and during construction activities, as specifically required in the SWPPP. At the culvert in the northwest portion of the project site, a silt fence barrier shall be constructed around it prior to the start of construction activities. Wooden posts supporting the silt fence shall be spaced 2 to 3 feet apart and driven securely into the ground; a minimum of 18 to 20 inches deep. The bottom edge of the silt fence is required to extend across the bottom of the trench and the trench shall be backfilled and compacted to prevent Stormwater and sediment from discharging underneath the silt fence. Silt fences shall be inspected weekly and immediately after storm events to ensure they are intact and that there are no gaps where the fence meets the ground or tears along the length of the fence. If gaps or tears are found during the inspection, the fabric is required to be repaired or replaced immediately. NM 13I0-6 Invasive Plant Species Prevention. The project shall not include invasive plant species listed on the California Invasive Plant Council inventory in project landscaping palettes. Project landscape palettes shall be reviewed and approved by the City to ensure that invasive plant species are excluded. In addition, to prevent the spread of invasive plant species during construction and until the establishment of common landscaped areas associated with the project (for a period of up to 5 years): • All equipment shall be washed prior to entering and prior to leaving the project site in an upland location where any seed material from invasive species would be contained. 35 Packet Pg. 318 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration • All vegetative material removed from the project impact footprint shall be transported in a covered vehicle and would be disposed of at a certified disposal site. NM BI0-7 Exterior Permanent Lighting. To address indirect impacts to special -status wildlife due to lighting, exterior lighting associated with final project development shall be designed to be minimal (only as needed for security and safety) to lessen the attraction of birds, bats, and other sensitive wildlife species. NM BI0-8 Nesting Bird Avoidance. Project construction shall be conducted in compliance with the conditions set forth in the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code to protect active bird/raptor nests. To the maximum extent feasible, vegetation removal shall occur during the non -breeding season for nesting birds (generally late September to early March) and nesting raptors (generally early July to late January) to avoid impacts to nesting birds and raptors. If the project requires that work be initiated during the breeding season for nesting birds (March 1—September 30) and nesting raptors (February 1—June 30), in order to avoid direct impacts on active nests, a pre -construction survey shall be conducted for the project site and a 500-foot buffer around the project site by qualified biologists (someone who has more than 3 years of experience of conducting nesting bird surveys in the project region) for nesting birds and/or raptors within 3 days prior to project activities. If the biologist does not find any active nests within or immediately adjacent to the impact areas, the vegetation clearing/construction work shall be allowed to proceed. If the biologist finds an active nest within or immediately adjacent to the construction area and determines that the nest may be impacted or breeding activities substantially disrupted, the biologist shall delineate an appropriate buffer zone around the nest depending on the sensitivity of the species and the nature of the construction activity. To protect any nest site, the following restrictions to construction activities shall be required until nests are no longer active, as determined by a qualified biologist (someone who has more than 3 years of experience of conducting nesting bird surveys and monitoring active nests during construction): 1) clearing limits shall be established within a buffer around any occupied nest; and 2) access and surveying shall be restricted within the buffer of any occupied nest, unless otherwise determined by a qualified biologist (someone who has more than 3 years of experience of conducting nesting bird surveys and monitoring active nests during construction). The buffer shall be up to 300 feet for non -raptor nesting birds and up to 500 feet for nesting raptors, based upon the biologist's determination of potential effect of project activities on the nest. Construction can proceed into the buffer when the qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active. NM BI0-9 Protected Tree Replacement. The Applicant would comply with the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Ordinance and would obtain an oak tree permit prior to the issuance of the grading permit for the project. Conditions of the oak tree permit may include the payment of a fee, planting of replacement trees on the project site, or donation of boxed trees to the City or other approved public agency to be used elsewhere in the city. The nine trees to be removed shall be replaced by a tree of the same species at a ratio determined by the Urban Forestry Division of the City of Santa Clarita, with a minimum of 55 replacement trees required. All replacement trees shall be at least a 24-gallon specimen in size and measure 2 inches or more in diameter, as measured from approximately 4 feet above the base. Replacement trees shall be certified as being grown from a seed source collected in Los Angeles County. 36 Packet Pg. 319 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration For replacement trees planted on the project site, the Applicant shall be responsible for submitting quarterly tree inspection reports to the City prepared by a certified oak tree expert that shall be required to document the condition of the trees. The inspection and reporting would be required for 2 years following the planting of the replacement trees. Any tree that fails during the 2-year period would be replaced by a 24-gallon specimen of the same species and then monitored for an additional 2 years. V. Cultural Resources Potentially Less Than Less Than Environmental Issues Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact p Incorporated p Would the project: (a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 of a historical resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? (b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ of an archaeological resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? (c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ outside of dedicated cemeteries? The analysis for this section is based on the Archaeological Resources Technical Report: Riverview Development Project, Santa Clarita Valley, provided as Appendix C: Archaeological Resources Technical Report (Dudek 2024b), and the Built Environment Inventory and Evaluation Report: Riverview Development Project, Santa Clarita Valley (Dudek 2024c), provided as Appendix D: Built Environment Report). Refer to Appendix C and Appendix D for a detailed discussion of the historic setting for the region and project site as well as the applicable regulations pertaining to cultural resources. In support of the archaeological resources assessment prepared for the project (see Appendix C), an archaeological literature and records search was conducted through the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS); background research included a literature, archival document, historical map, and aerial photograph review; and an intensive pedestrian field survey was conducted. The CHRIS records search was completed at the South Central Coast Information Center (SCCIC), California State University, Fullerton, for the project site and a I -mile radius and included a review of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), the California Points of Historical Interest list, the California Historical Landmarks list, the Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility list, and the California State Historic Resources Inventory list. The geotechnical investigation prepared for the project site was also reviewed (see Appendix Q. Built environment features, dating between 1926 and post-1978, are located on the project site. As a result, a built environment assessment was completed. The built environment assessment for the project included a review of the CHRIS search results obtained during the archaeological resources assessment, an intensive pedestrian field survey conducted by qualified architectural historians, online archival research, historical society outreach, the development of a historic context statement, preparation of a property -specific history of the project site, and a formal evaluation under the City's local criteria for designating historic resources, along with the criteria used to list resources in the CRHR and the NRHP (see Appendix Q. 37 Packet Pg. 320 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Setting As detailed in the archaeological and built environment assessments, the CHRIS records search determined that no cultural resources have been previously identified within the project site (Dudek 2024b, 2024c). Within 1 mile of the project site, 16 cultural resources have been previously identified: five prehistoric archaeological sites (the closest of which is 984 feet [0.2 mile]), six prehistoric isolates (the closest of which is 469 feet [0.1 mile]), and five built environment resources (the closest of which is 1,804 feet [0.3 mile]). In addition, 53 cultural resource investigations have been undertaken within 1 mile of the project site, one of which addressed a portion of the project site. The results of these investigations can be found in Appendices C and D. The geotechnical investigation consisted of 10 boring locations within the central, northeastern, and southeastern portions of the project site (see Appendix Q. Artificial fill soils were identified in two boring locations in the southeastern quadrant of the project site, extending between grade and 6 feet below grade. No artificial fill was observed in the remaining eight bore locations. Alluvial soil was identified between grade and 35 to 60 feet below current grade across the project site. The field survey for the archaeological assessment was conducted on October 18, 2022, and the field survey for the built environment assessment was conducted on January 25, 2023. The majority of the property is developed with pavement and structures. There are extensive parking areas, both paved and covered in manufactured gravel fill, resulting in highly variable ground surface visibility ranging from no visibility (0%) to fair visibility (30%) in these areas. The remaining portion of the project site included undeveloped rugged hills with sparse to dense vegetation. The ground surface visibility within this area was very good to excellent (60%-90%). No archaeological resources were identified as part of the archaeological assessment (Dudek 2024b). The project site is located on what was historically known as the Banker Ranch RodeoBonelli Stadium. The built environment field survey identified 19 permanent buildings and structures dating from between 1926 and post-1978. The evaluation of the project site concluded that the property is not eligible for listing under the City's local criteria for designating historic resources, nor is it eligible for the NRHP or the CRHR due to lack of sufficient integrity (Dudek 2024c). Environmental Evaluation a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? No Impact. As stated in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1), a project causing a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is one that could result in the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings, such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired (i.e., altering those physical characteristics that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in, the CRHR as determined by a Lead Agency [the City of Santa Clarita] for purposes of CEQA, or its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC). The built environment assessment identified 19 permanent buildings and structures dated between 1926 and post-1978. The evaluation of the project site concluded that the property is not eligible for listing under the City's local criteria for designating historic resources, nor is it eligible for the NRHP or the CRHR due to its lack of sufficient integrity. As such, the structures are not considered to be historical resources for the purposes of CEQA (Dudek 2024c). Therefore, no historic resources would be 38 Packet Pg. 321 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration demolished, relocated, removed, or significantly altered with project implementation. No impact would occur. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Ground disturbance associated with the project includes significant grading and terracing of the hillside in the northwestern portion of the proposed project site and cut slopes at a gradient of 2:1 in the southern area. Significant fill grading within the area currently occupied by structures and paved tracks and parking lots would occur. This latter area is proposed for construction of residential and commercial development including 318 single-family dwelling units and a 126,790square foot manufacturing building, recreational amenities, community open space, paved lots, and associated utility and landscaping installation. Additionally, ground disturbance would be required for off -site improvements. Given that the entire proposed project site elevation is currently between 1,190 and 1,290 amsl and the elevation after grading is proposed between approximately 1,196 and 1,209 amsl, the proposed grading and construction would require impacts to native soils within the northern portion of the site and along the southwestern boundary; however, much of the proposed construction within the central and eastern portions of the site would occur within fill soils only. No archaeological resources were identified through the records search or field survey (Dudek 2023b). However, due to the overall sensitive nature of the general area surrounding the project site, it is possible that previously unrecorded cultural material and features could be encountered during project implementation. Any impacts to archaeological resources would be potentially significant. Implementation of MM CR-1 through MM CR-3—including archaeological monitoring after the preparation of a Cultural Resource Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery Plan, the development of a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training, and an inadvertent discovery clause would ensure impacts of the project would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Less than Significant Impact. There are no known human remains in the project site (Dudek 2023b). While the discovery of human remains is always a possibility in undisturbed soils, there is no evidence to suggest that there is more than a low potential for discovery. Section 7050.5 of the State of California Health and Safety Code states that in the event that human remains are discovered or suspected, the County Coroner must be contacted immediately, and that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has determined the origin and requisite disposition of the remains pursuant to PRC 5097.98. If the human remains are determined to be Native American in origin, the Coroner would notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which would determine and notify the most likely descendent. Native American human remains would be treated in accordance with PRC 5097.98. These existing laws and regulations would ensure that in the event of unanticipated discovery, impacts to human remains would be less than significant. Conclusion The project would include implementation of MM CR-1 through MM CR-3. Upon implementation of these project -specific mitigation measures, impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 39 Packet Pg. 322 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Measures MM CR-1 Archaeological Monitoring. Prior to ground -disturbing activities, the Applicant and/or subsequent responsible parties should retain a Principal Investigator/Archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, and with experience in California prehistoric and historic resources (experience within Los Angeles County preferred), to complete the following: compose a Cultural Resource Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Plan), manage archaeological monitoring, and address any inadvertent discoveries identified during project implementation. The Plan shall cover both development of the 35.2-acre project site as well as any necessary off -site improvements (e.g., transportation and infrastructure improvements) associated with the project. Proof of retainment of the Principal Investigator/Archaeologist should be provided to the City prior to the granting of a grading permit. The purpose of the Plan is to outline archaeological monitoring protocols and a program of treatment and mitigation in the case of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources during ground -disturbing phases and to provide for the proper identification, evaluation, treatment, and protection of any archaeological resources in accordance with CEQA throughout the duration of the project. Existence and importance of adherence to this Plan should be stated on all project site plans intended for use by those conducting the ground -disturbing activities. The Principal Investigator/Archaeologist should manage archaeological monitoring conducted by archaeological technicians during initial ground disturbances. Initial excavation is defined as initial construction -related earth moving of sediments from their place of deposition. As it pertains to archaeological monitoring, this definition excludes movement of sediments after they have been initially disturbed or displaced by project - related construction. The retained Principal Investigator/Archaeologist should oversee and establish monitoring efforts as needed (increase, decrease, or discontinue monitoring frequency) based on the observed potential for construction activities to encounter archaeological deposits or material. The archaeological monitor should be responsible for maintaining daily monitoring logs. The requirement for archaeological monitoring should be noted on all construction plans to ensure implementation. Upon completion of all ground -disturbing activities, an archaeological monitoring report should be prepared within 60 days following completion of ground disturbance and submitted to the City for review. This report should document compliance with approved cultural resource mitigation, all monitoring efforts, and include an appendix with daily monitoring logs. The final report should be submitted to the City and the SCCIC. MM CR-2 Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) Training. All construction personnel and monitors who are not trained archaeologists should be briefed regarding unanticipated discoveries prior to the start of ground -disturbing activities. A basic presentation should be prepared and presented by a qualified archaeologist to inform all personnel working on the project about the archaeological sensitivity of the area. The purpose of the WEAP training is to provide specific details on the kinds of archaeological materials that may be identified during construction of the project and explain the importance of and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. Each worker should also be instructed on the proper procedures to follow in the event that archaeological resources or human remains are uncovered during ground -disturbing activities. These procedures include work curtailment or redirection, and the immediate contact of the on -call archaeologist and if appropriate, tribal representative. Necessity of training attendance should be stated on all project site plans intended for use by those conducting the ground -disturbing activities. 40 Packet Pg. 323 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MM CR-3 Inadvertent Discovery Clause. In the event that potential prehistoric or historic -era archaeological resources (sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed during construction activities for the project, all construction work occurring within 50 feet of the find shall immediately stop and the Principal Investigator/Archaeologist notified immediately in order to assess of the discovery and determine whether additional study is warranted. Depending upon the nature of the discovery, the Principal Investigator/Archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves potentially significant under CEQA, additional work such as subsurface testing may be warranted. If the discovery is determined significant under CEQA and avoidance is not feasible, data recovery shall be required. If archaeological resources are discovered or are suspected to be of Native American origin, each of the consulting tribes for the project should also be notified. In the event that human remains are inadvertently encountered during construction activities, the remains and associated resources shall be treated in accordance with state and local regulations that provide requirements with regard to the accidental discovery of human remains, including California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, PRC Section 5097.98, and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). In accordance with these regulations, if human remains are found, the County Coroner must be immediately notified of the discovery. No further excavation or disturbance of the project site or any nearby area (within 100 feet of the find) reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the County Coroner has determined if the remains are potentially human in origin. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are, or are believed to be, Native American, he or she is required to immediately notify the NAHC. The NAHC must immediately notify those persons it believes to be the most likely descendant from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant should then complete their inspection and determine, in consultation with the property owner, the treatment and disposition of the human remains. VI. Energy Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than Environmental Issues Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Would the project: (a) Result in a potentially significant environmental impact ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ renewable energy or energy efficiency? Setting Energy sources include energy in the form of electricity, natural gas, and petroleum -based transportation - related energy (gasoline and diesel). The project receives electricity from SCE and natural gas from SoCalGas. Transportation fuels are produced from crude oil, which can be domestically imported from various regions around the world. 41 Packet Pg. 324 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration As stated in the project's Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum (LSA 2024a; see Appendix A), CalEEMod default values for energy consumption by land use were applied for the project analysis. Environmental Evaluation a) Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the project would require the consumption of energy resources in several forms at the project site and within the project vicinity. The project would consume energy in the form of electricity, natural gas, and petroleum -based transportation -related energy (gasoline and diesel). Construction The project's construction process would consume electricity and fuel. Project -related construction activities would represent a "single -event" demand and would not require ongoing or permanent commitment of energy resources. The amount of energy and fuel use anticipated by project construction activities are typical for the type of scale of construction proposed and there are no aspects of the project's proposed construction process that are unusual or energy intensive. Furthermore, construction equipment would be required to conform to the applicable California Air Resources Board (GARB) emissions standards, acting to promote equipment fuel efficiencies. Temporary electric power for as -necessary lighting and electronic equipment, such as computers inside temporary construction trailers, would be provided by SCE. The electricity used for such activities would be temporary, would be substantially less than that required for project operation, and would therefore have a negligible contribution to the project's overall energy consumption. Construction activities typically do not involve the consumption of natural gas. Therefore, construction of the project would not consume natural gas in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner. Construction of the project would comply with state and federal regulations, such as the anti -idling regulation in accordance with Title 13 CCR Section 2485, and fuel requirements in accordance with Title 17 CCR Section 93116, which would reduce the consumption of petroleum -based transportation fuels from unnecessary idling fuel combustion. While these required regulations are intended to reduce construction emissions, compliance with anti -idling and emissions regulations would also result in reductions in fuel consumption. Project -related trips from on -road vehicles (i.e., delivery trucks, worker vehicles) would also benefit from the State's Low Carbon Fuel Standards which are designed to reduce vehicle GHG emissions, resulting in fuel consumption reductions, in addition to compliance with the federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. Therefore, construction of the project would not consume petroleum -based fuel in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner. Impacts during project construction would be less than significant. Operation The operational phase would require electricity for multiple purposes, including building heating and cooling, lighting, and electronics. CalEEMod was used to estimate project emissions from electricity uses (see Appendix A). Default electricity generation rates in CalEEMod were used based on the proposed land use and climate zone. 42 Packet Pg. 325 2.b b) Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration The project provides conventional manufacturing building use reflecting contemporary energy efficient/energy conserving designs and operational programs. The use proposed by the project is not inherently energy intensive, and the project energy demands in total would be comparable to, or less than, other mixed -use housing projects of similar scale and configuration. Furthermore, the project would be required to comply with Title 24 standards, which would ensure that the project's energy demand would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. Impacts during project operation would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would be subject to state regulations for energy efficiency, namely, California's Building Energy Efficiency Standards and California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), both of which are set forth in the CCR, Title 24. California's Building Energy Efficiency Standards were established in 1978, and serve to enhance and regulate California's building standards. These standards include regulations for residential and nonresidential buildings constructed in California to reduce energy demand and consumption. The Building Energy Efficiency Standards are updated periodically (every 3 years) to incorporate and consider new energy -efficiency technologies and methodologies. CALGreen institutes mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground -up, new construction of commercial, low-rise residential, and State-owned buildings, as well as schools and hospitals. The 2022 CALGreen standards became effective on January 1, 2022. The proposed project would meet Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen standards to reduce energy demand and increase energy efficiency. The proposed project would follow applicable energy standards and regulations during construction and operations. In addition, the proposed project would be built and operated in accordance with all existing, applicable regulations at the time of construction. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with existing energy standards and regulations. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary. Conclusion The project would not result in a significant adverse impact to energy; no mitigation measures are necessary. VII. Geology and Soils Potentially Less Than Significantwith Less Than Environmental Issues Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact p Incorporated Impact p 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 ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ 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? ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ 43 Packet Pg. 326 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than Environmental Issues Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact (iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ liquefaction? (iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 (b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ (c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ resource or site or unique geologic feature? Environmental Evaluation a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: a-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. Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Southern California is a seismically active region with over 100 active faults in Los Angeles County alone. Active faults are those faults that are considered likely to undergo renewed movement within a period of concern to humans. These include faults that are currently slipping, those that display earthquake activity, and those that have historical surface rupture. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act (Alquist-Priolo Act) is a California state law that was developed to regulate development near active faults and mitigate the surface fault rupture potential and other hazards. The Alquist-Priolo Act identifies active earthquake fault zones and restricts the construction of habitable structures over known active or potentially active faults, requiring that habitable structures do not encroach on a 50-foot setback from the fault trace. The California Geological Survey designates the fault zones extending approximately 200 to 500 feet from known active faults as Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones (CDOC 2023). According to GeoSoils (2022), the project site is located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and the San Gabriel Fault is located at the western part of the site. Until disproven, an area within 50 feet of an active fault is presumed to be underlain by active branches of the fault. Although there is no evidence of displacement along the San Gabriel Fault, there are faults near the site that have evidence of displacement (Allan E. Seward Engineering Geology, Inc. 2007); therefore, a structural setback of 75 feet has been recommended as part of the design. With implementation of MM GEO-1 (Structural 44 Packet Pg. 327 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Engineering and Setback Requirements), impacts related to earthquake fault rupture would be less than significant. a-ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Southern California is a seismically active region with over 100 active faults in Los Angeles County alone. Active faults are those faults that are considered likely to undergo renewed movement within a period of concern to humans. These include faults that are currently slipping, those that display earthquake activity, and those that have historical surface rupture. Since Santa Clarita is in a seismically active region, the project site will likely be subject to strong seismic ground shaking at some point in the future. However, the risks of structural damage from an earthquake can be minimized through proper engineering design. The project would be designed and constructed in conformance with seismic design criteria (e.g., requirements for lateral force resisting system, building foundations, footings, etc.) set forth in Section 16.13 of the California Building Code (CBC) and City - adopted seismic design related measures set forth in the City's Municipal Code. In addition, the project would be subject to project -specific geotechnical plan review. Further, all construction work is subject to building inspection by the City Department of Building and Safety during and after construction to ensure that code specifications are properly constructed. GeoSoils (2022) has recommended a structural setback to be included as part of the design. In addition to the San Gabriel Fault, there are faults near the site that can cause moderate to intense ground shaking during the lifetime of the proposed development. Therefore, implementing earthquake -resistant design for the structures to resist strong seismic ground shaking is recommended. However, this hazard can be mitigated by implementing MM GEO-1, which consists of structural mitigation to withstand the anticipated ground shaking and static and seismic -induced settlement. With implementation of MM GEO-1 and conformance to standard engineering practices, design criteria set forth in the City's Municipal Code, and recommendations of the project -specific geotechnical plan review would reduce the effects of seismic ground shaking. With implementation of MM GEO-1, impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. a-iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Soil liquefaction occurs when soil material loses strength in response to strong ground shaking. Liquefaction normally occurs under saturated conditions in soils, such as sand; however, liquefaction is not exclusively limited to sandy substrate. In accordance with the State of California Seismic Hazard Zones Map (CDOC 2023), the site is within a potential liquefaction zone. The project -specific geotechnical study (GeoSoils 2022) evaluated the potential for liquefaction within the project site and indicates that there is a potential for liquefaction - induced seismic settlement in the area of study. Analyses indicate that the potentially liquefiable zone is at approximately 10 to 50 feet below the ground surface. Additional liquefaction settlement could occur due to structural loads. On the west side of the proposed development, where bedrock is at 60 feet deep, the bedrock formation will get shallower before reaching the ground surface on the property line. Consequently, the seismic settlement may be zero on the western property line versus almost 150 to 200 feet away from it toward the east. Therefore, seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction, may occur unless mitigated within the design of the project. With implementation of MM GEO-1, impacts related to seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction, would be less than significant. 45 Packet Pg. 328 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration a -iv) Landslides? No Impact. Landslides occur when the underlying geological support on a hillside can no longer maintain the load of material above it, causing a slope failure. Geologic mapping by Dibblee and Ehrenspeck (1996) indicate the presence of landslide deposits on the slopes on the northside of Soledad Canyon; however, geologic mapping by Campbell and others (2014) do not indicate the presence of landslide deposits within the bounds of the project site or within its adjacent hills. Additionally, GeoSoils (2022) did not indicate the presence of landslide deposits during the geotechnical investigation, but recommended the hillside located at the western part of the site be graded. Therefore, there is no impact potential for landslides within the project site. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. According to U.S. Department of Agriculture NRCS soil survey data, the project site contains a sandy loam with a slope of 2 to 9 percent. The site is considered well drained with a low runoff class (NRCS 2023). Classified as Hydrologic Soils Group A, the topsoil has very little silt or clay and has deep, permeable loess with a high infiltration rate (NRCS 2023). Grading and excavation activities could expose soils that could be susceptible to erosion. However, the project would be subject to RWQCB requirements for preparation of a SWPPP, which include erosion control measures, such as covering exposed soil stockpiles, lining the perimeter of construction areas with sediment barriers, and protecting storm drain inlets. These measures would control and reduce erosion and loss of topsoil to the maximum extent practical. Once construction is complete, exposed soils would be paved over or landscaped and operational impacts related to soil erosion or loss of topsoil would not occur. Therefore, impacts related to substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than significant. c) Would the project 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? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Landslides occur when the underlying geological support on a hillside can no longer maintain the load of material above it, causing a slope failure. According to the project -specific geotechnical study conducted by GeoSoils (2022), the hillside located at the western part of the site would be removed during grading. Geologic structure is favorable relative to the slopes along the southern part of the site and the site is flat and not subject to landslides. No landslides were previously mapped within the site boundaries and no landslides were observed on the site during the exploration. Therefore, no impact due to landslides (on- or off -site) would occur. Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in which large blocks of intact, non -liquefied soil move downslope on a liquefied soil layer. Lateral spreading is often a regional event. For lateral spreading to occur, a liquefiable soil zone must be laterally continuous and unconstrained to move along sloping ground. The site is relatively flat; therefore, there is a very low potential for lateral spreading. Therefore, impacts related to lateral spreading would be less than significant. Land subsidence is a gradual settling or sudden sinking of the earth's surface owing to subsurface movement of earth materials; it is not the result of a landslide or slope failure. According to the USGS map of areas of land subsidence in California (USGS 2023), the project site is not located within a mapped area of subsidence. However, seismic shaking accompanying any earthquake may induce settlement of loose unconsolidated soils. Based on site subsurface conditions and the moderate to high seismicity of the region, any loose fill materials at the site could be vulnerable to this potential hazard, resulting in significant impacts. With implementation of MM GEO-1, impacts related to land subsidence due to seismic -related processes would be less than significant. 46 Packet Pg. 329 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Soil liquefaction occurs when soil material loses strength in response to strong ground shaking. Liquefaction normally occurs under saturated conditions in soils, such as sand; however, liquefaction is not exclusively limited to sandy substrate. In accordance with the State of California Seismic Hazard Zones Map, the site is located within a potential liquefaction zone. The project -specific geotechnical study (GeoSoils 2022) evaluated the potential for liquefaction within the project site and concluded that there is a potential for liquefaction -induced seismic settlement in the area of study. With implementation of MM GEO-1, impacts related to soil liquefaction would be less than significant. Soil collapse occurs when sediment moisture content increases substantially, leading to the densification of the soil, which can lead to structural damage from cracking foundations, walls, and floors. Typical causes of soil collapse include infiltration resulting from poor surface drainage, irrigation water, or leaking pipes into low -density, silty sandy soil in semi -arid and and climates that are not regularly subjected to saturation. According to the NRCS (2023) soil survey data, the frequency of flooding and ponding in the project site is none. The soils within the project site are generally dense and moist with depth and are moderately compressible under saturated conditions. As such, construction of the project on these soils could result in significant impacts related to collapse. However, MM GEO-1, which requires the collapsible or weak soils to be removed during the site preparation phase of project construction,47ould be implemented. The soils would be moisture -conditioned to at least optimum moisture content and then recompacted to a minimum of 95% of the maximum dry density. With implementation of MM GEO-1, impacts related to collapse would be less than significant. d) Would the project 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? No Impact. Expansive soils are clay -based and tend to increase in volume due to water absorption and decrease in water volume due to drying. Expansive soils can result in structural damage, particularly if wetting and drying do not occur uniformly throughout the soil. The project -specific geotechnical study (GeoSoils 2022) concluded that soils within and underlying the project site have very low expansive potential. Additionally, implementation of MM GEO-I would result in over -excavation and replacement of soils to specified depths (see above) that would ensure only engineered fill would be used within the project site, thereby eliminating the concern of expansive soils. Therefore, there is no impact potential for expansive soils within the project site. e) Would the project 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? No Impact. The project includes the extension of sewer lines and does not involve construction of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impact would occur. 0 Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. According to the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP), unique paleontological (i.e., scientifically significant fossils) are most intact large or small vertebrate fossils, or uncommon invertebrate, plant, and trace fossils (SVP 2010). Paleontological resources are considered to be older than recorded human history and/or older than middle Holocene (i.e., older than about 5,000 radiocarbon years) (SVP 2010). Significance criteria of fossil discoveries are linked to scientific, cultural, and/or educational importance, particularly in relation to taphonomic, taxonomic, phylogenetic, paleoecologic, stratigraphic, and/or biochronologic information that they can provide (Murphey et al. 2019; Scott and Springer 2003). Geologic units known to preserve significant 47 Packet Pg. 330 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration fossils or fossil localities are likely to contain additional undiscovered and potentially significant fossils and are generally considered sensitive for paleontological resources throughout their areal and stratigraphic extent. Unique geologic features may include, rock outcrops, rare sedimentary structures, arches, hoodoos, etc., and are generally irrelevant to urban settings, such as the project site. SWCA conducted a paleontological resources assessment, provided as Appendix E: Paleontological Resources Technical Memorandum, which included a review of geotechnical information, geologic maps, scientific literature, and museum records (SWCA 2023; see Appendix E), to determine the potential for impacts to paleontological resources. The geotechnical investigation notes the presence of unmapped artificial fill at the surface to approximately depths as deep as 6 feet below ground surface (GeoSoils 2022), and geologic mapping by Campbell and others (2014) indicates the surficial sediments within the project site are Holocene and late Pleistocene young alluvium, undivided (Qya) and Pleistocene to late Pliocene Saugus Formation, undivided (QTs). Ground -disturbing activities greater than or equal to 5 feet below ground surface in areas mapped at the surface as Qya may result in adverse effects on significant paleontological resources. Moreover, ground -disturbing activities in areas mapped at the surface as QTs (regardless of depth) may also result in adverse effects on significant paleontological resources. The implementation of MM GEO-2 would ensure that fossils, if encountered, are assessed for significance and, if significant, salvaged and curated with an accredited repository. Conclusion The project would include implementation of MM GEO-1 and MM GEO-2. Upon implementation of these project -specific mitigation measures, impacts to geology and soils would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measures MM GEO-1 Structural Engineering and Setback Requirements. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall consult a qualified structural engineer regarding the design of structural components (i.e., floor slab support) of the building to reduce adverse impacts associated with fault rupture, strong seismic ground shaking, ground failure, and liquefaction. Design elements of structures for human occupancy should include a setback of 75 feet from the San Gabriel Fault, and pipelines (including gas, water, storm drain, and sewer) shall be constructed to allow flexure (Allan E. Seward Engineering Geology, Inc. 2007). During construction of the proposed project, the developer shall implement all recommendations provided in the project -specific geotechnical study, including, but not limited to, removal of unsuitable soils and uncertified fills, and over -excavation and recompacting of soils within the project site. Typical hillside grading development and grading ground improvement shall be implemented to withstand the anticipated ground shaking and static and seismic -induced settlement. MM GEO-2 Paleontological Resource Monitoring. The developer shall implement the following: a. Retain a Qualified Professional Paleontologist: A Project Paleontologist, defined as one who meets the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards for a qualified professional paleontologist, should be retained to carry out all regulatory compliance measures and protocols related to paleontological resources. b. Conduct Worker Training: The Project Paleontologist should develop WEAP training to educate the construction crew on the legal requirements for preserving fossil resources, as well as the procedures to follow in the event of a fossil discovery. This training program should be given 48 Packet Pg. 331 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration to the crew before ground -disturbing work begins and should include handouts to be given to new workers as needed. c. Monitor for Paleontological Resources: Full-time monitoring should be required in areas mapped as Holocene and late Pleistocene young alluvium, undivided (Qya) when ground - disturbing activities impact previously undisturbed sediments greater than or equal to 5 feet below ground surface, or in areas mapped as Pleistocene to late Pliocene Saugus Formation, undivided (QTs) (regardless of depth). Monitoring should not be required when ground - disturbing activities impact only artificial fill, previously disturbed sediments, and areas mapped as Qya at depths less than 5 feet below ground surface. Monitoring should be conducted by a paleontological monitor who meets the standards of the SVP and should be supervised by the Project Paleontologist, who may periodically inspect construction activities to adjust the level of monitoring in response to subsurface conditions. Monitoring efforts can be increased, reduced, or ceased entirely if determined adequate by the Project Paleontologist in consultation with the Applicant and the City. Paleontological monitoring should include inspection of exposed sedimentary units during active excavations within sensitive geologic sediments. The monitor should have authority to temporarily divert activity away from exposed fossils to evaluate the significance of the find and, should the fossils be determined significant, professionally and efficiently recover the fossil specimens and collect associated data. The monitor should record pertinent geologic data and collect appropriate sediment samples from any fossil localities. Recovered fossils should be prepared to the point of curation, identified by qualified experts, listed in a database to facilitate analysis, and deposited in a designated paleontological repository (e.g., Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County). d. Prepare a Paleontological Resources Monitoring Report: Upon conclusion of ground - disturbing activities, the Project Paleontologist overseeing paleontological monitoring should prepare a final paleontological resources monitoring report that documents the paleontological monitoring efforts for the project and describes any paleontological resources discoveries observed and/or recorded during the life of the project. If paleontological resources are curated, the final report and any associated data pertinent to the curated specimen(s) should be submitted to the designated repository. A copy of the final report should be filed with the City. VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Less Than Less Environmental Issues Potentially Significant with Than No Significant Impact Mitigation Significan Impact Incorporated t Impact Would the project: (a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? The analysis for this section is based on the project's Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum, included as Appendix A (LSA 2024a). Setting Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are gases that absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect is a natural process that contributes to regulating the Earth's temperature. Global climate change 49 Packet Pg. 332 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration concerns are focused on whether human activities are leading to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect. Principal GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), 03, and water vapor. 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 COz 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 (MTCOze). Global climate change is a cumulative impact; a project participates in this potential impact through its incremental contribution combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of GHGs. There are currently no established thresholds for assessing whether the GHG emissions of a project in the SCAB, such as the project, would be considered a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change; however, all reasonable efforts should be made to minimize a project's contribution to global climate change. In addition, while GHG impacts are recognized exclusively as cumulative impacts (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association [CAPCOA] 2008), GHG emissions impacts must also be evaluated at a project level under CEQA. A detailed discussion of methodologies for performing project -level GHG assessments, including State CEQA Guidelines, SCAQMD recommendations, and the guidance set forth City of Santa Clarita General Plan, is provided in Appendix A. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 recommends that lead agencies quantify GHG emissions of projects and consider several other factors that may be used in the determination of significance of GHG emissions from a project, including the extent to which a project may increase or reduce GHG emissions; whether a project exceeds an applicable significance threshold; and the extent to which a project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. The State CEQA Guidelines do not establish a threshold of significance. Rather, lead agencies, such as the City of Santa Clarita, have the discretion to establish significance thresholds for their respective jurisdictions. In establishing those thresholds, the lead agency may appropriately look to thresholds developed by other public agencies or suggested by other experts, as long as any threshold chosen is supported by substantial evidence (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7[c]). A project's incremental contribution to a cumulative impact can be found not cumulatively considerable if the project would comply with an approved plan or mitigation program that provides specific requirements that would avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem in the geographic area of the project. To qualify, such plans or programs must be specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources through a public review process to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by the public agency. Examples of such programs include a water quality control plan (Basin Plan), air quality attainment or maintenance plan, integrated waste management plan, habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plans, and plans or regulations for the reduction of GHG emissions. Therefore, a lead agency can make a finding of less than significant for GHG emissions if a project complies with adopted programs, plans, policies, and/or other regulatory strategies to reduce GHG emissions. A project would be considered consistent with applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions if a qualitative analysis demonstrates that the project meets the general intent in reducing GHG emissions in order to facilitate the achievement of local- and State -adopted goals and does not impede attainment of those goals. In the absence of any adopted numeric threshold, the significance of a project's GHG emissions is evaluated consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(b) by considering whether the project complies with applicable plans, policies, regulations, and requirements adopted to implement a statewide, 50 Packet Pg. 333 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. For this project, as a land use development project, the most directly applicable adopted regulatory plan to reduce GHG emissions is SCAG's 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, which is designed to achieve regional GHG reductions from the land use and transportation sectors as required by SB 375 and the State's long-term climate goals (SLAG 2020a). This analysis also considers consistency with regulations or requirements adopted by the 2008 Climate Change Scoping Plan and subsequent updates (GARB 2008, 2022). Environmental Evaluation a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less than Significant Impact. The City of Santa Clarita has not adopted a numerical significance threshold for assessing impacts related to GHG emissions. Similarly, the SCAQMD, GARB, and all state and regional agencies have not yet adopted numerical significance thresholds for assessing GHG emissions that are applicable to the project. Notwithstanding, the following analysis calculates the amount of GHG emissions that would be attributable to the project using the recommended air quality model, CalEEMod (see Section III, Air Quality). Further, in the absence of any adopted numerical threshold, the significance of project -related GHG emissions is evaluated by considering whether the project is consistent with applicable plans, policies, and regulations that have been established to reduce or mitigate GHG emissions. For the project, the relevant adopted regulatory plans include the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan, and the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. This following analysis describes the proposed project's construction- and operation -related GHG emissions and contribution to global climate change. Construction Emissions Construction activities associated with the proposed project would produce combustion emissions from various sources. During construction, GHGs would be emitted through the operation of construction equipment and from worker and builder supply vendor vehicles, each of which typically use fossil -based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil -based fuels creates GHGs such as COz, CH4, and N20. Furthermore, CH4 is emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. Exhaust emissions from on -site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change. Exhaust emissions from on -site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change. The SCAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction -related GHG emissions. However, lead agencies are required to quantify and disclose GHG emissions that would occur during construction. The SCAQMD then suggests that the construction GHG emissions to be amortized over the life of the project, defined by the SCAQMD as 30 years, added to the operational emissions, and compared to the applicable interim GHG significance threshold tier. As indicated above, the SCAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction - related GHG emissions. However, lead agencies are required to quantify and disclose GHG emissions that would occur during construction. Using CalEEMod, it is estimated that the project would generate approximately 1,447.8 MT COze during construction of the project. When annualized over the 30-year life of the project, annual emissions would be 48.3 MT COze. As with project -generated construction criteria air pollutant emissions, GHG emissions generated during construction of the project would be short-term in nature, lasting only for the duration of the construction period, and would not represent a long-term source of GHG emissions. 51 Packet Pg. 334 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Operational Emissions Long-term GHG emissions are typically generated from mobile sources (e.g., vehicle trips), area sources (e.g., maintenance activities and landscaping), offroad sources (e.g., use of the operational equipment), stationary sources (e.g., the diesel backup generator), indirect emissions from sources associated with energy consumption, waste sources (land filling and waste disposal), and water sources (water supply and conveyance, treatment, and distribution). Mobile -source GHG emissions would include project -generated vehicle trips to and from the project. Area -source emissions would be associated with activities such as landscaping and maintenance on the project site. Energy source emissions would be generated at off -site utility providers because of increased electricity demand generated by the project. Waste source emissions generated by the proposed project include energy generated by land filling and other methods of disposal related to transporting and managing project -generated waste. In addition, water source emissions associated with the proposed project are generated by water supply and conveyance, water treatment, water distribution, and wastewater treatment. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(c), GHG emissions were estimated for the proposed project using CalEEMod. Table 8 shows the calculated operational GHG emissions for the project. Table 8. Estimated Annual Operation GHG Emissions Emissions Source co, CH, NZO CO2e Mobile Sources 3,939.1 0.2 0.2 3,997.4 Area Sources 26.7 <0.1 <0.1 26.8 Energy Sources 829.3 0.1 <0.1 832.4 Water Sources 85.9 1.3 <0.1 128.60 Waste Sources 35.2 3.5 0.1 123.20 Offroad Sources 350.5 <0.1 <0.1 351.7 Stationary Sources 9.5 <0.1 <0.1 9.6 Total Project Operational Emissions 5,469.7 Amortized Construction Emissions 48.30 Total Annul Emissions 5,518.0 Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N20 = nitrous oxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent See Appendix A for complete results. As shown in Table 8, estimated annual project -generated operational GHG emissions would be approximately 5,469.7 MT CO2e per year; with amortized construction emissions of approximately 48.3 MT CO2e per year, total project emissions would be approximately 5,518 MT CO2e per year. As previously discussed, there are currently no established thresholds for assessing whether the GHG emissions of a project in the SCAB would result in a significant impact to the environment, and there are currently no mandatory GHG regulations or finalized agency guidelines that would apply to implementation of this project. In the absence of any adopted numeric threshold, the significance of a project's GHG emissions is evaluated consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(b) by considering whether the project complies with applicable plans, policies, regulations, and requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. This consistency analysis is provided below in Threshold VIII(b). Given the project is consistent with the regulations adopted for reducing GHG emissions, the project's generation of greenhouse gas emissions would be less than significant. 52 Packet Pg. 335 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less than Significant Impact. Appendix A provides analysis of the project's consistency with the following regulations or requirements adopted for reducing GHG emissions: CARB's 2022 Scoping Plan and SCAG's 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. Additionally, the project would adhere to all requirements of the City of Santa Clarita General Plan. CARB's 2022 Scoping Plan The Scoping Plan (approved by CARB in 2008 and updated in 2022) provides a framework for actions to reduce California's GHG emissions and requires CARB and other state agencies to adopt regulations and other initiatives to reduce GHGs (GARB 2008, 2014, 2017). The Scoping Plan is not directly applicable to specific projects, nor is it intended to be used for project -level evaluations .2 It does provide recommendations for lead agencies to develop evidence -based numeric thresholds consistent with the Scoping Plan, the State's long-term GHG goals, and climate change science. Under the Scoping Plan, however, there are several state 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 usage, 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 Scoping Plan recommends strategies for implementation at the statewide level to meet the goals of Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and establishes an overall framework for the measures that would be adopted to reduce California's GHG emissions. Appendix A highlights measures that have been, or would be, developed under the Scoping Plan and presents the project's consistency with Scoping Plan measures. 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 project. Senate Bill 375 (Southern California Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy) The SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is a regional growth management strategy that targets per -capita GHG reduction from passenger vehicles and light trucks in the Southern California region pursuant to SB 375. In addition to demonstrating the region's ability to attain the GHG emission -reduction targets set forth by GARB, the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS outlines a series of actions and strategies for integrating the transportation network with an overall land use pattern that responds to projected growth, housing needs, changing demographics, and transportation demands. Thus, successful implementation of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS would result in more complete communities with a variety of transportation and housing choices, while reducing automobile use. The strategies shown in Appendix A are intended to be supportive of implementing the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and reducing GHGs: Better manage the existing transportation system through design management strategies, integrate land use decisions and technological advancements, create complete streets that are safe to all roadway users, preserve the transportation system and expand transit and foster development in transit -oriented communities (LSA 2024a). The project would not conflict with any strategies of the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. 2 The Final Statement of Reasons for the amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines reiterates the statement in the Initial Statement of Reasons that "[t]he Scoping Plan may not be appropriate for use in determining the significance of individual projects because it is conceptual at this stage and relies on the future development of regulations to implement the strategies identified in the Scoping Plan" (California Natural Resources Agency 2009:97-98). 53 Packet Pg. 336 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita General Plan The City of Santa Clarita General Plan defines a local threshold of significance for GHG emissions for project -level submittals that trigger CEQA review. Because goals, objectives, and policies approved under the General Plan are forecast to meet the GHG emission reduction targets mandated by AB 32 and SB 375, development projects that can demonstrate consistency with the General Plan would by association demonstrate consistency with AB 32. Summary As discussed, the project is consistent with the GHG emission reduction measures in the CARB Scoping Plan and would not conflict with the state's trajectory toward future GHG reductions. In addition, since the specific path to compliance for the state in regard to the long-term goals would likely require development of technology or other changes that are not currently known or available, specific additional mitigation measures for the project would be speculative and cannot be identified at this time. The project's consistency would assist in meeting the City's contribution to GHG emission reduction targets in California. With respect to future GHG targets under SB 32 and Executive Order 5-03-05, CARB has also made clear its legal interpretation is that it has the requisite authority to adopt whatever regulations are necessary, beyond the AB 32 horizon year of 2020, to meet SB 32's 40% reduction target by 2030 and Executive Order 5-03-05's 80% reduction target by 2050; this legal interpretation by an expert agency provides evidence that future regulations would be adopted to continue the state on its trajectory toward meeting these future GHG targets. Based on the considerations previously outlined, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Therefore, the project's impact associated with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs would be less than significant. Conclusion The project would not result in a significant adverse impact to greenhouse gas emissions; no mitigation measures are necessary. IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Less Than Less Than Environmental Issues Potentially Significant with Significant No Impact Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: (a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? (d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x 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? 54 Packet Pg. 337 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Less Than Less Than Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact (e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project site? (f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (g) Expose people or structures, either directly or ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? The information in this section of this IS/MND is based on the following two reports: • Hazardous Materials Assessment for Riverview Development Project, dated March 6, 2024, (Dudek 2024d) which is provided as Appendix F: Hazardous Materials Assessment. Technical Review Memorandum and Summary of Environmental Activities The Riverview Project, dated November 16, 2022, prepared by Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants (Ninyo & Moore); included as Appendix G: Hazardous Materials Technical Memorandum to this IS/MND (Ninyo & Moore 2022) Setting The project site is located on the former Saugus Speedway in the city of Santa Clarita, which is bordered by Soledad Canyon Road and the Santa Clara River to the north-northeast and the Metrolink rail line to the south-southwest. The average elevation of the project site ranges approximately between 1,185 and 1,296 feet amsl. Surrounding land uses include the Santa Clara River and floodplain followed by residential to the north and northeast, commercial to the southeast and northwest, Metrolink rail line and undeveloped hillsides to the south, and a family counseling center, Action Family Rehab, located approximately 650 feet west of the project site. The depth to groundwater on the project site, according to 2020 groundwater monitoring, ranges between approximately 20 and 30 feet below ground surface, and groundwater flow direction is toward the west-northwest. Yearly variation in depth to groundwater is common in areas of the project site and is highly dependent on precipitation and recharge from the nearby Santa Clara River (Dudek 2024d). No active oil and gas wells were identified within 1 mile of the project site, and one natural gas pipeline is located approximately 0.6 mile southwest of the project site along Springbook Avenue (Dudek 2024d). The closest water supply well was identified approximately 330 feet east of the project site. A decommissioned municipal well, with no available water level data, was identified along the northern boundary of the project site. Six groundwater monitoring wells are located on the project site: two north of the racetrack, two near the center, and two on the hill in the west of the project site. These wells and a large number of additional monitoring wells located southeast of the project site are related to the Whittaker/Bermite cleanup site, which covered over 900 acres in the hills adjacent and to the south of the project site. The Whittaker/Bermite facility manufactured, stored, and tested explosives from 1934 to 1987. Contaminated groundwater was identified at the project site as a result of the Whittaker/Bermite facility, and remediation activities have successfully reduced the extent of groundwater contamination in the area, including that which impacted the project site. As of May 2020, groundwater monitoring wells on the project site do not have detectable concentrations of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and trichloroethylene. 55 Packet Pg. 338 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration The project site is identified in the EnviroStor database as a voluntary cleanup site. In 2007, a preliminary endangerment assessment (PEA) was completed for the project site (Avocet 2007). The PEA evaluated site conditions and the potential for environmental contamination related to historical site use and adjoining contaminated sites. This included historical agricultural use (pesticides/herbicides), automotive use (petroleum hydrocarbons, metals, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls, and VOCs), the adjoining Whittaker/Bermite Facility (VOCs), and buildings with lead -based paint (lead). The PEA identified VOCs and perchlorate in the groundwater on the project site that originated from the Whittaker/Bermite site (Avocet 2007). The PEA also identified lead concentrations in soil above regulatory screening levels applicable at that time, which were believed to be attributed to lead -based paint on existing site structures (Avocet 2007). The 2007 PEA references five underground storage tanks containing fuel and potentially heating oil. While all five former tanks were believed to have been removed, evidence of removal for only three was identified (Avocet 2007). Additional investigations were completed between 2007 and 2021, and in that time groundwater remediation was conducted at the former Whittaker/Bermite Facility. Many of the structures believed to have lead -based paints were also removed. A 2021 Phase II subsurface investigation was completed on the project site, which included collection of 21 soil samples and installation and sampling of 12 dual - depth soil vapor probes on the project site. VOCs were not identified in soil vapor above applicable risk - based levels (with the exception of one sample, discussed below), and elevated concentrations of lead above applicable screening levels were not observed in soil (Department of Toxic Substances Control [DTSC] 2021; GSI Environmental, Inc. 2021). DTSC agreed that no further risk to human health was present and issued a no further action (NFA) determination for the project site with approved unrestricted land use (DTSC 2021). The project site was also identified on the GeoTracker and California Environmental Protection Agency (CaIEPA) databases (State Water Resources Control Board [SWRCB] 2022). The GeoTracker listing is for waste discharge requirements related to car wash activities beginning in 1975. This case was last inspected in August 2002 and is now closed and considered "historical." The project site is listed on the CaIEPA database as a hazardous waste generator and a chemical storage facility, containing propane and diesel fuel. Environmental Evaluation a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction activities associated with the project would involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials such as fuels, lubricants, paints, and solvents associated with construction vehicles, equipment, and supplies. The project would require heavy equipment (e.g., dozers, excavators, tractors) operation at the project site during construction. Heavy equipment is typically fueled and maintained by petroleum -based substances such as diesel fuel, gasoline, oil, and hydraulic fluid, which is considered hazardous if improperly stored or handled. Improper use, storage, or transportation of hazardous materials can result in accidental releases or spills, potentially posing health risks to workers, the public, and the environment. This is a standard risk on all construction sites, and there would be no greater risk for improper handling, transportation, or spills associated with the project than would occur on any other similar construction site. Construction contractors would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations regarding the transport, use, and storage of hazardous construction -related materials. Relevant state regulations include the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration, CCR Title 8, which establishes occupational health and safety standards related to employee training, availability of safety equipment, accident prevention programs, and hazardous substance exposure 56 Packet Pg. 339 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration warnings. CCR Title 8 also requires the construction contractor to implement a communication program that includes label warnings, safety data sheets, and information and training for workers about the chemicals to which they could be exposed. Relevant local requirements include Section 10.04.070 of the City Municipal Code, which identifies construction stormwater measures that would be implemented prior to and during construction. Construction activities would also involve the excavation of soil; ground -disturbing activities associated with project construction include grading approximately 500,000 cubic yards of cut and approximately 420,000 cubic yards of fill, with the entirety of the site being graded and raised approximately 10 feet on average. Based on the environmental assessments and investigations prepared for the project as summarized in the findings of the Hazardous Materials Assessment (Dudek 2024d), it is possible that contaminated soils would have the potential to create a hazard to workers at the site during construction activities and impacts could be potentially significant. Implementation of MM HAZ- I would include the preparation of a Soil Management Plan to identify the protocols for excavation, temporary stockpiling, handling, and disposal of impacted soil that may be encountered at the project site. The Soil Management Plan would also provide guidance for monitoring requirements to be followed during excavation activities, stockpiling procedures, excavated soil waste characterization requirements, soil disposal requirements based on waste characterization, sampling and analyses requirements in the event impacted soil is detected, soil screening levels, and regulatory reporting requirements. Operation of the proposed project would include use of minor quantities of commercially available hazardous materials, such as paints, lubricants, pool cleaners/chlorine, cleansers, pesticides, fertilizers, and miscellaneous organics and inorganics that may be used by the residents of the new homes for landscaping, vehicle maintenance, household cleaning, and drainage maintenance activities. In the event that these materials are handled improperly or released to the environment during transport, use, and/or disposal, they can create hazards for the public and/or the environment. However, these materials are not considered acutely hazardous and are used routinely throughout urban environments for operation of commercial businesses. Handling, storage, and disposal of these hazardous materials would comply with all federal, state, and local requirements, including training of operational staff on proper handling. Furthermore, the County of Los Angeles and the City have programs in place to encourage safe and proper disposal of such materials. For example, the City has household hazardous waste collections (I -day events hosted by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District and the LACDPW), which allow residents to safely dispose of their hazardous wastes. Residents are also able to dispose of their hazardous wastes safely at Solvents/Automotive/Flammables/Electronics (S.A.F.E.) collection centers, which are open every weekend and are operated by the City of Los Angeles Sanitation Department. The closest S.A.F.E. Center to the project site is located at 11025 Randall Street in Sun Valley, California. Through compliance with local, state, and federal regulations, in conjunction with local programs that encourage safe disposal of hazardous materials, implementation of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The proposed project would result in less -than -significant impacts regarding creation of hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and no mitigation measures are necessary. With adherence to applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations regarding the transport, use, and storage of hazardous construction -related materials as well as implementation of MM HAZ- I (Soil Management Plan), construction -related impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 57 Packet Pg. 340 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration b) Would the project 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? Less than Significant Impact. Accidents involving hazardous materials that could pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment would be highly unlikely during the construction and long-term operation of the project and are not reasonably foreseeable. As discussed above, the transport, use, and handling of hazardous materials on the project site during construction is a standard risk on all construction sites, and there would be no greater risk for upset and accidents than would occur on any other similar construction site. Upon buildout, the project site would operate as a housing complex. Based on the operational characteristics of homes, it is possible that hazardous materials could be used during the course of a future occupant's daily operations; however, as discussed above, household items are not acutely hazardous, are used intermittently, and are disposed of in the recommended fashion. The Applicant would be required to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations related to the transport, handling, and use of hazardous material. Accordingly, impacts associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials would be less than significant during both construction and long-term operation of the project and no mitigation measures are necessary. c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? Less than Significant Impact. No schools are located within 0.25 mile of the project site. There are three schools located approximately 0.75 mile to the southeast on Centre Point Parkway: two preschools, Notre Dame Children's Academy and Creative Years Infant Center and Preschool, and one high school, Bowman High School. As described above, the use of and transport of hazardous substances or materials to -and -from the project site during construction and long-term operational activities would be required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations that would preclude substantial public safety hazards. Accordingly, there would be no potential for existing or proposed schools to be exposed to substantial safety hazards associated with emission, handling of, or the routine transport of hazardous substances or materials to - and -from the project site and impacts would be less than significant. Refer to Section III, Air Quality, for analysis pertaining to human health risks associated with air pollutant emissions associated with the project. As concluded in Section III, the project's toxic air contaminant emissions (and their associated health risks) would be less than significant. d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less than Significant Impact. The Hazardous Materials Assessment, included as Appendix F, shows that Dudek performed a search of regulatory databases, including DTSC's EnviroStor database (EDR), CalEPA's SWRCB GeoTracker database, State Water Resources Control Board list of solid waste disposal sites, active Cease and Desist Orders and Cleanup and Abatement Orders, and hazardous waste facilities pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code. The Dudek search identified that the GeoTracker and California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) databases (State Water Resources Control Board [SWRCB] 2022) designate the project site as containing hazardous materials. The GeoTracker listing is for waste discharge requirements related to car wash activities beginning in 1975. This case was last inspected in August 2002, and is now closed and 58 Packet Pg. 341 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration considered "historical." The project site is listed on the CalEPA database as a hazardous waste generator and a chemical storage facility, containing propane and diesel fuel, related to the previous use as a motor speedway. The removal of existing infrastructure and hazardous materials from the project site during construction, and continued remediation of the Whittaker/Bermite Facility would ensure that inhabitants of the project site would not be impacted by hazardous materials and impacts would be less than significant. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project site? No Impact. The project site is not located within 2 miles of a public use airport, nor is it located within an airport land use plan. In addition, according to correspondence between the City and the Applicant, the City confirms the proposed building roof elevation would not conflict with the helicopter flight path. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the area. No impact would occur. 0 Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than Significant Impact. The City's General Plan and the County of Los Angeles Operational Area Disaster Route map for the City designate Interstate 5 (I-5), State Route (SR-) 14 and SR-126 as emergency evacuation routes (LACDPW 2010). The project site is not located within the vicinity of these evacuation routes and is not expected to disrupt evacuation procedures along these highways. The County designates Soledad Canyon Road as a secondary evacuation route, which acts as the northeastern project boundary. Any public right-of-way encroachments during project construction would require approval from the City. As described in Section XVII, Transportation, project -generated traffic would not substantially adversely affect the performance of nearby roadways, including Soledad Canyon Road. Therefore, emergency service response times and disaster evacuation routes would not be affected. Prior to operation, the proposed project would receive all required permits and certificates for occupancy and operation, including those issued by the City Department of Building and Safety. Therefore, the project would not substantially interfere with or impair local emergency response or emergency evacuation plans, and impacts would be less than significant. g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? Less than Significant Impact. The r eet site is not leeated within a Fire 14azafd Seve ity Zone (FucZ) The project site is located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) in a Local Responsibility Area (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection [CAL FIRE] 2024 Fire a-aa T' _`etffe ^_s_ _______~+ P+eg fan-20-2'; City of Santa Clanta 2020a). etAsi e fa F-ucZ the The project is located adjacent to and open space with low-lying vegetation, and wildfire potential exists. The project would be designed to comply with all fire safety rules and regulations, including the California Fire Code and Public Resources Code. Additionally, the Los Angeles County Fire Department would review the project site plans prior to issuance of building permits. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. For additional wildfire analysis, please refer to Section XX, Wildfire, below. 59 Packet Pg. 342 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Conclusion With implementation of MM HAZ-1, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures MM HAZ-1 Soil Management Plan. The developer and/or project contractor shall prepare and implement a Soil Management Plan for the removal of any identified contaminated soils and their transportation off -site. The Soil Management Plan shall be prepared in coordination with the City and the Los Angeles County Fire Department (as the Certified Unified Program Agency) and in accordance with all relevant and applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations that pertain to the transportation and disposal of hazardous materials and waste. The Soil Management Plan shall: • describe the methodology to identify and manage (reuse or off -site disposal) contaminated soil during soil excavation and/or construction; and • provide protocols for confirmation sampling, segregation and stockpiling, profiling, backfilling, disposal, guidelines for imported soil, and backfill approval from the DTSC Information Advisory on Clean Imported Fill Material. The Soil Management Plan shall be implemented during project construction. X. Hydrology and Water Quality Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than Environmental Issues Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact p Incorporated Impact p Would the project. - (a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? (b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ interfere substantially 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 erosion or siltation on- or off- ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ site; (ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site; (iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x (d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ of pollutants due to project inundation? (e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? 60 Packet Pg. 343 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration The information provided in this section is based, in part, on the Hydrology Technical Memorandum for Riverview Development Project, prepared by Dudek, dated November 16, 2022 (Dudek 2022), provided as Appendix H): Hydrology Technical Memorandum. Setting The project site is located within the Santa Clara River watershed, which is the largest river system in Southern California that remains in a relatively natural state and drains approximately 1,200 square miles (RWQCB 2022a). The Santa Clara River originates in the northern slope of the San Gabriel Mountains in Los Angeles County and traverses through Ventura County where it eventually empties into the Pacific Ocean between San Buenaventura and Oxnard. The project site is located within the Reach 6 segment of the Santa Clara River of what is defined as the Upper Santa Clara River (Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group 2015). Reach 6 runs between Bouquet Canyon Road Bridge and West Pier Highway 99. According to the RWQCB, Reach 6 of the Santa Clara River is impaired by chlorpyrifos (insecticide), coliform bacteria, diazinon (insecticide), toxicity, and chloride (salts) (RWQCB 2022b). The project site is located immediately southwest Soledad Canyon Road, which traverses the southern bank of the Santa Clara River. Therefore, the Santa Clara River would be considered the nearest receiving body of water for any stormwater runoff discharging from the site. The Santa Clara River Valley groundwater basin has a total of six subbasins. The project site is located within the Santa Clara River Valley East subbasin (DWR Basin 4-004.07) (California Department of Water Resources [DWR] 2022), the easternmost of the six subbasins. It is bounded on the north by the Piru Mountains, on the east and southeast by the San Gabriel Mountains, and on the south by the Santa Susannah Mountains (Santa Clarita Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency [SCV-GSA] 2022). The city of Santa Clarita is near the eastern boundary of this 66,200-acre subbasin. Groundwater is found in the alluvial deposits, terrace deposits, and the Saugus Formation. While the groundwater is generally unconfined it can also be found as confined or semi -confined within the Saugus Formation (SCV-GSA 2022). The two principal aquifer systems of the subbasin include the alluvial aquifer system which overlies the Saugus Formation (SCV-GSA 2022). Average annual precipitation in the Santa Clara River Valley ranges from 14 to 16 inches. Rain falling in the upper elevations of the watershed infiltrates into the soil, where some of the water evaporates or is transpired by vegetation and the remainder becomes stormwater that can also infiltrate to underlying groundwater resources. A portion of the runoff occurs as overland flows into side canyons and tributaries to the Santa Clara River. In the urbanized areas, precipitation falling on impervious surfaces is directed to storm drains that flow to the river or the stormwater is directed to swales and allowed to infiltrate locally (SCV-GSA 2022). The subbasin is not adjudicated and in accordance with the California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act is being managed by the SCV-GSA. As required by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, the DWR has evaluated the subbasin for sustainability and determined that it is a High Priority basin, with long-term hydrographs showing groundwater levels declining (DWR 2022). The project site is currently predominantly covered by impervious surfaces (approximately 80%). Stormwater runoff at the site currently occurs as sheet flows that move from southwest to northeast and into two existing storm drain pipe culverts that are owned/maintained by the County of Los Angeles (RDD 234, Cash Contract No. 2674). A third pipe also collects flows but for just a section of Soledad Canyon Road. These existing pipe culverts convey stormwater under Soledad Canyon Road and outlet to the Santa Clara River on the north side of Soledad Canyon Road. The hillsides southwest of the project site currently drain toward the Metrolink railroad and into three inlets leading to 24-inch pipes that convey the flow under the railroad. The stormwater then sheet -flows across the project site. 61 Packet Pg. 344 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration According to mapping compiled by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the entire project site is outside of any 100-year flood zone and is located within an area of minimal flood hazard (Zone X) (FEMA 2021a). The floodplain associated with the Santa Clara River is confined and bounded on the south bank, nearest to the project site, by Soledad Canyon Road. Environmental Evaluation a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Less than Significant Impact. The project would be required to comply with Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, which authorizes the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program that covers point sources of pollution discharging to a water body. The NPDES program also requires operators of construction sites 1 acre or larger to prepare a SWPPP and obtain authorization to discharge stormwater under an NPDES construction stormwater permit. The Applicant also would be required to comply with the California Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Section 13000 et seq. of the California Water Code), which requires that comprehensive water quality control plans be developed for all waters within the State of California. The project site is located within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles RWQCB. Construction The project would involve earthwork activities and soil disturbance over the course of construction that could expose soils to the effects of wind and water erosion and sedimentation. Earthwork activities would include grading, excavations for foundations, and trenching for placement of utilities on -site as well as some perimeter areas just outside of the project site boundary. The primary potential pollutant associated with construction activity is sediment (i.e., high turbidity) generated from site preparation and grading activities. Although Reach 6 of the Santa Clara River is listed under Clean Water Act Section 303(d) as impaired for sedimentation/siltation, a measurable increase in sedimentation/siltation from construction activities on the site could temporarily violate Basin Plan objectives, if not properly controlled. In addition to sediment, other pollutants associated with construction activity could include heavy metals, oil/grease, fuels, demolition debris and trash, and other pollutants from accidental spills or releases of refuse, paints, solvents, sanitary wastes, and concrete curing compounds. Without adequate precautions, wind and/or rain events that occur during construction activities could generate pollutants and/or mobilize sediment such that it contributes to water quality degradation of receiving waters and/or violates Basin Plan objectives. Standard construction management practices, as required through the Santa Clarita Municipal Code and the statewide NPDES Construction General Permit, would minimize construction -related impacts on water quality. The Construction General Permit would require implementation of a SWPPP to address potential construction -related impacts on water quality. The SWPPP must specify the location, type, and maintenance requirements for BMPs necessary to prevent stormwater runoff from carrying construction - related pollutants into the City's municipal storm drain system, Santa Clara River, and/or the underlying groundwater basin. BMPs must be implemented to address potential release of fuels, oil, and/or lubricants from construction vehicles and equipment (e.g., drip pans, secondary containment, washing stations); release of sediment from material stockpiles and other construction related excavations (e.g., sediment barriers, soil binders); and other construction -related activities with the potential to adversely affect water quality. The number, type, location, and maintenance requirements of BMPs to be implemented as part of the SWPPP depend on site -specific risk factors such as soil erosivity, construction season/duration, and receiving water sensitivity. 62 Packet Pg. 345 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration The following list includes examples of treatment control BMPs commonly employed during construction, although these could vary based on the nature of construction activities, the characteristics of the site, and the existing receiving waters impairments (these features would appear as notes on any final design plans): • Silt fences installed along limits of work and/or the construction site • Stockpile containment (e.g., polyethylene plastic sheeting, fiber rolls, gravel bags) • Exposed soil stabilization structures (e.g., fiber matrix on slopes and construction access stabilization mechanisms) • Street sweeping • Tire washes for equipment • Runoff control devices (e.g., drainage swales, gravel bag barriers/chevrons, velocity check dams) and slope protection • Drainage system inlet protection • Wind erosion (dust) controls • Tracking controls • Prevention of fluid leaks (inspections and drip pans) from vehicles • Materials pollution management • Proper waste management (e.g., concrete waste management) • Regular inspections and maintenance of BMPs The standard requirements contained in a SWPPP, and enforced through the Santa Clarita Municipal Code Chapters 10.04 and 17.90, are sufficient to minimize the project's potential to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction. Therefore, construction -related impacts of the project on water quality would be less than significant. Operation Project implementation would involve changes to existing drainage patterns. While the project site is already largely covered in impervious surfaces, estimated at 80%, the proposed changes would increase the impervious surfaces percentage to approximately 85% (Dudek 2022). These changes could become a source of pollution from incidental spills of vehicle oils and other chemicals that can be conveyed by storm and landscape irrigation flows. The impervious surfaces would prevent polluted surface waters from absorbing into the ground surface. During storm events, pollutants from paved areas lacking in proper stormwater controls and BMPs could enter the municipal storm drain system, before eventually being discharged to the Santa Clara River. The majority of pollutants entering the storm drain system in this manner could be sediment, nutrients, organic compounds, oxygen demanding substances, trash, debris, bacteria, residual petroleum products (e.g., motor oil, gasoline, diesel fuel), and metals. Certain metals, along with nutrients and pesticides from landscape areas, can also be present in stormwater runoff. Between periods of rainfall, surface pollutants tend to accumulate, and runoff from the first significant storm of the year ("first flush") would likely have the largest concentration of pollutants. However, all proposed improvements would be required to adhere to existing drainage control requirements including the Los Angeles County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) 63 Packet Pg. 346 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration NPDES permit and the City's drainage control requirements (Municipal Code Chapter 17.95 - Stormwater Mitigation Plan). Before a building permit is issued, the Applicant would have to submit an Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan to the City for review and approval. An Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan has been prepared for the proposed project and demonstrates how the proposed drainage control improvements —a biofiltration basin and biofiltration treatment units —would be incorporated into project design plans to address the specific water quality issues at the site. As part of these requirements, the Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan identifies that the applicable BMPs are consistent with low -impact development requirements that meet all applicable MS4 permit and City requirements. The proposed project would include this biofiltration basin and biofiltration treatment units to remove a majority of pollutants with a capacity that is adequate to treat all site runoff (Dudek 2022). With adherence to these drainage control requirements, and implementation of post -construction BMPs, water quality concerns would be minimized during operations. Therefore, compliance with these existing regulatory requirements for drainage control design measures would reduce potential impacts related to water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less than Significant Impact. There are no groundwater extraction wells currently at the project site and no extraction wells are proposed as part of the project. The project would not include any require deep excavation that would potentially encounter groundwater and thus no dewatering activities would be anticipated during construction. The proposed project would be served by the Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency (SCV Water) for all water supply demands. The developed project would receive all of its water from a piped water system, connected to an SCV Water water transmission main. According to the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), SCV Water obtains approximately 26% of its water supplies from groundwater (SCV Water 2021). Analysis of projected growth that would include the proposed project and projected supplies, the SCV Water's demands can be met by supplies in normal, single dry year, and multiple dry - year scenarios, although demands may require some passive and active conservation measures to end up below projected supplies (SCV Water 2021). In addition, according to the groundwater sustainability plan for the underlying groundwater subbasin, "the Basin is not likely to be in an overdraft condition under a sustained level of pumping at the full -build -out level of human demand for groundwater, even under the average climate change scenarios for 2030 and 2070; and the operating plan for the Basin's groundwater resources is expected to continue maintaining a condition that does not create an overdraft condition (chronic long-term declines in groundwater levels) in the future" (SCV-GSA 2022, Page 6-136). In addition, the City's Stormwater Mitigation Plan (Municipal Code Chapter 17.95) requires that projects develop and implement a mitigation plan to lessen the water quality impacts of the project by using smart growth practices and BMPs and integrate low -impact development design principles to mimic pre - development hydrology conditions through infiltration, evapotranspiration, rainfall harvest, and use. The project would include construction of an on -site biofiltration basin would allow much of the stormwater runoff from the site to provide local groundwater recharge. Therefore, while the project would increase the amount of new impervious surfaces at the site, the site also includes landscaped areas and the biofiltration basin where infiltration would occur during rainstorms. Therefore, the project would not contribute to depletion of groundwater or interfere with recharge of a managed groundwater supply source. Impacts would be less than significant. 64 Packet Pg. 347 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration c) Would the project 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: c-i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? Less than Significant Impact. As noted above, the project would alter the existing drainage patterns of the site, although there would only be an approximate 5% increase in impervious surfaces at the site. The proposed improvements would be required to adhere to MS4 permit requirements and local City drainage control requirements. All runoff from the project would be captured in a private drainage control system that routes through an underground system before eventually tying into the existing storm drainpipe culverts owned/maintained by Los Angeles County (Dudek 2022). Before discharging to the existing storm drain system, the stormwater would be routed to a low -flow splitter. The splitter would send the first -flush flows to the biofiltration basin to be treated. The splitter would convey high flows to the existing downstream storm drain system. For the portion of the site that cannot be treated in the basin, the low flow would be treated in one of two proprietary biofiltration units. Therefore, with adherence to the MS4 permit and local City drainage control requirements (Municipal Code Chapter 17.95 - Stormwater Mitigation Plan), the proposed changes to drainage patterns would not result in erosion or siltation on- or off -site. Impacts would be less than significant. c-ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site; Less than Significant Impact. As described above under Threshold X(c(i)), the project would alter the existing drainage patterns of the site, although the increase in impervious surfaces would only be from approximately 80% to 85% of the site. However, the project would be required to adhere to MS4 permit requirements and local City drainage control requirements The project's drainage plan is required to be reviewed and approved by the LACDPW, which would ensure no increase in runoff. Therefore, implementation of the project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface water runoff discharged from the site in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off -site. Impacts would be less than significant. c-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? Less than Significant Impact. As detailed in the Hydrology Technical Memorandum prepared for the project site, stormwater flows from the site currently occur as sheet flows in a northeast direction and into the two storm drain culverts as well as a third culvert that picks up flow for a section of Soledad Canyon Road (Dudek 2022). According to the analysis of the proposed drainage condition, all developed flows would be below the culvert capacities, and it was determined that these existing culverts can adequately convey the developed flow condition from the project (Dudek 2022). As a result, the project would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff that would result in flooding on- or off -site, nor would it exceed the capacity of existing stormwater drainage systems. There would also be no other source of polluted runoff that is not already discussed above. Impacts would be less than significant. c-iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. According to FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06037C0817G, the project site is within Zone X (FEMA 2021b). The Zone X designation represents areas of minimal flood hazard and is not considered a special flood hazard area. Accordingly, the project site is not expected to be inundated by 65 Packet Pg. 348 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration flood flows during the lifetime of the project and the project would not impede flood flows. No impact would occur. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Less than Significant Impact. The Pacific Ocean is located over 26 miles southwest of the project site; consequently, there is no potential for the project site to be impacted by a tsunami as tsunamis typically only reach up to a few miles inland. The nearest large body of water to the project site is Upper Van Norman Lake, with the dam located approximately 10 miles southeast of the project site. According to City of Santa Clarita General Plan Figure S-4, Special Flood Hazard Areas and Dam Inundation Areas, the project site is not located in an identified inundation area (City of Santa Clarita 2022b); therefore, risk of inundation by dam failure or seiche is low. Additionally, there are no levees in the vicinity of the project site. Impacts would be less than significant. e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Less than Significant Impact. The project site falls within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles RWQCB (Region 4) Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties; and the RWQCB is given authority to issue waste discharge requirements, enforce actions against stormwater discharge violators, and monitor water quality. In California, the NPDES stormwater permitting program is administered by the SWRCB. The County of Los Angeles and the City are two of the co-permittees under the Los Angeles County NPDES MS4 permit, and, as such, are required to implement development planning guidance and control measures regarding water quality impacts from new development. The MS4 permit contains provisions for implementation and enforcement of the City's Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan. The City supports the requirements of the MS4 permit through Municipal Code Chapters 10.04 and 17.95, which identify requirements for pre- and postconstruction stormwater activities, respectively, for development projects to comply with the NPDES and MS4 permits. The project would comply with the requirements of the City's Municipal Code Section 10.04.070 (Construction Activity Stormwater Measures) and Chapter 17.95 (Stormwater Mitigation Plan) to ensure impacts to water quality would be less than significant. In addition, as discussed above, the project would be subject to the requirements of the NPDES Construction General Permit, which includes the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP. In regard to sustainable groundwater management, the SCV-GSA has prepared and is implementing the groundwater sustainability plan for the subbasin (SCV-GSA 2022). As the water supplier for the project, SCV Water is also complying with the groundwater sustainability plan and the project is consistent with the projected growth that is accounted for in the plan. Accordingly, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts would be less than significant. Conclusion The project would not result in a significant adverse impact to hydrology and water quality, and no Mitigation measures are necessary. 66 Packet Pg. 349 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration XI. Land Use and Planning Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than Environmental Issues Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Would the project: (a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 (b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Setting As identified in the City's General Plan, the project site's existing zoning designation is Mixed Use Corridor (MXC) with a Jobs Creation Overlay Zone (JCOZ). The MXC designation encourages development along specified commercial corridors in which revitalization of underutilized parcels or aging buildings is desired. Allowable uses in this designation include single-family, two-family, and multifamily dwellings, banks, lodging, medical services, light manufacturing, schools, public services, and supportive commercial uses with a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.0. Land use plans, policies, and regulations applicable to the project site and included in the analysis below include the City of Santa Clarita General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Environmental Evaluation a) Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact. Development of the project would not physically disrupt or divide the arrangement of an established community. Under existing conditions, the project site is vacant and undeveloped. The project vicinity is generally characterized by urban land uses and development, although undeveloped hillsides define the area southwest of the project site. Land uses surrounding the project site include Soledad Canyon Road and Los Angeles Metro rail line to the south, the Los Angeles Metrolink station to the east, and undeveloped hillside to the west. The project would add residential and light manufacturing development to the community that is generally consistent with the land use pattern in the area and what is allowed for and planned in the City's General Plan. There are no existing communities surrounding or near the project site that are situated in a way that the project would affect how those communities connect or travel between or within themselves. This is largely because the project site does not currently serve as a connection point and is self-contained due to the natural and man-made barriers surrounding the site (e.g., roadways, hillsides/landforms, the Metrolink station, the Santa Clara River and floodplain). For these reasons, the project would not physically divide an established community. b) Would the project 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? Less than Significant Impact. Land use plans and policies applicable to the project site are set forth in the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. An overview of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance is provided below. 67 Packet Pg. 350 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Santa Clarita General Plan The City's General Plan sets forth an overall vision for the City and the Santa Clarita Valley as a whole, as well as guiding principles for development in the city and goals, policies, and objectives for each of the topics covered by the General Plan elements (i.e., land use, economic development, circulation, noise, conservation and open space, safety, and housing). The overall vision, as stated in the Introduction to the Santa Clarita General Plan, page I-24, is a "mosaic of unique villages with growing ethnic diversity, each with individual identities, surrounded by a greenbelt of forest lands and natural open spaces." The vision further states that "Life in the Santa Clarita Valley will continue to be exciting, enjoyable, and rewarding through a broad range of housing types, an increase in quality jobs in close proximity to all neighborhoods, and transit -oriented villages complemented by excellent schools, attractive parks and other recreational amenities, expanded trail networks, and preserved natural resource areas." The guiding principles set forth in the General Plan specifically provide for environmental protection in the Santa Clarita Valley. The guiding principles pertaining to environmental protection include planning growth within or on the periphery of previously developed areas; siting multi -family housing and mixed - use projects adjacent to transit corridors, stations, and key activity centers, such as the Valencia Town Center and portions of Newhall and Soledad Canyon Road; preserving the natural buffer area surrounding the Santa Clarita Valley; preserving the Santa Clara River as open space; and designing new development to improve energy efficiency. The proposed project would be consistent with these goals. The project would establish a mixed -use housing development along a transit corridor (Soledad Canyon Road) within a previously disturbed parcel that is generally surrounded by developed land uses. The project site has a zoning designation of MXC. The MXC zone is intended for commercial and residential uses that would provide opportunities for local residents to live and work. In this context, and as set forth in the General Plan, this definition of commercial includes uses such as light manufacturing and public services. Residences in the mixed -use corridors must be protected from high -use arterial streets. Multiple family dwellings shall have a minimum density of I I dwelling units and a maximum density of 30 dwelling units per acre. Commercial uses are to have a maximum FAR' of 1.0. The project includes a mixed -used housing development and, therefore, would be consistent with the MXC zone's allowable land uses. Further, the project would conform to the zone's density and FAR requirements, as the project would have a density of eight dwelling units per acre and a FAR below the prescribed maximum. Given the project's consistency with the overall vision and development standards described in the General Plan, the project would not conflict with the City's General Plan, and impacts would be less than significant. City of Santa Clarita Zoning Ordinance The project is zoned as MXC. As provided for by the Santa Clarita Zoning Ordinance, the MXC zones are used for mixed -use development in specific commercial corridors. An intent of the zone is to revitalize underused parcels and older buildings. The corridors can be either horizontal or vertical but must include residences protected from the impacts caused by high -volume arterial roads. Conclusion The project would not result in a significant adverse environmental impact related to land use and planning; no mitigation measures are necessary. ' FAR calculated as total building floor area (in gross square feet [gsfJ) divided by the total lot area (in gross square feet). Total building floor area is 126,790gsf. Total lot area is approximately 1,533,312 gsf. 68 Packet Pg. 351 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration XII. Mineral Resources Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than Environmental Issues Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact p Incorporated Impact p Would the project: (a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Environmental Evaluation a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 regulates all mining activities in California and requires that significant mineral resources be protected from encroachment by incompatible development, as they provide a needed resource to support the construction of new homes, businesses, and roads. An area classified by the presence or absence of significant mineral deposits is known as a Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ). According to the City's General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, Exhibit Co-2, Mineral Resources, the project site is not within MRZ-2 and does not have mineral deposits on -site. In addition, according to mapping by the California Geological Survey (2021), the project site is within MRZ-3, which is considered "areas containing known or inferred Portland cement concrete aggregate resource of undetermined mineral resource significance." The California Geologic Energy Management Division's Well Finder map (2019) shows no oil wells present within the project site. No known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and residents of the state would be lost. Therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are necessary. 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? No Impact. The City's interactive map shows that the project site is not within any mineral or oil conservation overlay zones. The nearest zone is 1.5 miles southeast of the project site. As a result, the proposed project would not result in any loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. Thus, no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are necessary. Conclusion The project would not result in a significant adverse impact to mineral resources; no mitigation measures are necessary. 69 Packet Pg. 352 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration XIII. Noise Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than No Environmental Issues Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact p Incorporated Impact p 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 groundborne vibration or groundborne ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ noise levels? (c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project site to excessive noise levels? The information provided in this section is based on the Environmental Noise and Vibration Assessment for Riverview Development prepared by Dudek, dated March 2023 (Dudek 2023b) and the Noise Technical Memorandum prepared by Dudek, dated June 19, 2024 (Dudek 2024e). These reports are provided as Appendix I: Noise and Vibration Assessment. Setting The project site is in the city of Santa Clarita and is therefore subject to the noise requirements outlined in the City of Santa Clarita General Plan Noise Element and the City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code (Dudek 2023b). The Noise Element identifies noise -generating uses and activities within city limits, the most dominant of which include major freeways and highways such as I-5, SR-14, and Sierra Highway; arterial streets; railroads; and attractions including Magic Mountain and the former Saugus Speedway (which currently is used for swap meets and special events, and is the location of the proposed project). The City's Noise Element also identifies future growth and development within the city limits as a major contributor to future noise increases. Given the nature of the area surrounding the project site, existing ambient noise levels are expected to be in the range of 60 to 65 A -weighted decibels (dBA) day -night average sound level (Ldn)/Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) (Dudek 2023b). The primary noise source in the project vicinity is local and distant traffic noise. Noise -sensitive receptors near the project site are relatively limited. The nearest noise -sensitive land uses is a family counseling center, Action Family Rehab, located approximately 65 feet west of the project site. The nearest residences to the project site are in the River Village neighborhood off Millhouse Drive and off Craftsman Court, approximately 1,150 feet to the northeast and separated from the project site by the Santa Clara River. Other, non -sensitive land uses in the project vicinity include commercial uses to the west and the Metrolink Station to the east. 70 Packet Pg. 353 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation a) Would the project result in 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? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The noise analysis for the project, contained in its entirety in Appendix I, considers potential noise impacts associated with the project based on desktop resources and on data obtained during on -site pre -project outdoor ambient sound level monitoring. Noise impacts that could be caused by the project include those attributable to on -site construction, off -site construction (construction vehicle traffic), and project operation. As described in the following analyses, potentially significant impacts requiring mitigation would occur during project construction, specifically related to construction activities associated with the light manufacturing land use. All other noise impacts would be less than significant. On -site Construction Activities Construction noise levels usually vary from hour -to -hour and day-to-day, depending on the equipment in use, the operations being performed, and the distance between the source and receptor. Equipment that would be used during construction would include, graders, backhoes, concrete saws, rubber -tired dozers, loaders, cranes, forklifts, cement mixers, pavers, rollers, and air compressors. The typical maximum noise levels for various pieces of construction equipment at a distance of 50 feet are provided as Table 4 in Environmental Noise and Vibration Assessment for Riverview Development (Dudek 2023b), contained in Appendix I. The noise assessment, guidance and methodologies from the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA's) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018) pertaining to construction noise and vibration are used in this analysis. FTA's guidance provides evaluation criteria that construction noise should be no more than 80 dBA Leq (over an 8-hour daytime period) as received at a residential land use. Since the City does not provide a quantified construction noise limit, this analysis adopts the 80 dBA Leq 8-hour FTA guidance threshold for quantitative construction noise impact assessment. Short-term, construction -related noise effects were assessed with respect to nearby noise -sensitive receptors. These include the nearest existing residential areas and the Action Family Rehab center,4 which is next to the project site to the northwest. The potential exposure to the noise -sensitive receptors has been calculated (accounting for intervening topography, barriers, distance, etc.) using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model emulator. The emulator was used to evaluate construction noise in two ways: 1) "nearest distance" representing the closest distances (ranging from 65 feet to 1,315 feet) from the noise -sensitive receptors to each construction phase area on the project site, and 2) the "centroid distance" represents the distances (ranging from 370 feet to 2,050 feet) from the noise -sensitive receptors to the geographic center of each studied construction phase area on the project site. Predicted construction noise exposure levels at these studied offsite noise -sensitive receptors are then compared with the FTA guidance threshold of 80 dBA Leq (8-hour) for the exterior of residential land uses, which would be applicable only during daytime hours as defined by Santa Clarita Municipal Code 11.44.020 and when construction activity is permitted by the City per Santa 4 Although the Action Family Rehab facility is on lands designated for commercial use, patients at the rehab center may stay overnight and, thus, create conditions that emulate those of a residential -type receiver. For this reason, the FTA guidance limit of 80 dBA for construction noise is applied to both the Action Family Rehab facility and the nearest existing offsite residential community. 71 Packet Pg. 354 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mai-7ia Clarita Municipal Code 11.44.080. Detailed information regarding methodologies used to estimate construction noise levels for the project is provided in Appendix I. Using the Roadway Construction Noise Model -emulating Excel workbook (provided in Appendix I), the predicted noise level exposures from the proposed concurrent construction activities at the nearest distances to the existing residential community range from 56 dBA to 62 dBA 8-hour Leq and are thus quieter than the FTA guidance limit of 80 dBA 8-hour Leq during daytime hours. Offsite construction noise exposures at this noise -sensitive receptor as calculated from sound sources at the project construction site centroid range from 52 dBA to 59 dBA 8-hour Leq and are also thus quieter than the FTA guidance -based noise limit. These predicted construction noise exposure levels are also less than the magnitude of the sampled daytime sound level of 63.8 dBA Leq and would thus be considered comparable to the pre -project outdoor ambient sound environment. They are also coincidentally less than the City's 65 dBA exterior noise limit per Section 11.44.040 that applies to project operation (post- construction). Based on these findings, construction noise exposures at these existing residences are considered less than significant impacts. At the neighboring Action Family Rehab, aggregate noise levels from concurrent phases of construction activity may exceed 80 dBA when the active construction equipment is at their closest distances. These predicted exceedances are no more than 3 decibels and only expected for at most ten months of the five- year project construction schedule when the Lot 5 light manufacturing portion of the project is under construction. However, these exceedances would be a potentially significant impact requiring noise abatement. Noise control and sound abatement measures shall be required during construction of the light manufacturing portion of the project, as described in MM NOISE-1. With implementation of MM NOISE-1 (Noise Abatement during Construction of Light Manufacturing Lot), construction -related noise impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Off -site Construction Activities The project would result in local, short-term increases in roadway noise because of construction traffic. Project -related traffic would include workers commuting to and from the project site as well as vendor and haul trucks bringing or removing materials. Based upon the fundamentals of acoustics, a doubling (i.e., a 100% increase) would be needed to result in a 3-dB increase in noise levels, which is the level corresponding to an audible change to the typical human listener. A maximum of 100 workers per day is anticipated during the construction phase; this would not create a significant increase in traffic noise as Soledad Canyon Road experiences approximately 3,771 vehicles per hour at peak flow. Therefore, traffic related to construction activities would not result in 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. Impacts from project -related construction traffic noise would be less than significant. Operation Long-term operational noise associated with the project includes on -site operational noise from residential mechanical equipment, parking lot activity, and activity related to the light manufacturing land use. Project -generated traffic noise off -site is also considered long-term operational noise. Each operational noise source is addressed below. The proposed project would result in the creation of additional vehicle trips on local roadways in the vicinity of the project (i.e., North California Street and East Harding Way), which could result in increased traffic noise levels at noise -sensitive land uses adjacent to area roadways. Actual traffic noise exposure levels at noise -sensitive receptors in the project vicinity would vary depending on a combination 72 Packet Pg. 355 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration of factors such as variations in daily traffic volumes, vehicle types, relative distances between sources and receiver locations, shielding provided by existing and proposed structures, and meteorological conditions. Refer to Appendix I for modeling inputs and results. Soledad Canyon Road experiences approximately 3,771 vehicles per hour at peak flow, the project is expected to create approximately 257 trips during the morning peak flow (167 trips associated with residential, and 87 trips associated with the manufacturing uses), and 307 trips in the afternoon peak hour (214 trips associated with residential, and 93 trips associated with the manufacturing uses). Mechanical equipment associated with the long-term operation of various uses which include conditioned spaces generally can include heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, backup generators, and various fans, pumps, and compressors that can be significant noise sources. HVAC equipment serving commercial spaces is often mounted on rooftops, partially enclosed at -grade adjacent to buildings, or located within enclosed mechanical equipment rooms, with residential HVAC outdoor equipment located at -grade. Noise levels generated by the HVAC and other mechanical equipment vary significantly depending on unit size, efficiency, location, type of rotating or reciprocating components, and orientation of openings. HVAC associated the manufacturing building would generate a noise exposure of 98.1 dBa during peak operations. During off-peak periods, the HVAC systems would operate under reduced loads and cycle times, reducing generated noise levels commensurately. Sound exposure levels at the nearest offsite sensitive receptor (Action Family Rehab) are expected to be below 55 dBA (see Appendix I for more detail). Further, sound exposure levels at the nearest residential uses are expected to be well below 35 dBA. Therefore, the HVAC noise levels modeled for the proposed project are anticipated to comply with the City of Santa Clarita non -transportation noise level thresholds. Development of the proposed project is not predicted to result in exposure of existing noise -sensitive receptors to absolute noise levels exceeding the City's 60 dBA Ldn land use compatibility thresholds or result in relative increases in the ambient noise environment of 3 dB or more. Therefore, impacts from traffic noise levels associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact. Construction activities on the project site may result in varying degrees of temporary ground vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and operations involved. For the potential for continuous/frequent intermittent vibration to result in damage to structures, Caltrans indicates a threshold of 0.5 inch per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV) for "new residential construction" (Caltrans 2020), such as the types of structures in the proposed project vicinity. Representative groundborne vibration levels for various types of construction equipment that may be associated with the proposed project are summarized in Appendix I at a reference distance of 25 feet (FTA 2018). Groundborne vibration attenuates rapidly, even over short distances, with vibration levels varying depending on soil conditions, construction methods, and the equipment used. The attenuation of groundborne vibration as it propagates from source to receptor through intervening soils and rock strata can be estimated with expressions found in FTA and Caltrans guidance. Based on the 25-foot reference levels, construction vibration levels were calculated using standard Caltrans and FTA equations at a distance of 65 feet to the west, to represent the closest existing structure to the project site, the Action Family Rehab. The maximum PPV generated by construction activities at 65 feet would be 0.021 in/sec PPV, which would be far below the established damage criteria 0.5 in/sec PPV; therefore, construction vibrational impacts would be less than significant. 73 Packet Pg. 356 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration The proposed project does not incorporate any project elements that would generate substantial groundborne noise and vibration levels at nearby sensitive receptors during its long-term operation. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. 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 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project site to excessive noise levels? No Impact. There are no private airstrips in the project vicinity. The nearest airport is Whiteman Airport, located approximately 13 miles southeast of the project site. The project site is not within 2 miles of any public airport, nor is it located within the boundaries of any airport land use plans. Therefore, the project would not expose or result in excessive noise for people residing or working in the project site. No impact would occur. Conclusion With implementation of MM NOISE-1, noise impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures MM NOISE-1 Noise Abatement during Construction of Light Manufacturing Lot. The following noise control and/or sound abatement measures shall be implemented during construction of Lot 5, which is the lot that is planned for the light manufacturing land use: A. Site Preparation: To the extent practicable, earthwork on the east side of the existing hill on Lot 5 shall start as far east and possible and proceed in an east -to -west direction to take advantage of the distance between the site preparation activity and the Action Family Rehab facility and the sound -blocking effects of the unworked terrain that should naturally occlude line -of -sight between this construction process and this noise -sensitive land use to the northwest. Consistent with acoustical principles for noise reduction afforded by such natural features, this line -of -sight occlusion should yield the needed decibel reduction at this receptor and result in 8-hour Leq exposure levels that are compatible with FTA guidance (80 dBA). 2. Should line -of -sight occlusion not be feasible per A.1 above, then along or within the property line where the project site adjoins the Action Rehab facility, a 20-foot-tall temporary barrier shall be installed made of typical outdoor -appropriate plywood sheeting, acoustical sound blankets, or other materials (having sound transmission class [STC] 20 or better) to ensure line - of -sight occlusion between operating project construction equipment and the Action Family Rehab land use. B. Grading and Paving: An appropriate temporary barrier shall also be constructed prior to the grading and paving phases and shall remain in place until these phases of the construction are completed. The grading and phasing barrier shall be at least a 12- foot-tall temporary barrier made of typical outdoor -appropriate plywood sheeting, acoustical sound blankets, or other materials (having sound transmission class [STC] 20 or better) along or adjacent to the property line where the project site adjoins the Action Family Rehab facility, 74 Packet Pg. 357 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration XIV. Population and Housing Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than Environmental Issues Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact p Incorporated Impact p Would the project: (a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Setting The project site is located on undeveloped land that does not contain residential uses and people do not currently reside on -site. The project site has a land use designation of MXC and is located within the City's JCOZ, which is intended to encourage future development that supports employment growth within the city. The SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS forecasts for population, household, and employment growth. Table 9 provides a summary of the anticipated changes in these characteristics from 2016 to 2045 for the city of Santa Clarita. Table 9. Population and Employment Growth Forecast for the City of Santa Clarita Year Population Households Employment 2016 218,200 71,800 91,200 2045 258,800 95,200 105,200 Net Change 40,600 23,400 14,000 Source: SCAG (2020b) Environmental Evaluation a) Would the project 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)? Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the project would result in temporary employment increases. Employment increases have the potential to cause population growth, as they may draw additional people and their households to the city. However, given the relatively common nature of the project (i.e., does not involve highly specialized construction skills), construction personnel would likely be sourced from the local region, and the project would not require the relocation of construction personnel. The proposed project would result in development of the subject property mixed use development that would add employment opportunities to the area. It is anticipated that the employment base the construction phase of the project would come from the existing population in the city of Santa Clarita. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (EDD 2023), the City of Santa Clarita civilian labor force contains approximately 111,000 persons with approximately 106,200 people employed and an 75 Packet Pg. 358 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration unemployment rate of approximately 4.3% (approximately 4,800 persons). Accordingly, the project region already contains an ample supply of potential employees under existing conditions and the project's labor demand is not expected to draw substantial numbers of new residents to the area. Furthermore, approximately 75% of City of Santa Clarita residents commute outside of the city for work (SLAG 2019:21); therefore, the project would provide job opportunities closer to home for existing and future Santa Clarita residents. With regard to direct population growth, the nature of the project is the development of 318 single-family units. The project site is identified as a Suitable Site (Housing Site 23) in the Housing Element of the General Plan. A Suitable Site is a site that may be feasibly developed for housing to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The project site is suitable for very low— and low-income units. As addressed above, the expected population growth of the city of Santa Clarita is approximately 40,000 by 2045. With the creation of 318 additional single-family units, it can be estimated that with four individuals per unit, the population growth as a result of the project would be 1,272 individuals. The addition of 1,272 residents would account for approximately 3% of the city's expected population growth. With the preferred zoning for residential development, and designation as a Suitable Site for the RHNA, population growth as a result of the project is anticipated and impacts would be less than significant. The project site would be served by existing transportation and utility infrastructure and these connections would support the proposed project only. Therefore, the project would not result in the extension of infrastructure or roads such that additional, unplanned growth would be facilitated. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The project site does not currently contain any residential structures and no people live on the site under existing conditions. Accordingly, implementation of the project would not displace substantial numbers or existing housing or people and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur. Conclusion Based on the analysis above, the project would not result in significant environmental impacts related to population and housing; no mitigation measures are necessary. XV. Public Services Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than Environmental Issues Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact p Incorporated Impact p Would the project. - (a) 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: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 76 Packet Pg. 359 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than Environmental Issues Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Setting Fire protection services for project site are provided by the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD), with the nearest fire station being LACFD Station 111, located at 26829 Seco Canyon Road, Valencia, California, approximately 1.5 miles, by road, from the project site. The Los Angeles County Sheriff Department provides police protection services to the project site and is housed at the Santa Clarita Valley Station, located at 26201 Golden Valley Road in Santa Clarita, which is approximately 4-42_5 miles (distance by road travel), to the east and south. The project site is located within the William S. Hart Union High School District and Saugus Union School District, with nearest school to the project site being Bowman High School located 0.75 mile east of the project site. The nearest park, Duane R Harte Park, is located approximately 0.25 mile northeast of the project site, and Central Park is located approximately 0.75 mile northeast. The nearest library to the project site is the Valencia Public Library located at 23743 West Valencia Boulevard, approximately 1.15 miles west of the project site. Environmental Evaluation a) 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: Fire protection? Less than Significant Impact. The LACFD serves as a urban and wildland fire protection agency. CAL FIRE has designated the LACFD as a wildland firefighting unit. The nearest fire station is Station 111, located at 26829 Seco Canyon Road, Valencia, California, approximately 1.5 miles, by road, from the project site. There are approximately I I fire stations within a 5-mile radius of the project site (LACFD 2023). Additional fire protection could be provided by other fire stations in Santa Clarita, including Station 126 (Battalion 6 Headquarters), located at 26329 Citrus Street, approximately 1.3 miles west of the project site. Based on the project site's proximity to the two existing fire stations, the project would be adequately served by fire protection services, and no new or expanded unplanned facilities would be required. Additionally, the project would be subject to current LACFD requirements for sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, and equipment and firefighter access. LACFD stations would provide a sufficient level of fire protection service to the project site, and this level of service would not be adversely affected by the project. California law (PRC 4291) requires a minimum defensible space of 100 feet around residential homes, which must consist of the 0 to 30-foot firebreak that requires removal of flammable vegetation and the 30- to 70-foot reduced fuel zone (or to the property line, whichever is nearer to the structure). Per Section 21.03.060, California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the homes would also be subject to the City's requirements for defensible space, proper fire- 77 Packet Pg. 360 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration safe plant and tree selection, sufficient irrigation, and design features to control erosion and drainage. Compliance with requirements for fire prevention, fire flow, emergency access, and protection from wildland fire hazards would reduce the likelihood of a fire emergency at the project site, thereby reducing potential demand for fire services. Due to the availability of fire services within proximity to the project site, and required compliance with fire code standards, the construction or expansion of existing fire facilities is not expected to be required as a result of the project. Therefore, substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered facilities would not occur. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary. Police protection? Less than Significant Impact. The Los Angeles County Sheriff Department provides police protection in the vicinity of the project site. The Santa Clarita Sheriff's Station, located at 26201 Golden Valley Road is approximately 2_5 4-4-miles (distance by road travel) east and south of the project site. The project would add approximately 1,272 residents to the City's population and could place increased demand on police protection services. However, the project would not result in the construction or expansion of police facilities, as the current staffing and facilities are expected to be sufficient to serve the project. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police facilities. As such, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary. Schools? Less than Significant Impact. Implementation of the project would create a direct demand for public school services, as the project site would create 318 new single-family residences. According to the California School Board, the average number of students generated per dwelling unit is 0.7 students (California Department of General Services, Office of Public School Construction 2009). Therefore, the proposed project could result in approximately 222 new students. The proposed project would be served by the William S. Hart Union High School District, which provides junior high and high school education, and the Saugus Union School District, which provides elementary school education. Students from the residences at the project would attend Emblem Academy Elementary School, located at 22635 Espuella Drive in Saugus, California, approximately .08 mile north of the project site. Middle school -aged children would attend La Mesa Junior High School, located at 26623 May Way, Santa Clarita, approximately 2.5 miles east of the project site. High school -aged students would attend Golden Valley High School, located at 27051 Robert C. Lee Parkway in Santa Clarita, approximately 2.1 miles southeast of the project site. The Applicant would be required to contribute development impact fees to the William S. Hart Union High School District and Saugus Union School District in compliance with SB 50, which allows school districts to collect fees from new developments to offset the costs associated with increasing school capacity needs. Mandatory payment of school fees would be required prior to the issuance of building permits. Additionally, as addressed previously, the expected population growth of the city of Santa Clarita is approximately 40,000 by 2045. With the creation of 318 additional single-family units, the addition of 1,272 residents would account for approximately 3% of the city's expected population growth. On average, a 3% increase to each public school attendance does not put an unexpected burden on education facilities and impacts to public schools would therefore be less than significant. 78 Packet Pg. 361 2.b a) Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Parks? Less than Significant Impact. As discussed previously, the project would be located in the vicinity of numerous parks and open space. Central Park and Duane R Harte Park are located to the north across the Santa Clara River, and the Quigley Canyon Open Space, covering nearly 160 acres with equestrian ranches and trails, is approximately 2 miles to the southeast. The project design includes open space for the residents, including a pool facility (see Section XVI Recreation, below). Due to the access to ample public parks and recreation opportunities, the existing park facilities would be able to accommodate the increase in new residents introduced by the proposed project. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. Other public facilities? Less than Significant Impact. Other public facilities and services provided within the city include library services and City administrative services. Library services are provided by the Valencia Public Library located at 23743 West Valencia Boulevard, approximately 1.15 miles west of the project site. The population increase expected to result from the proposed project represents approximately 0.3% of the expected population growth of the City of Santa Clarita by 2045. This would result in a negligible increase in the service population for the Valencia Public Library and City administration. This minor increase in population is not anticipated to result in the need for additional library facilities or City administrative facilities. The proposed project would not require expansion of existing library, City administration, or other public service facilities or construction of new facilities. Therefore, impacts to other public facilities would be less than significant. Conclusion In summary, and based on the analyses presented earlier in this section, the project would not result in a significant adverse environmental impact related to public services; no mitigation measures are necessary XVI. Recreation Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than Environmental Issues Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Would the project: (a) Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Environmental Evaluation 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? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project includes the development of recreational uses for the residential properties within the project parcel. Recreational facilities of the new residential properties 79 Packet Pg. 362 2.b b) Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration would include a large neighborhood park and an aquatic center. With the development of the proposed recreational facilities, surrounding neighborhood and regional recreational facilities would not likely see a substantial increase in use. Therefore, the impacts to surrounding recreational facilities would be less than significant. 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? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project includes an aquatic center and recreational park. However, the construction of these facilities would be beneficial to the wellbeing of residents and their inclusion in design does not create unique or additional adverse effects on the environment. Therefore, environmental effects related to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities would be less than significant. Conclusion The project would not result in a significant adverse environmental impact related to recreation; no mitigation measures are necessary. XVII. Transportation Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than Environmental Issues Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact p Incorporated Impact p Would the project: (a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? (b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with State ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? (c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 The information in this section is based on Transportation Assessment for the Riverview Mixed -Use Development Project, Santa Clarita, California, dated August 2023, and the EIR Supplemental Transportation Analysis for the Revised River Mixed -Use Project, Santa Clarita, California, dated February 2024, prepared for the project by Gibson Transportation Consulting, these documents are provided as Appendix J: Transportation Assessment (Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. 2023; (Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. 2024). Setting The project site is located along the southern border of Soledad Canyon Road, approximately 0.5 mile to the east of the intersection with Bouquet Canyon Road. According to the City of Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element, the segment of Soledad Canyon Road next to the project site has a roadway classification defined as Major Highway (City of Santa Clarita 201 lb). Soledad Canyon Road provides four to six travel lanes (two to three in each direction) with additional left -turn lanes. On -street parking is generally not provided within the project site. Major highways can accommodate approximately M Packet Pg. 363 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 54,000 vehicles per day (City of Santa Clarita 201 lb). Street sections may include striped, on -street bike lanes, or separated bike paths. Chuck Pontius Commuter Rail Trail is a bike path north of the project site running in the east -west direction, parallel to Soledad Canyon Road. Farther north, the Santa Clara River Trail is a Class I bike path north of the Santa Clara River that generally runs parallel to Soledad Canyon Road within the vicinity of the project site. Pedestrian access to the project site would be provided via proposed sidewalks along Soledad Canyon Road. There are bus stops along Newhall Ranch Road, Commuter Way, Soledad Canyon Road, Bouquet Canyon, and at the Santa Clarita Metrolink Station, served by Santa Clarita Transit Routes 4, 5, 6, 12, 14, 501, 502, 796, 797, and 799, Kern Transit Service Route 130, and Metrolink Rail Gfeeo-Antelope Valley Line. Santa Clarita Metrolink Station is located adjacent to project site on Soledad Canyon Road. Background and Analysis Methodology SB 743, which was codified in PRC Section 21099, was signed by the Governor in 2013 and directed the OPR to identify alternative metrics for evaluating transportation impacts under CEQA. Pursuant to Section 21099, the criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts must "promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses." Recently adopted changes to the State CEQA Guidelines in response to Section 21099 include a new section (Section 15064.3) that specifies that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. The primary purpose of SB 743 is eliminating LOS as a measure of vehicular capacity and traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant transportation impacts under CEQA. Rather, SB 743 requires lead agencies to shift the focus from evaluating traffic impacts based on metrics that only consider vehicle travel time and delay (i.e., impacts to drivers) to metrics that capture the State's goals of improved air quality, reduced GHG emissions, and improved public health (i.e., impacts of driving). In response to SB 743, the OPR selected VMT as the new transportation impact metric for which lead agencies are required to define methodologies, thresholds, and mitigation measures consistent with their respective General Plan goals. A separate Technical Advisory issued by OPR provides additional technical details on calculating VMT and assessing transportation impacts for various types of projects. The City of Santa Clarita prepared and adopted the Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Clarita in June 2020 to address changes to CEQA pursuant to SB 743 to include VMT analysis methodology, screening tools, and VMT thresholds (City of Santa Clarita 2020b). Environmental Evaluation a) Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Less than Significant Impact. The project proposes to construct a mixed -use housing and commercial development on a currently underutilized parcel along Soledad Canyon Road, which is classified as a Major Highway in the City's General Plan Circulation Element (City of Santa Clarita 201 lb). As shown in Appendix J and below, the project does not conflict with the following applicable plans. Circulation Element of the General Plan The Circulation Element plans for the continued development of transportation systems that are consistent with regional plans, local needs, and the community's character. The Circulation Element identifies and promotes a variety of techniques for improving mobility including the development of alternative travel 81 Packet Pg. 364 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration modes and support facilities; increased efficiency and capacity of existing systems through management strategies; and coordination of land use planning with transportation planning by promoting concentrated, mixed -use development near transit facilities. The project is consistent with the applicable objectives of the Circulation Element and would help to improve the vehicular and bicycle network, provide end -of -trip facilities, encourage alternative travel modes, and support electric vehicles. Non -Motorized Transportation Plan The Non -Motorized Transportation Plan guides future pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, policy, and planning in the city. The project would promote walking and biking to and from home and work and support bicycling through the provision of bike parking facilities throughout the project site. Further, the project would provide a pedestrian -friendly design and facilitate transit use by developing residential and employment opportunities immediately adjacent to the Santa Clarita Metrolink Station. Specific Plans The project site is not within an area currently governed by a Specific Plan. However, the project site is located within the Saugus Speedway JCOZ. The Santa Clarita Unified Development Code states, "The purpose of the JCOZ is to support the General Plan objective of promoting the creation of strong regional and local economies via the implementation of strategic land use planning policies." The development would support the local economy with employment and housing opportunities and would strategically locate them next to transit. Thus, the project would support the goals of the JCOZ. Santa Clarita Unified Development Code (SCUDC) Title 17 Division 5 (Use Classifications and Required Parkin The project would provide residential parking in accordance with the SCUDC. The project would provide parking consistent with other similar uses in Southern California as shown in Appendix J. The project's provision of approximately 984 1,038 spaces for project uses would meet the requirements of the SCUDC. 2016 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) Sections 5.106.4.1.1 and 5.106.4.1.2 (Bicycle Parking) CALGreen Sections 5.106.4.1.1 and 5.106.4.1.2 detail the bicycle parking requirements for new developments. Based on its parking supply of approximately 93 1, 338 vehicular parking spaces, per CALGreen's requirement for the provision of bicycle parking at a rate of at least 5% of vehicular spaces, the project would be required to provide 50 bicycle parking spaces. The project would meet or exceed the CALGreen requirements for on -site bicycle parking supply. Streetscape Plans There are no streetscape plans near the project site; therefore, streetscape plans do not apply to the project. However, the project design is intended to promote a balanced approach to all modes of transportation and provide safe and adequate space for sidewalks, bicycle paths, transit, parking, vehicular traffic, street trees, landscaping, lighting, and street furnishings, consistent with the goals of nearby streetscape plans. Community Character and Design Guidelines City of Santa Clarita Community Character and Design Guidelines (RRM Design Group, March 24, 2009) (Design Guidelines) identifies urban design principles to guide architects and developers in designing high -quality projects that meet the City's functional, aesthetic, and policy objectives and help 82 Packet Pg. 365 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration foster a sense of community. The Design Guidelines are organized around four design goals: Sense of Timelessness, Sense of Ownership, Sense of Place and Identity, and Sense of Community. The project meets the objectives and goals set in the Design Guidelines and is therefore consistent with all applicable policies. The project is consistent with each of the City documents discussed above. Therefore, impacts to applicable plans and policies would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less than Significant Impact. As previously discussed, SB 743, approved in 2013, was intended to change the way transportation impacts are determined according to CEQA. Updates to the State CEQA Guidelines that were adopted in December 2018 included the addition of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, of which subdivision "b" establishes criteria for evaluating a project's transportation impacts based on project type and using automobile VMT as the metric. As a component of the OPR's revisions to the State CEQA Guidelines, lead agencies were required to adopt VMT thresholds of significance by July 1, 2020. In 2020, the City of Santa Clarita adopted guidelines for transportation in their Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Clarita, which is used in this analysis to determine the significance of project -related VMT. The first step of a VMT study is to determine what type of analysis, if any, is needed. Based on the OPR Technical Advisory, the City of Santa Clarita adopted four screening criteria that the City may use to identify if a proposed project is expected to cause a less -than -significant impact without conducting a detailed study: • The project is located in a Transit Priority Area, defined as being within 0.5 mile of an existing or planned major transit stop or an existing stop along a high -quality transit corridor • The project has a FAR of more than 0.75 • The project does not contain more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees than required by the City • The project is consistent with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (SLAG 2020a), the regional plan to reach State air quality and GHG reduction targets • The project does not replace affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate- or high -income residential units The project, due to its location immediately adjacent to the Santa Clarita Metrolink Station, was evaluated under the accessibility to transit screening criteria. As outlined in Appendix J, the project meets all screening criteria related to transit proximity. As such, the project can be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact and no further VMT analysis is needed. c) Would the project 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 may occur if a project includes new roadway design or introduces a new land use or features into an area with specific transportation requirements and characteristics that have not been previously experienced in that area, or if project site access or other features are designed in such a way that creates hazard conditions. 83 Packet Pg. 366 2.b d) Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration The project site would provide vehicular access via four new access points, and one existing access point at Commuter Way and Soledad Canyon Road. A sufficient number of inbound and outbound lanes would be provided to avoid backups. The project includes the provision of crosswalks across the new signalized intersection serving the project's main gate driveway. These amenities would serve to reduce hazardous conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. The new driveways would be constructed to City of Santa Clarita design standards' and would be similar to existing access routes for land uses in the project vicinity. Therefore, the project would not introduce any hazardous geometric design features that would create significant hazards to the surrounding roadways. Furthermore, the project site would be accessed by vehicles and trucks that normally travel on city streets and the project would not introduce any incompatible uses that would create significant hazards to the surrounding roadways. Therefore, project roadway improvements would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. A significant impact may occur if the project design would not provide emergency access that meets the requirements of the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department or the LACFD, or threatened the ability of emergency vehicles to access and serve the project site or adjacent uses. Vehicular access to the project site would be provided via four new access points, one of which would provide emergency access only, and one existing access point at Commuter Way and Soledad Canyon Road. These driveways would be constructed to City of Santa Clarita design standards, which would allow for access of emergency vehicles. Therefore, there would be no impact related to emergency access, and no mitigation measures are necessary. Conclusion The project would not result in a significant adverse transportation impact; no mitigation measures are necessary. XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources Potentially Less Than Less Than Environmental Issues Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Impact (a) Would the project 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 tribe, and that is: (i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), or ' Santa. Clarita design standards are based on California Building Codes, City of Santa. Clarita Amendments, City of Santa. Clarita Municipal Code, and Local Design Criteria. 84 Packet Pg. 367 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact (ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. The analysis for this section is based on confidential information provided during a search of the Sacred Lands File through the NAHC and tribal consultation with the City of Santa Clarita. Refer to Appendix C for a detailed discussion of the prehistoric and ethnographic settings for the region and applicable regulations pertaining to tribal cultural resources. Setting In a letter dated January 31, 2023, the NAHC indicated that their search of the Sacred Lands File returned positive results and that the Fetnandefio Tataviam Band of Mission Indians (FTBMI) should be contacted to discuss the findings. As reported in the archaeological resources assessment report prepared for the project (see Appendix C), a CHRIS search was conducted on September 12-13, 2022 at the SCCIC. No resources were found within the project site; within 1 mile of the project site, there have been five archaeological sites and six isolated resources with Native American components recorded, the closest of which is 469 feet (0.1 mile) to the project site. An archaeological survey of the project site did not identify any Native American archaeological resources that may also be a tribal cultural resource (Dudek 2024b). There are extensive parking areas, both paved and covered in manufactured gravel fill, resulting in highly variable ground surface visibility ranging from no visibility (0%) to fair visibility (30%) in these areas. The remaining portion of the project site included undeveloped rugged hills with sparse to dense vegetation. The ground surface visibility within this area was very good to excellent (60%-90%). After considering the geophysical setting, past historical developments, proximity to the Santa Clara River, and presence of Native American archaeological resources identified in the vicinity through the CHRIS search, the investigators concluded that there is moderate potential for a buried archaeological resource, including those that may be a tribal cultural resource. Pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1(c), the NAHC's response letter included a list of 18 contacts who represent tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project site (Tribal Consultation List) and require written notification in compliance with PRC Sections 21080.3.1(d). The 18 individuals identified on the NAHC's Tribal Consultation List include representatives from 14 tribal organizations whose cultural affiliations6 include the following (in alphabetical order): Cahuilla, Chumash, Gabrielino, Kitanemuk, Luiseno, Tataviam, and Vanyume. The City mailed notification letters on March 10, 2023 to all of the tribal contacts. The City received written responses to the notification letters from six tribes, one letter (to the Gabrielino- Tongva Tribe) was returned as undeliverable, and no responses were received to the remaining 11 notification letters. Responses were received from the following tribal organizations: Barbarefio/Venturefio Band of Mission Indians (BVBMI), FTBMI, Gabrielefio Band of Mission Indians — 6 There are variations in the preferred names and spellings of cultural affiliations and/or identities from those used by the NAHC to classify California Native American tribes. The cultural affiliations reported here are those given in the NAHC's Tribal Consultation List, which includes some individual tribal organizations who report multiple cultural affiliations. Refer to the NAHC Tribal Consultation List for details on the preferred names and cultural affiliations that were given at the date of the letter. 85 Packet Pg. 368 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Kizh Nation (Kizh Nation), Gabrielino-Tongva Indians of California (GTIOC), Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, and San Fernando Band of Mission Indians (SFBMI). BVBMI, Kizh Nation, and GTIOC responded by deferring to other groups without specifying an individual tribal organization. On March 10, 2023, the City received a written response from the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians and requested additional information (e.g., CHRIS records, cultural resource studies, or maps) to assist in their review. The reply was sent from Crystal Mendoza, an Administrative Assistant in the Cultural Resources department. In an email sent April 30, 2024, the City provided additional information on the project design and the latest draft of Dudek's archaeological resources report (Dudek 2024b), which included the results of a CHRIS search and field survey, and contained multiple maps depicting various types of information considered in the study. On May 5, 2024, the City received a response via email and stated the information provided was received and would be reviewed. This was also confirmed in a follow-up phone call made the following week. As part of this correspondence, the City requested that any comments be submitted by May 31, 2024. The City sent regular emails and made follow-up phone calls to confirm the status of the review, the last of which was on June 3, 2024. To -date the City has Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians has not replied to the City's request for input. On March 10, 2023, the City received a written response from Donna Yocum, chairwoman for the SFBML In the response, Chairwoman Yocum attached a letter acknowledging that the project falls within their traditional tribal lands and is likely to have a tribal cultural resource. No specific resource was identified but as a means of protecting and preserving potential resources, SFBMI requested that a tribal representative be present during ground disturbing activities, and named a specific individual as a tribal partner who is qualified to act in the capacity of a Native American monitor. The letter also includes brief descriptions of SFBMI's traditional lands and cultural heritage. On March 13, 2023, the City received an email from Sarah Brunzell, Manager in the Cultural Resources Management Division of FTBMI's Tribal Historic and Cultural Preservation Department. The message requested that the formal notification be submitted digitally through their intake process. This was completed by the City and verified on March 16, 2023. With the verification, Sarah Brunzell stated that the project could be susceptible to the highest sensitivity category due to its proximity to sensitive tribal cultural resources. Sarah Brunzell requested additional information, such as the cultural resources assessment or geological report. In an email sent April 30, 2024, the City provided additional information on the project design and results of the archaeological assessment published in the latest draft of Dudek's report (Dudek 2024b). After reviewing the information, FTBMI requested to consult with the City on a conference call, which was held on May 9, 2024. During the consultation, the tribal representatives confirmed that the FTBMI's records indicate the project is in or near to a tribal cultural resource and that due to the culturally sensitive status of the resource, more details about its nature and location must remain strictly confidential. To address the tribal cultural resources sensitivity, FTMBI proposed three measures to be included as mitigation, which includes the following provisions: full-time monitoring by an FTBMI representative; consultation with FTBMI if any tribal cultural resources are discovered; and a protocol to comply with existing regulations regarding the discovery of human remains. 86 Packet Pg. 369 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation a) Would the project 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 tribe, and that is: a-i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5O2O.1(k)? a-ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Ground disturbance associated with the project includes significant grading and terracing of the hillside in the northwestern portion of the proposed project site and cut slopes at a gradient of 2:1 in the southern area. Significant fill grading within the area currently occupied by structures and paved tracks and parking lots would occur. This latter area is proposed for construction of residential and commercial development including 318 single-family dwelling units and a 126,790 square foot manufacturing building, recreational amenities, community open space, paved lots, and associated utility and landscaping installation. Given that the entire proposed project site elevation is currently between 1,190 and 1,290 amsl and the elevation after grading is proposed between approximately 1,196 and 1,209 amsl, the proposed grading and construction would require impacts to native soils within the northern portion of the site and along the southwestern boundary; however, much of the proposed construction within the central and eastern portions of the site would occur within fill soils only. The NAHC's SLF search returned positive results and recommended contacting FTBMI for additional information. During the City's consultation with FTBMI, no specific resource was identified as being listed or eligible for the CRHR or listed in a local register. A search of the CHRIS was conducted on September 12-13, 2022, and did not identify any previously recorded archaeological sites or other type of resource that are affiliated with Native Americans in the project site. The CHRIS search also indicated that there have been five archaeological sites and six isolated discoveries affiliated with Native Americans recorded within a 1-mile radius of the project site, the closest of which is 469 feet (0.1 mile) away. An archaeological survey of the project site did not identify any archaeological resources. Based on these findings, there are no tribal cultural resources identified in the project site that can be confirmed as listed or eligible for the CRHR or identified on any registers maintained by the City. The archaeological resources assessment concluded that there is moderate potential to encounter an as -yet unrecorded archaeological resource preserved below ground within the project site, especially those preserved within naturally deposited alluvial sediments, but potentially also objects that have been redistributed within fill soils. The potential for a buried archaeological resource includes sites and features that are Native American in origin, which could be eligible for listing on the CRHR and meet the definition of a tribal cultural resource. The City consulted with FTBMI and SFBMI pursuant to PRC Sections 21080.3.1 and 21084.3(d). FTBMI stated that their records confirmed the SLF results and indicated that there is either an undisclosed 87 Packet Pg. 370 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration tribal cultural resource or a high potential to encounter a tribal cultural resource in the project site; because of the highly sensitive nature of their records and the need to maintain its confidential status, FTBMI could not provide additional detail regarding these results, and instead emphasized the highly sensitive nature of the location and provided three mitigation measures that they requested be incorporated. SFBMI also indicated that there is potential for a tribal cultural resource to be in the project site but did not provide specific details to indicate whether there is a specific known resource, or if there is a potential to encounter an as -yet unidentified tribal cultural resource during ground -disturbing activities for the project. Based on the confidential information provided during the tribal consultation and supporting information provided in the archaeological assessment, the City, in its discretion, lacks the substantial evidence needed to confirm the presence of a specific known tribal cultural resource, but finds there is substantial evidence indicating there is a potential to encounter a tribal cultural resource during ground -disturbing activities for the project. Any impacts to tribal cultural resource from ground - disturbing activities would be potentially significant. Under MM CR-1 through MM CR-3 project workers would be provided a training on the procedures to follow if an archaeological resource is discovered, an archaeologist would be on -site to monitor for archaeological resources, and a process for the inadvertent discovery of human remains would be followed. This would ensure impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated and would also apply to tribal cultural resources that are archaeological in nature. MM TCR-1 and MM TCR-2 would ensure that tribal cultural resources, whether archaeological in nature or not, are identified and assessed by California Native American tribes who are geographically and culturally affiliated with the project site, by requiring tribal monitoring and consultation on any tribal cultural resource discoveries. MM TCR-2 would also ensure that if preservation in place is not feasible for any as -yet unidentified tribal cultural resources encountered during the project, affiliated tribes are consulted to identify appropriate forms of treatment that consider their cultural value. Conclusion The project would include implementation of MM CR-1 through MM CR-3 as mitigation for archaeological resources and includes addressing inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources and human remains. These measures would also apply to tribal cultural resources that are archaeological in nature. The project would also include implementation of MM TCR-1 and MM TCR-2 as mitigation for tribal cultural resources, including but not limited to those that are archaeological in nature. Upon implementation of these project -specific mitigation measures for tribal cultural resources, when carried out in concert with those for archaeological resources, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measures MM TCR-1 Tribal Monitoring. The project developer shall retain a professional Tribal Monitor procured by the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians and San Fernando Band of Mission Indians (Tribes) to observe all ground -disturbing activities including, but not limited to, clearing, grubbing, grading, excavating, digging, trenching, plowing, drilling, tunneling, quarrying, leveling, driving posts, auguring, blasting, stripping topsoil or similar activity. Tribal Monitoring Services shall continue until confirmation is received from the project developer, in writing, that all scheduled activities pertaining to Tribal Monitoring are complete. If the project's scheduled activities require the Tribal Monitor to leave the project for a period of time and return, confirmation shall be submitted to the Tribes by the project developer, in writing, upon completion of each set of scheduled activities and reasonable notice shall be submitted to the Tribes by project developer, in writing, prior to the start of each set of scheduled activities. If tribal cultural resources are encountered, the Tribal Monitor will have the authority to request that ground -disturbing 88 Packet Pg. 371 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration activities cease within 60 feet of discovery and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards retained by the project developer as well as the Tribal Monitor shall assess the find. NM TCR-2 Disposition and Treatment of Inadvertent Discoveries of Tribal Cultural Resources. The City of Santa Clarita and/or developer shall, in good faith, consult with the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians and San Fernando Band of Mission Indians on the disposition and treatment of any Tribal Cultural Resource encountered during all ground disturbing activities. XIX. Utilities and Service Systems Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant with Environmental Issues Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact p Impact Incorporated p Would the project: (a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater 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 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? (c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Setting The project site would require the construction of new utility infrastructure to connect to existing lines and mains along Soledad Canyon Road. SCV Water is the water purveyor serving the project site. Wastewater facilities are operated and maintained by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District and the project site is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District. Storm drain facilities in the project site vicinity are within the Los Angeles County Storm Drain System, operated by the LACDPW. The project receives electricity from SCE and natural gas from SoCalGas. 89 Packet Pg. 372 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Water Facilities Less than Significant Impact. The project would include the installation of a new water line that would connect to an existing water line within Soledad Canyon Road. The demand and installation of new water supply lines and fire hydrants are evaluated and managed by SCV Water and LACFD, respectively, under their own independent environmental analysis. Construction of the new water line would be limited to on -site water distribution and minor off -site work associated with connections to the public main along Golden Valley Road. Prior to ground disturbance, the project construction contractor would notify SCV Water of proposed ground -disturbing activities to avoid water lines and disruption of water service. Wastewater Facilities Less than Significant Impact. The project would include the installation of a new sewer line that would connect to an existing wastewater line within Soledad Canyon Road. The project's wastewater would be treated by the Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District, which operates two wastewater reclamation plants (WRPs): Saugus WRP and Valencia WRP. The Saugus WRP provides primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment with a design capacity of 6.5 million gallons of wastewater per day. In 2020, the Saugus WRP produced an average of 4.6 million gallons per day (mgd) of tertiary recycled water (SCV Water 2021). The Valencia WRP is a tertiary treatment plant with solids processing facilities. The plant provides primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment with a design capacity of 21.6 mgd of wastewater. In 2020, the Valencia WRP produced an average of 13.8 mgd of tertiary recycled water. The Valencia WRP processes all wastewater solids generated in the Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District. In addition to these WRPs, new water reclamation facilities would be constructed by other developments in the Santa Clarita Valley, including Newhall Ranch and Vista Canyon. Given that the project is consistent with the population projections provided in the 2020 SCV Water UWMP, it is not anticipated that the project would require the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities, as the WRPs have sufficient capacity to accommodate additional growth. This is affirmed by the will -serve letter received from the Los Angeles County Sanitation District and included as Appendix K: LACSD Will Serve Letter. Therefore, the project would not result in the need to construct new or expanded wastewater treatment (reclamation) plants. The project would require construction of a new on -site sewer to serve the new residential and manufacturing buildings. Impacts associated with wastewater infrastructure would primarily be confined to trenching for miscellaneous utility lines and connections to public infrastructure. Installation of wastewater infrastructure would be limited to on -site wastewater distribution, and minor off -site work associated with connections to the public main under Soledad Canyon Road. All off -site work would be performed in consultation and under the approval of the Los Angeles County Sanitation District, which operates the Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District. The environmental impacts of construction and installation of new infrastructure associated with the project within the project site boundaries have been considered in the other resource -specific topical sections of this IS/MND (e.g., biological resources, cultural resources); mitigation measures identified in this IS/MND apply not only to the development of the residences and manufacturing building, but they are also applicable to the associated infrastructure within the project site boundaries. No additional physical impacts related to the construction of new wastewater facilities beyond physical disturbance of the project site itself are anticipated. Impacts related to the construction of new wastewater facilities would be less than significant. 90 Packet Pg. 373 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Stormwater Drainage Facilities Less than Significant Impact. Refer to Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, above, for an in-depth discussion of stormwater drainage facilities. As discussed therein, BMPs would be required to control stormwater runoff designed to capture stormwater runoff to the 85th percentile storm event. As such, stormwater runoff from the project site would not be expected to exceed the capacity of the existing or planned stormwater drainage systems and would not be expected to require the construction of new facilities. Therefore, impacts related to the construction of new stormwater facilities would be less than significant. Energy Infrastructure Less than Significant Impact. SCE would supply the project electricity from the existing electrical system. All electrical facility installation and connection to the existing system would be implemented in coordination and under the approval of the SCE. Therefore, the construction of new electric power facilities would not result in significant environmental effects. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant. Telecommunication Facilities Less than Significant Impact. Construction -related activities, including grading and excavation, could encroach on telecommunication facilities. However, before construction begins, the Applicant would be required to coordinate with applicable regulatory agencies and telecommunication providers to locate and avoid or implement the orderly relocation of telecommunication facilities that would be affected. b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Less than Significant Impact. Water supply for the Santa Clarita Valley is provided by SCV Water, which was created on January 1, 2018, through the merger of the three water agencies in the Santa Clarita Valley. SCV Water serves 273,000 customers through 70,000 retail water connections, in an area approximately 195 square miles in size (SCV Water 2022). SCV Water receives water from four sources: groundwater, recycled water, imported water, and banked water. According to Table 4-1 of the SCV Water 2020 UWMP, in 2020, SCV Water received approximately 26% of its water supply from groundwater, 0.7% from recycled water, 38.9% from imported water, and 34.4% from banked water. SCV Water groundwater supply in this region is pumped from the Santa Clara River Valley East Groundwater Basin (SCV Water 2021). The SCV Water 2020 UWMP has planned growth within the Santa Clarita Valley service area over the next 30 years. SCV Water has made an allowance for future water demand estimates. Future demand services are based on historical growth rates in the service area. As discussed in the SCV Water 2020 UWMP, adequate water supplies are projected to be available to meet SCV Water's estimated water demand through 2045 under normal, single -dry, and multiple -dry year conditions (SCV Water 2021). SVC Water forecasts for projected water demand are based on the population projections of SLAG, which rely on the adopted land use designations contained within the general plans that cover the geographic area within SVC Water's service. The water use projections used in the 2020 SVC Water UWMP were based on the site's existing "Mixed Use Corridor" land use designation on the City of Santa Clarita Land Use Map. The project would develop the site with a mixed use housing and manufacturing building, which is consistent with the MXC land use designation. Therefore, the project is in line with the population estimates of the 2020 SCV Water UWMP. As a result, SCV Water would incorporate the 91 Packet Pg. 374 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration water demands of the project site into future water demand projections in order to ensure a reliable supply of water for the project and future anticipated projects. Furthermore, as long-term water supply is a significant concern in California, SCV Water can increase supply to meet future demands by 1) increasing the use of groundwater banking programs to ensure reliable water supply from wet to dry years; 2) increasing imported water purchases if available and if there is sufficient storage capacity; and 3) purchasing additional recycled water, if available. Collectively, these additional measures would ensure a reliable source of water for SCV Water and the project, currently and into the future. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project 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? Less than Significant Impact. As stated under Threshold XIX(a), above, the sewage flow from operation of the project would ultimately be conveyed to Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District (operated by Los Angeles County Sanitation District). A will -serve letter received from the Los Angeles County Sanitation District states that there is sufficient capacity for the project (Los Angeles County Sanitation District 2019). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d) Would the project 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? Less than Significant Impact. Implementation of the project would generate an incremental increase in solid waste volumes requiring off -site disposal during short-term construction and long-term operational activities. Solid waste generated by the project would be disposed at the Chiquita Canyon Landfill, the Antelope Valley Landfill, and/or the Sunshine Canyon Landfill. Construction The Chiquita Canyon Landfill, located approximately 10.2 miles to the northwest of the project site, has a maximum permitted throughput of 12,000 tons per day, has a cease operation date of January 1, 2047, and has a remaining capacity of approximately 54,420,179 tons, when last measured in 2020. The Antelope Valley Landfill is located approximately 33.9 miles to the northeast of the project site, has a maximum permitted throughput of 5,548 tons per day, has a cease operation date of April 1, 2044, and has a remaining capacity of 10,178,644 tons, when last measured in 2020. The Sunshine Canyon Landfill is located approximately 8.0 miles to the south of the project site, has a maximum permitted throughput of 12,100 tons per day, has a cease operation date of October 31, 2037, and has a remaining capacity of 54,079,158 tons when last measured in 2020 (LACDPW 2021). Construction of the project would result in the generation of solid waste such as scrap lumber, concrete, residual wastes, packing materials, and plastics. Per CALGreen, 65% of construction and demolition waste must be diverted from landfills. As such, at least 65% of all construction and demolition debris from the site would be diverted. Additionally, CALGreen requires 100% of trees, stumps, rocks, and associated vegetation and soils resulting primarily from land clearing to be reused or recycled. Any hazardous wastes that are generated during demolition and construction activities would be managed and disposed of in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws. The remaining 35% of construction and demolition materials that are not required to be recycled would either be disposed of or voluntarily recycled at a solid waste facility with available capacity. The project would also be required to comply with the City's Construction and Demolition Materials Management Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 15.46). Per the requirements of this ordinance, a Construction and Demolition Materials 92 Packet Pg. 375 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Management Plan would be prepared for the project and submitted for approval to the City's Environmental Services Division. This plan must be approved before grading or building permits are issued for the project. The City's Construction and Demolition Materials Ordinance also requires a minimum of 65% of the entire project's inert waste (dirt rock, bricks, etc.) and 65% of the remaining construction waste to be recycled or reused. Construction waste is typically disposed of at inert landfills, which are facilities that accept materials such as soil, concrete, asphalt, and other construction and demolition debris. As of 2019, the Azusa Land Reclamation Landfill, located approximately 40 miles to the southeast of the project site, is the only permitted inert landfill within Los Angeles County. The landfill has a remaining capacity of 55,705,480 tons and is expected to remain open for approximately 26 years, as of 2019 (LACDPW 2021) There are other facilities that process other construction and demolition waste in the county. Collectively, these facilities have a remaining capacity of approximately 148.4 million tons. The closest facility to the project site is the East Valley Diversion (formerly Looney Bins), located at 11616 Sheldon Street in Sun Valley. This facility is approximately 14.5 miles to the southeast of the project site and has a permitted capacity of 750 tons of waste per day. This facility has a mixed construction and demolition waste recycling rate of 75% (LACDPW 2021). Therefore, any construction and demolition debris requiring disposal at an inert landfill would be sufficiently accommodated by existing landfills. For reasons stated above, project construction would not 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.g., CALGreen standards). Non -recyclable construction waste generated by the project would be disposed at the Chiquita Canyon Landfill, the Antelope Valley Landfill, and/or the Sunshine Canyon Landfill. As described above, these landfills receive well below their maximum permitted daily disposal volume; thus, the construction waste generated by the project is not anticipated to cause the landfills to exceed their maximum permitted daily disposal volume. Furthermore, the Chiquita Canyon Landfill, the Antelope Valley Landfill, and/or the Sunshine Canyon Landfill are not expected to reach their total maximum permitted disposal capacities during the project's construction period, which would end in 2026. The Chiquita Canyon Landfill, the Antelope Valley Landfill, and/or the Sunshine Canyon Landfill have sufficient daily capacity to accept solid waste generated by the project's construction phase; therefore, impacts to landfill capacity associated with the project's near -term construction activities would be less than significant. Operational Based on a daily waste generation factor of 1.42 pounds of waste per 100 square feet of industrial building area obtained from CalRecycle, long-term, ongoing operation of the project would generate approximately 1.61 tons of solid waste per day ([227,790 square feet - 100 square feet] X 1.42] 2,000 pounds = 1.61 tons per day) (CalRecycle 2019). Pursuant to AB 939, at least 50% of the project's solid waste is required to be diverted from landfills; therefore, the project would generate approximately 0.80 tons of solid waste per day requiring landfilling (1.61 tons per day X 50% = 0.80 tons per day). Non -recyclable solid waste generated during long-term operation of the project would be disposed at the Chiquita Canyon Landfill, the Antelope Valley Landfill, and/or the Sunshine Canyon Landfill. As described above, these landfills receive well below their maximum permitted daily disposal volume; thus, waste generated by the project's operation is not anticipated to cause the landfills to exceed their maximum permitted daily disposal volume. Because the project would generate a relatively small amount of solid waste per day as compared to the permitted daily capacities at the receiving landfills, impacts to the Chiquita Canyon Landfill, the Antelope Valley Landfill, and/or the Sunshine Canyon Landfill facilities during the project's long-term operational activities would be less than significant. 93 Packet Pg. 376 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less than Significant Impact. Solid waste generated by the project site would be collected by Waste Management, then transferred to a transfer station where the waste would be sorted, processed, and sorted. From there, the waste would be taken to either the Chiquita Canyon Landfill, the Antelope Valley Landfill, or the Sunshine Canyon Landfill. These facilities are regulated under federal, state, and local laws. Additionally, the City is required to comply with relevant solid waste reduction and diversion requirements, including AB 939, AB 341, and AB 1327. Collectively, these regulations set statewide waste diversion goals as well as established solid waste and recycling governing standards for local agencies. In addition, waste diversion and reduction during project construction and operations would be completed in accordance with CALGreen standards and City diversion requirements. As a result, the proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Impacts would be less than significant. Conclusion The project would not result in significant adverse environmental impacts related to the provision of utilities and service systems; no mitigation measures are necessary. XX. Wildfire Potentially Less Than Significant with Less Than Environmental Issues Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact If located in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: (a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ plan or emergency evacuation plan? (b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ 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 or maintenance of associated ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ 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, ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Setting The project site is located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) in a Local Responsibility Area (Figure 5). The project site (approximately 35.2 acres) predominantly consists of disturbed habitat and is paved with asphalt, with the exception of a lone hill at the northwestern portion of the parcel. With the exception of the hill on the western portion of the subject property, the project site is flat. The hill is sparsely vegetated with sagebrush scrub, chamise chaparral, and upland mustards or star - thistle fields. Directly southwest of the project site are undeveloped hillsides with slopes averaging from 12 to 18 percent, the vegetation communities on the surrounding hillsides is dominated by sagebrush 94 Packet Pg. 377 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration scrub, coast live oak woodland, and disturbed habitat. The project site's designation as a Very High FHSZ because of its proximity to these undeveloped hillsides (see Figure 5). FHSZs are defined as a mapped area that designates zones (based on factors such as fuel, slope, and fire weather) with varying degrees of fire hazard (i.e., moderate, high, and very high). FHSZ maps analyze wildfire hazards and identify where wildfire hazards could be more severe and cause the greatest concern. CAL FIRE is legally responsible for providing fire protection on all State Responsibility Area lands. State Responsibility Area lands "are defined based on land ownership, population density and land use" and include over 31 million acres across the state. Because the project site is within a Very High FHSZ in a Local Responsibility Area, the local government is responsible for providing wildfire protection and suppression services. 95 Packet Pg. 378 2.b Riverview Development Project Bra# Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration CALIFORNIA FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES: Local Responsibility Area (LIRA) ® Very High State Responsibility Area (SRA) Very High High Moderate Q Project Area Project Area (I -Mile buffer) Los Angeles County, CA NAD 1983 UTM Zone 11N 34.d177°N 118.52WW Base MapESRI AtcGIS Online. accessed January 2023 Updatzd: 174'2023 Pr.f-t No. 00075841.000-PAS Layout 079841_ FireHa ,dZones 0 2000 4 oc0 Fe �Wts 0 500 1 A00 N A 1:48,000 SWCA ENVIRONMENTAL [ON5UVANT$ Figure 5. Fire Hazard Severity Zones for Local and State Responsibility Areas in a 1-mile radius from the project site. 96 Packet Pg. 379 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation a) If located in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than Significant Impact. The City has identified that the terrain and layout of the Santa Clarita Valley can affect evacuation during a wildfire event (City of Santa Clarita 2021). The City ensures that impacts to evacuation are addressed through collaboration with Los Angeles County Fire and Sheriffs Departments and through implementation of the Hazard Mitigation Plan, which outlines several mitigation actions intended to facilitate emergency evacuation, including coordinating with the Los Angeles County Fire and Sheriff s Departments to coordinate the Public Alert and Warning Notification System, coordinating with the LACFD to enhance emergency services to increase the efficiency of wildfire response and recovery activities, and incorporating mass notification procedures (e.g., text, social media) into evacuation notification efforts (City of Santa Clarita 2021). The Hazard Mitigation Plan also includes a goal of identifying safe evacuation routes in high -risk natural disaster areas and coordinating with the County of Los Angeles to identify emergency transportation routes. The City's General Plan and the County of Los Angeles Operational Area Disaster Route map for the City designate I-5, SR-14, and SR-126 as emergency evacuation routes (LACDPW 2010). The project site is not located within the immediate vicinity of these evacuation routes and is not expected to disrupt evacuation procedures along these highways. The County designates Soledad Canyon Road, which borders the project site on the north, as a secondary evacuation route (LACDPW 2010). Any public right-of-way encroachments during project construction would require approval from the City. As described in Section XVII, Transportation, project -generated traffic would not substantially adversely affect the performance of nearby roadways, including Golden Valley Road. Therefore, emergency service response times and disaster evacuation routes would not be affected. Prior to operation, the project would receive all required permits and certificates for occupancy and operation, including those issued by the City Department of Building and Safety. Therefore, the project would not substantially interfere with or impair local emergency response or emergency evacuation plans, and impacts would be less than significant. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, if located in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? Less than Significant Impact. The project is located within a Very High FHSZ. Topography of the project and surrounding area can increase fire behavior due to the hills and steep slopes. The region is subject to continual strong winds and seasonal Santa Ana winds, a local weather phenomenon that produces very dry, strong winds that historically spread wildfires. Fuels in the surrounding area are flashier fuels (grass and pyric shrubs), which can have faster rates of spread, particularly on steeper terrain and when winds align with topography. The project would also increase the potential for ignitions during construction and maintenance. Increased ignition sources may include mechanized equipment, vehicles, heavy equipment, cigarettes, and additional electrical infrastructure (power lines if overhead). However, the project would be subject to the City Building Code pertaining to permits, building design and exterior materials, fire suppression systems, and backfilling and erosion control on slopes and in a Very High FHSZ. This includes local fire department approval of heavy equipment for grading activities and dust control compliance, which would include a water supply on -site. The project would be compliant with the City Fire Code, which incorporates, by reference, the 2022 California Fire Code, including 97 Packet Pg. 380 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration amendments made and adopted by the County of Los Angeles County and referred to as Title 32 of the Los Angeles County Code. These requirements include requirements pertaining to fire apparatus, access roads, turning radii, building identification, and marking of other structures, defensible space, vegetation clearance and maintenance (fuel modification areas), and water supply. The closest fire station to the project is LACFD Station 111, located at 26829 Seco Canyon Road, Valencia, California, approximately 1.2 miles from the project site. Additional fire protection could be provided by other fire stations in Santa Clarita, including Station 126 (Battalion 6 Headquarters), located at 26329 Citrus Street, approximately 1.3 miles west of the project site. The Santa Clarita General Plan Safety Element has an objective of fire response times of no more than 5 minutes in urbanized areas, 8 minutes in suburban areas, and 12 minutes in rural areas (City of Santa Clarita 2022b). The project site's proximity to undeveloped land with flashy fuels (fuels that ignite readily and are consumed rapidly when dry, e.g., grass, dried leaves) would potentially expose occupants to wildfire, however the implementation of mandatory design features such as fuel breaks, designated evacuation routes, and the accessibility to local fire stations would reduce the potential impacts from wildfire spread to less -than -significant levels. c) If located in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Less than Significant Impact. The project would have minimal associated infrastructure beyond what exists for adjacent development. As presented in the Section XIX, Utilities and Service Systems, the project would use or connect to existing water lines, sewer drainages, energy lines, and improved roads. The project would be compliant with the City Fire Code pertaining to removal of vegetation a minimum of 30 feet from any structure and vegetation maintenance around any electrical equipment, resulting in minimal exacerbation of fire risk for the life of the project and minimal impacts to the environment. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d) If located in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project 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? Less than Significant Impact. Extreme fire behavior can cause sterilized and hydrophobic soils, a main contributor to runoff issues post -fire that can lead to flooding and landslides, particularly in steeper terrain. However, fire behavior in the project site would be moderated due to vegetation clearing and maintenance per the Fire Code. The project site has been previously graded and does not pose a risk of landslides or downstream flooding. Project stormwater design would direct water flows to catchment basins as discussed in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality. The location of the project site does not expose people or structures to downslope or downstream risk, therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Conclusion The project would not result in a significant adverse wildfire impact; no mitigation measures are necessary. 98 Packet Pg. 381 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant with Environmental Issues Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact p Incorporated p (a) Does the project have the potential to substantially ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or 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 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) (c) Does the project have environmental effects which will ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Environmental Evaluation a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or 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? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Section IV, Biological Resources, the project site supports suitable habitat for one special -status animal species (coastal California gnatcatcher) which has moderate potential to occur. If this species is present within the project site during construction, the project construction could result in a significant impact on this species. However, Mitigation Measures 1310-1 through BIO-9 have been identified to reduce potentially significant impacts to the coastal California gnatcatcher and other plant and animal species to less - than significant levels. These mitigation measures would require preconstruction surveys, biological monitoring during construction, exclusion areas, and protected tree replacement. The project site does not support riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. However, to reduce potential indirect impacts to federally protected wetland due to impaired water quality downstream and the degradation of adjacent habitats, implementation of a SWPPP and project design features, including water quality treatment basins that would improve water quality before it flows downstream to the stormwater drainage basins, would reduce potential indirect impacts to the Santa Clara River system. Therefore, indirect impacts related to federally protected wetlands would be less than significant. As described in Section V, Cultural Resources, the project site does not support any known important examples of major periods in California history or prehistory. However, the significant grading and terracing of the hillside in the northwestern portion of the project site has the potential to produce previously unrecorded cultural material. The implementation of MM CR-1 through CR-3 and MM TCR-1 and TCR-2 would ensure that impacts to inadvertent discoveries would be less than significant. 99 Packet Pg. 382 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project would result in potentially significant project -level impacts involving air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and tribal cultural resources. However, mitigation measures have been identified that would reduce these impacts to less -than -significant levels. Furthermore, the air quality, GHG, and transportation and traffic analyses presented in Section III, Section VIII, and Section XVII, respectively, of this IS/MND consider cumulative impacts. Specifically, the cumulative impacts analyses in this IS/MND consider to transportation may occur due to other projects in the vicinity of the Riverview project. Of note, the Metrolink station adjacent to the project site is subject to improvements as described in the Antelope Valley Line (AVL) Capacity and Service Improvements Program EIR, which was finalized on November 16, 2021. The AVL project is scheduled to be completed between 2028 and 2030 and has been considered in the environmental analyses contained in this assessment. All reasonably foreseeable future development in the city would be subject to the same land use and environmental regulations that have been described throughout this document. Furthermore, all development projects are guided by the policies identified in the City's General Plan and by the regulations established in the City's Municipal Code. Compliance with applicable land use and environmental regulations would ensure that environmental effects associated with the proposed project would not combine with effects from reasonably foreseeable future development in the city to cause cumulatively considerable significant impacts. Cumulative impacts would therefore be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As detailed throughout this IS/MND, the proposed project would not exceed any significance thresholds or result in significant impacts in the environmental categories typically associated with indirect or direct effects on human beings, with the implementation of mitigation measures. As discussed in Section VII Geology and Soils, and Section XX Wildfire, the project could result in potentially significant impacts by natural disaster in the form of earthquake, landslide, or wildfire. However, specific design features such as siting outside of a landslide zone, and designing the project with ample evacuation options, mitigate the severity of these potential impacts. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 100 Packet Pg. 383 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3 LITERATURE CITED Allan E. Seward Engineering Geology, Inc. 2007. Geologic Report: Investigation of Fault Rupture Hazard. March 9, 2007, 191 p. Avocet (Avocet Environmental Help, Inc.). 2007. Revised Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Report. Saugus Swap Meet Property. Santa Clarita, California. March 21, 2007. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2008. CEQA & Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. January 2008. 2021. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) User's Guide Version 2020.4. 0. Prepared by Trinity Consultants and the California Air Districts. May. Available at:. Accessed October 2021. California Air Resources Board (GARB). 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/ scopingplandocument.htm. Accessed November 2023. 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan Building on the Framework Pursuant to AB 32 The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_change_scoping_plan. pdf. Accessed November 2023 2017. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update. Available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf Accessed November 2023. 2022. The 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2022-scoping-plan-documents. Accessed November 2023. California Department of Conservation (CDOC). 2018. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed February 2023. 2023. EQ ZAPP: California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. Accessed October 2023. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Population and Natural Communities. Available at: https://nrtn.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959. Accessed November 2023. 2022. RareFind, Version 5.2.14. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Available at: https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx. Accessed October 2022. 2023. NCCP Plan Summaries. Available at: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/NCCP/Plans. Accessed November 2023. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire and Resource Assessment Program (CAL FIRE). -20-21 2024. Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Available at: has://www.fire.ca.gov 101 Packet Pg. 384 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Accessed October 2024. Sevef4y Zones. Los Angeles County. Available at: gisi_E6 't"_ —1 l.i! 7—z0-2-2—!E)sa- rgeies—ada.p adf-. Aeeessecc'l Septemberz�-2-2. California Department of General Services, Office of Public School Construction. 2009. State of California Enrollment Certification/Projection — School Facility Program. Revised May 2009. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2019. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Available at: https:Hcaltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappvlewer/ index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116flaacaa. Accessed November 2023. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. Division of Environmental Analysis, Environmental Engineering, Hazardous Waste, Air, Noise, Paleontology Office. California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2022. SGMA Basin Prioritization Map, Santa Clara River Valley East. Available at: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp-dashboard/finaU. Accessed October 5, 2022. California Geologic Energy Management Division. 2019. Well Finder. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/#openModal/-118.49115/34.40578/15. Accessed September 2022. California Geological Survey. 2021. Updated Mineral Resource Zones for Portland Cement Concrete Aggregate in the San Fernando Valley and Saugus -Newhall Production -Consumption Regions. Available at: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Publishinglmages/Publications/SR-254- preview jpg. Accessed September 2022. California Native Plant Society. 2001. California Native Plant Society Botanical Survey Guidelines. Available at: https:Hcnps.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/cnps_survey_guidelines.pdf Accessed November 2023. 2022. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. Online edition, Version 8-03 0.45. Sacramento, California. Available at: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/advanced.html. Accessed October 2022. California Natural Resources Agency. 2009. Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action: Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to SB97. Available at: https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/cega/docs/Final_Statement of Reasons.pdf. California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2022. "GeoTracker". California Water Quality Control Board. Available at: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov. Accessed September 25, 2022. CalRecycle. 2019. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Available at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacten*zation/general/rates. Accessed November 2023. Campbell, R.H., C.J. Wills, P.J. Irvine, and B.J. Swanson. 2014. Preliminary geologic map of the Los Angeles 30' x 60' Quadrangle, California, Version 2.1. California Geological Survey, Preliminary Geologic Map Series, scale 1:100,000. City of Santa Clarita. 2011a. General Plan, Conservation and Open Space Element. Available at: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaClarita/html/SantaClaritaGP/6%20- %20Conservation%20and%20Open%2OSpace%20EIement.pdf. Accessed September 2022. 102 Packet Pg. 385 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 201 lb. General Plan, Circulation Element. Available at: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaClarita/html/SantaCIaritaGP/4%20- %20Circulation%20Element.pdf. Accessed February 2023. 2020a. Fire Zone. Available at: https://www.santa-clarita.com/home/showdocument?id=2320. Accessed November 2020. 2020b. Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Clarita. Fehr & Peers, May 19, 2020. 2021. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Available at: https://www.santa- clarita.com/home/showpublisheddocument/19433/637534698188670000. Accessed October 2022. 2022a. Development Review Committee Comments. Master Case 21-205: Riverview Development. February 15, 2022. 2022b. General Plan, Safety Element. Available at: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaClarita/html/SantaClaritaGP/7%20- %20Safety%20Element.pdf. Accessed September 2022. 2023. Mapping Your City. Available at: https://maps.santa- clarita.com/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.httnl?id=4b3 cfb271314475db6518999b47478 76 Accessed September 2022. County of Los Angeles. 2023. Significant Ecological Areas — Inventory. ArcGIS online webmap. Available at: https:Hlacounty.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/ index.html?id=9c9047feld2844f387f8cal777f009fc. Accessed November 2023. Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2021. No Further Action Determination for Saugus Swap Meet Property, 22500 Soledad Canyon Road, Santa Clarita (Site Code: 301293). December 14, 2021. Dibblee, T.W., Jr., and H.E. Ehrenspeck. 1996. Geologic map of the Newhall quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California. Dibblee Geological Foundation, Map DF-56, scale 1:24,000. Dudek. 2022. Hydrology Technical Memorandum for Riverview Development Project. Prepared for Peter Vanik, Integral Communities. 2023 a. Focused California Gnatcatcher Survey Results for the Riverview Development Project, City of Santa Clarita, California. Letter report dated July 31, 2023. 2023b. Environmental Noise and Vibration Assessment, Riverview Development. March 2023. Prepared for Integral Communities. 2024a. Biological Resources Technical Report: Riverview Project. March 2024. Prepared for The Riverview Owner, LLC. 2024b. Archaeological Resources Technical Report: Riverview Development Project. March 2024. Prepared for The Riverview Owner, LLC. 2024c. Built Environment Inventory and Evaluation Report: Riverview Development Project, Santa Clarita Valley. March 2024. Prepared for The Riverview Owner, LLC. 103 Packet Pg. 386 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2024d. Hazardous Materials Assessment for Riverview Development Project. March 2024. Prepared for Integral Communities. 2024e. Technical Noise Memorandum. June 2024. Prepared for The Riverview Owner, LLC. 2024f. Dudek Response to California Department ofFish and Wildlife Comment for the Riverview Development Project, Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH#2024061060). Memorandum from M. Cady (Senior Biologist. Dudek) to D. Peterson (Senior Planner. Citof Santa Clarita). September 16, 2024. Employment Development Department (EDD). 2023. Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places (CDP). August. Available at: https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/ view. aspx?src=https%3 A%2F%2Flabormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov%2Ffile%2Flfinonth%2Fallsubs.x is&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK. Accessed November 2023. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2021a. National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette. City of Santa Clarita 060729. Effective June 2, 2021. 202lb. Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06037C0817G. Available at: https://msc. fema.gov/arcgis/rest/directories/arcgisj*obs/nfhl_print/mscpn*ntb_gpserver/j 71 dOa224 e0344b9abf7a6alOb66ed6e9/scratch/FIRMETTE 62ac595e-765c-4206-b341- f745470d0I60.pdf. Accessed October 2022. Federal Highway Administration. 2008. Roadway Construction Noise Model, Software Version I. I. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Environmental Measurement and Modeling Division. FTA (Federal Transit Administration). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Prepared by John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. Washington, DC: FTA. Available at: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- innovation/ 118131 /transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no- 0123_0.pdf. Accessed November 2023. GeoSoils Consultants, Inc. (GeoSoils). 2022. Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering Report, Riverview, Saugus Speedway and Swapmeet, 22500 Soledad Canyon Road, Santa Clarita, California. Prepared for The Riverview Owner LPV, LLC. February. Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. 2023. Transportation Assessment for the Riverview Mixed -Use Development Project, Santa Clarita, California. Prepared for The Riverview Owner LPV, LLC. Los Angeles, California. Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. 2024. EIR Supplemental Transportation Analysis for the Revised Riverview Mixed -Use Project, Santa Clarita, California. Prepared for The Riverview Owner LPV, LLC. Los Angeles, California. GSI Environmental, Inc. 2021. Results of Limited Phase II Screening Investigation. Former Saugus Speedway. 22500 Soledad Canyon Road, Santa Clarita, California. Memorandum from F. Achour (GSI) to P. Vanek (Integral Communities). May 14, 2021. Helix Environmental Planning. 2024. Summary of the 2024 Crotch's Bumble Bee Focused Survey Results for the Riverview Proiect. Memorandum from L. Singleton (Senior Project Manager, Helix Environmental Planning) to P. Vanek (Integral Communities). August 26, 2024. 104 Packet Pg. 387 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW). 2010. Disaster Route Map, Santa Clarita. Available at: https://dpw.lacounty.gov/dsg/DisasterRoutes/map/Santa%20CIan*ta.pdf. Accessed October 2022. 2021. Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan 2020 Annual Report. Available at: https://pw.lacounty.gov/epd/swims/ShowDoc.aspx?id=16231&hp=yes&type=PDF. Accessed October 6, 2022. 2022. Precipitation —Newhall Station. Available at: http://ladpw.org/wrd/precip/. Accessed October 2022. Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD). 2023. Interactive Fire Station Locator. Available at: https:Hlocator.lacounty.gov/fire. Accessed October 2023. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. 2021. Final Environmental Impact Report, Antelope Valley Line Capacity and Service Improvements Program. Available at: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/3nsOrxy8nz54pn5/AAD5 W5grjegC- WpGI6zzggNe a/Reports/Final%20EIR%20and%20Appendice s?e=1 &subfolder_nav_tracking=l &dl=0. Accessed April 30, 2024. Los Angeles County Sanitation District. 2019. Will Serve Letter for Soledad Spectrum. July 12, 2019. LSA. 2024a. Air Quality, and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum for the Riverview Development in Santa Clarita, California. 2024b. Health Risk Assessment for the Riverview Development Project, Santa Clarita, California. Murphey, P., G. Knauss, L. Fisk, T. Demere, and R. Reynolds. 2019. Best practices in mitigation paleontology. Proceedings of the San Diego Society of Natural History 47:1-43. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2023. Web Soil Survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available at: https://websollsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/. Accessed October 17, 2023. Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants (Ninyo & Moore). 2022. Technical Review Memorandum and Summary of Environmental Activities The Riverview Project. November 16, 2022. Prepared for SWCA Environmental Consultants, San Diego, California. Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region (RWQCB). 2022a. Santa Clara River Watershed. Available at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/water issues/ programs/regional program/Water_Quality_and_Watersheds/santa_clara_river_watershed/SC_ River.pd£ Accessed October 5, 2022. 2022b. Santa Clara River Watershed Impaired Waters. Available at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/water issues/programs/regional_program/Water Qu ality_ nd_Watersheds/santa clara river watershed/303.shtml. Accessed October 7, 2022. RRM Design Group. 2009. City of Santa Clarita Community Character and Design Guidelines. Available at: https:Hsantaclan*ta.gov/planning/community-character-and-design-guidelines/. Accessed November 2023. 105 Packet Pg. 388 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Santa Clarita Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency (SCV-GSA). 2022. East Groundwater Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan. Available at: https:Hscvgsa.org/wp- content/uploads/2022/02/Santa-Clara-River- Valley-East-Groundwater-Subbasin-GSP.pdf. Accessed November 2023. Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency (SCV Water). 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan for Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency. Available at: https://yourscvwater.com/wp- content/uploads/2021/06/SCVWA-2020-UWMP-Volume-I_FINAL.pdf Accessed June 2021. 2022. Your Water Agency. Available at: https://yourscvwater.com/your-district/. Accessed October 2022. Scott, E., and K. Springer. 2003. CEQA and fossil preservation in Southern California. The Environmental Monitor Fall:4-10. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation ofAdverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Available at: https://vertpaleo.org/wp- content/uploads/2021/0I/SVP_Impact_ Mitigation_Guidelines.pdf. Accessed August 30, 2021. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Available at: http://www.agmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis- handbook/cega-air-quality-handbook-(1993). Accessed November 2023. 2003. South Coast AQAID Cumulative Impacts Working Group White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution. Appendix D, Cumulative Impact Analysis Requirements Pursuant to CEQA. 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. July. 2011. Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds. Available at: https://www.agmd.gov/docs/de fault-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance- thresholds/caleemod-guidance.pdf Accessed November 2023. 2017. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. March 16, 2017. Available at: https://www.agmd.gov/docs/de fault-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2016- air-quality-management-plan/final-2016-aqmp/final2016agmp.pdf. Accessed November 2023. 2019. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. Originally published in CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table A9-11-A. Revised April 2019. Available at: https://www.agmd.gov/docs/de fault-source/cega/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air-quality- significance-thresholds.pdVsfvrsn=25. Accessed November 2023. n.d. Localized Significance Thresholds. Website: https://www.agmd.gov/home/rules- compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localizedsignificance-thresholds (accessed June 2024). Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG). 2019. City of Santa Clarita Local Profiles Report 2019. Available at: https:Hscag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/santaclarita localprofile.pdf? 1606011177. Accessed September 2022. 2020a. Connect SoCal 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Plan. Adopted September 3, 2020. Available at https:Hscag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan_O.pdV1606001176. Accessed November 2023. 106 Packet Pg. 389 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2020b. Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report prepared for the SoCal Connect 2020-2045 RTPISCS. Adopted September 3, 2020. Available at: https:Hscag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903 fconnectsocal_demographics-and- growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579. Accessed February 17, 2023. SWCA. 2023. Paleontological Resources Technical Memorandum for the Riverview Development Project, City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California. Prepared for the City of Santa Clarita, Planning Division. Pasadena, California. Translutions, Inc. 2022. Local Transportation Assessment, 26316 Golden Valley Road Warehouse. January 4. Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Management Group. 2015. Enhanced Watershed Management Program. Available at: https:Hfilecenter.santa- clarita.com/GreenSC/tJpperSantaClaraRiver EWMP_Final.pdf. Accessed November 2023. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. Health and Environmental Effects of Particulate Matter (PM). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/health-and-environmental-effects- particulate-matter-pm. Accessed November 2023. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2000. Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/media/guideline s-conducting-and-reporting-botanical-inventories- federally-listed-proposed-and. Accessed November 2023. 2022. IPaC: Information for Planning and Consultation. Powered by ECOS — the Environmental Conservation Online System. Available at: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed October 2022. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2023. Areas of Land Subsidence in California. Map. Available at: https:Hca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/califomia-subsidence-areas.httnl Accessed October 2023. 107 Packet Pg. 390 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4 LIST OF PREPARERS CITY OF SANTA CLARITA David Peterson, Senior Planner Justin Sander, Associate Planner Hai Nguyen, Associate Planner SWCA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Bobbette Biddulph, Senior Project Manager Shannon Pagan, Project Environmental Planner Lucas Leibold, Staff Environmental Planner Stuart Muerth, Staff Environmental Planner Rob MacAller, Natural Resources Director Stephanie Cimino, Cultural Resources Director Liz Denniston, Senior Cultural Resources Team Lead Chris Millington, Senior Archaeologist Susan Zamudio-Gurrola, Architectural History Project Manager Erica Nicolay, Cultural Resources Project Manager Mathew Carson, Paleontology Team Lead Jasmyn Nolasco, Staff Paleontologist Marty Kooistra, GIS Analyst Danielle Desruisseaux, Project Technical Editor 108 Packet Pg. 391 2.b Riverview Development Project Brat Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 5 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the Riverview Development Project (project) based on the findings of the Initial Study/Mitigation Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the project. 5.1 Statutory Requirements When a Lead Agency makes findings on significant environmental effects identified in an Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), the agency must also adopt a "reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment" (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21081.6(a) and California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] Guidelines Sections 15091(d) and 15097). The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is implemented to ensure that the mitigation measures and project revisions identified in the IS/MND are implemented. Therefore, the MMRP must include all changes in the project either adopted by the project proponent or made conditions of approval by the Lead or Responsible Agency. 5.2 Administration of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The City of Santa Clarita (City) is the Lead Agency responsible for the adoption of the MMRP. The Riverview Owner LPV, LCC (Applicant), is responsible for implementation of the MMRP, in coordination with the City and other identified entities. According to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15097(a), a public agency may delegate reporting or monitoring responsibilities to another public agency or to a private entity that accepts the delegation. The City may delegate responsibility for verifying and documenting compliance with the MMRP to the Applicant as coordinator of the project and its construction, and the Applicant will be responsible for compliance. However, until mitigation measures have been completed, the City, as the Lead Agency, remains responsible for ensuring that the implementation of the measures occurs in accordance with the program. 5.3 Mitigation Measures The MMRP table below is structured to enable quick reference to mitigation measures and the associated monitoring program based on the environmental resource. The numbering of mitigation measures correlates with numbering of measures found in the corresponding environmental analysis provided in the project's IS/MND. The table also describes the timing for mitigation measure implementation (e.g.., when the measure shall be implemented) and the responsible parties —such as the Construction Contractor, Applicant, and/or City of Santa Clarita—that are responsible for ensuring implementation of all aspects of each measure. 109 Packet Pg. 392 2.b Riverview Development Project Qra#t Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration N Table 10. Mitigation and Monitoring Program N Mitigation Compliance Verification c� Responsible Measure Requirements of Measure Method Timing Parties r Air Quality W MM AIR-1 Diesel -powered Construction Equipment Requirements. During construction of the Use construction During construction Implementation: r proposed project, the project contractor shall ensure all off -road diesel -powered equipment specified, activities Applicant and v N construction equipment of 50 horsepower or more used for the project construction at a meeting Tier 2 Construction minimum meets the California Air Resources Board Tier 2 emissions standards emissions standards Contractor L equipped with level 3 diesel particulate filters. Verification shall be provided to the City equipped with level 3 Verification: of Santa Clarita Planning Division for confirmation, to the satisfaction of City staff. diesel particulate City of Santa Clarita y filters Biological Resources > MM BIO-1 Pre -Construction Rare Plant Survey and Seed 6e41esiewConservation. Prior to Retain a City- Prior to issuance of Implementation: issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall have a qualified biologist (the Applicant approved project grading permits Applicant 3 shall submit the qualifications of the biologist to the City for review and approval) conduct biologist to ensure Verification: 2 a focused rare plant survey for slender mariposa lily within the undeveloped portion of compliance with City of Santa Clarita > the project site during the appropriate blooming period (March through June). The survey biological resource � uira ilrJ sAnsist of three passes with „ne in April May, and Line The survey shall consist mitigation measures v of a maximum of three passes from March to June. Reference site checks would be made for the species to determine if the species is blooming in the project vicinity. If the reference site check is positive for the species, then the following survey shall determine L the presence or absence of the species at the project site. The surveys would conform to tO the California Native Plant Society's Botanical Survey Guidelines (2001); CDFW's 0 Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant 0 0 Populations and Natural Communities (2018); and USFWS' Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants p (2000). The results of the surveys would be documented in a report and submitted to the z City. 2hQ11Id the s s he f9 -Ad At nt of 29 OF hinher n. then A6# intien of then ed N I r.n ati r.n shell he delayed i ntil the inrJ i..irJi ials haven e W Seed Ceerls shell he � r.IlestPd n e the seer) has matured, hilt p r tO the seer) n iIles n n tO Gli6per6e S the seer) 2ppds shas ll he tQrpd in breathable paper bans in eel Glr„, aRGI Glark place LL The seerJsWA, ilrJ then he rJ r.n aterJ tr. a (`ifi. eIr.nal n .a ti r.n a aatir.n 3 „prJ I" n Criendi; of the Canta lara to he ert an esteratir.n p ests 2D (e Rover) W If the species is found at the project site, then construction of the occupied location shall be delayed, and one of the following measures shall be implemented: LO Alternative No. 1: The project shall compensate for the loss of the species at a 1:1 Ln ratio through the planting of replacement slender mariposa lily bulbs within the o landscaped areas of the residential portion of the project, which will be maintained by N the future homeowner's association in perpetuity. j Alternative No. 2: If replacement slender mariposa lily bulbs cannot be reasonably U 2 located to implement the first alternative, the project shall compensate for the loss of discovered specimens by collecting the seeds of the onsite individuals. Seed collection and storage will be conducted by an entity with extensive experience 0 performing those tasks (such as S&S Seeds or the California Botanical Garden) and t approved by the City. The project Applicant will then work with City -approved local c� ca r r Q 110 Packet Pg. 393 2.b Riverview Development Project Qra#t Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration N Mitigation Compliance Verification Responsible a) Requirements of Measure N Measure Method Timing Parties cn U conservation organization (e.g., Friends of Santa Clara River) to be used in restoration projects. The Applicant shall provide the City with documentation of the N seeds use. MM BIO-2 Pre -construction Wildlife Survey. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a qualified Retain a City- Prior to issuance of Implementation: Y biologist (the Applicant shall submit the qualifications of the biologist to the City for approved project grading permits Applicant review and approval) shall conduct a survey of the proposed impact areas and 50-foot biologist to ensure Verification: o buffer within 72 hours of the proposed activities. Any coastal whiptail, Southern California compliance with City of Santa Clarita d legless lizard, California glossy snake, or Blainville's horned lizard found would be biological resource relocated to a City -approved off -site location in suitable habitat for each species. If a San mitigation measures Diego desert woodrat midden is discovered during the survey, then the biologist would methodically relocate the midden material to suitable habitat (dense shrubs) within 50 feet of its location and outside of the project disturbance limits. The procedure would be > implemented at a rate that would allow for the woodrat to flush from the midden. The R results of the survey would be documented in a letter report to be submitted to the City. 3 MM BIO-3 Biological Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall Retain a City- Prior to issuance of Implementation: submit the qualifications of the biologist(s) to the City for review and approval. The approved project grading permits Applicant > N Applicant shall fund a City -approved Biological Monitor during project construction to biologist to ensure Verification: IX monitor construction activities and to ensure compliance with all mitigation measures. compliance with City of Santa Clarita v The Biological Monitor shall be present on -site during all native vegetation removal and biological resource initial ground -disturbing activities in undeveloped areas. Each day, before project mitigation measures activities begin, the Biological Monitor shall be responsible for conducting a L pre -construction clearance survey and any wildlife (common or special -status) would be ,O relocated off -site to a City -approved area. rO With regard to the Crotch's bumble bee only, if construction activity would impact the U 6.04 acres of potential foraging and nesting habitat (native vegetation communities) 0 during the Crotch's bumble bee nesting period (February 1 through October 31), the Z Biological Monitor shall conduct a pre -construction survey for Crotch's bumble bee within the aforementioned 6.04 acres of natural vegetation area prior to the start of ground- (_n disturbing construction activities within that 6.04 acres occurring during the Crotch's bumble bee nesting period (February 1 through October 31). The survey shall ensure C that no nests for Crotch's bumble bee are located within that 6.04-acre area. The pre- construction survey shall be based on recommendations described in the "Survey 3 Considerations for California Endangered Species Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species," a> released by CDFW on June 6, 2023, or the most current at the time of construction. N The focused survey shall be performed by a Biological Monitor with a CDFW-issued > Scientific Collection Permit (SCP) in surveying for bumble bees and include at least three IX (3) survey passes that are not on sequential days or in the same week, preferably c spaced two to four weeks apart. The timing of these surveys shall coincide with the N Colony Active Period (April 1 through August 31 for Crotch's bumble bee). Surveys may 4 occur between 1 hour after sunrise and 2 hours before sunset. Surveys shall not be N U conducted during wet conditions (e.g., foggy, raining, or drizzling) and surveyors shall wait at least 1 hour following rain. Surveys may be conducted earlier than April 1 if other bees or butterflies are flying in the native vegetation communities on the project site. C Surveys shall not be conducted when it is windy (i.e., sustained winds greater than 8 mph). Within non -developed habitats, the Biological Monitor shall look for nest resources t v ca r r Q 111 Packet Pg. 394 2.b Riverview Development Project Qra#t Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Compliance Verification Responsible Measure Requirements of Measure Method Timing Parties suitable for bumble bee use. Ensuring that all nest resources receive 100 percent visual coverage, the biologist shall watch the nest resources for up to five minutes, looking for exiting or entering worker bumble bees. Worker bees should arrive and exit an active nest site with frequency, such that their presence would be apparent after five minutes of observation. If a bumble bee worker is detected, then a representative shall be identified to species. If a nest is suspected, the Biological Monitor can block the entrance of the possible nest with a sterile vial or mar until nest activity is confirmed (no longer than 30 minutes). Identification shall include the SCP-permitted Biological Monitor netting/capturing the representative bumble bee in appropriate insect nets, per the protocol in U.S. National Protocol Framework for the Inventory and Monitoring of Bees. The bee shall be placed in a clear container for observation and photographic documentation if able. The bee shall be photographed using a macro lens from various angles to ensure recordation of key identifying characteristics. If bumble bee identifying characteristics cannot be adequately captured in the container due to movement, the container shall be placed in a cooler with ice until the bumble bee becomes inactive (generally within 15 minutes). Once inert, the bumble bee shall be removed from the container and placed on a white sheet of paper or card for examination and photographic documentation. The bumble bee shall be released into the same area from which it was captured upon completion of identification. Based on implementation of this method on a variety of other bumble bee species, they become active shortly after removal from the cold environment, so photography must be Performed quickly. If Crotch's bumble bee nests are not detected, no further mitigation would be required. The mere presence of foraging Crotch's bumble bees would not require implementation of additional minimization measures because they can forage up to 10 kilometers from their nests. If nest resources occupied by Crotch's bumble bee are detected within the construction area, no construction activities shall occur within 100 feet of the nest, or as determined by the SCP-permitted Biological Monitor through evaluation of topographic features or distribution of floral resources. The nest resources shall be avoided for the duration of the Crotch's bumble bee nesting period (February 1 through October 31). Outside of the nesting season, it is assumed that no live individuals would be present within the nest as the daughter queens (gynes) usually leave by September, and all other individuals (original queen, workers, males) die. A written survey report shall be submitted to the City within 30 days of the pre - construction survey. The report shall include survey methods, weather conditions, and survey results, including a list of insect species observed and a figure showing the locations of any Crotch's bumble bee nest sites or individuals observed. The survey report shall include the qualification/resume of the SCP-permitted Biological Monitor for identification of photo vouchers, detailed habitat assessment, and photo vouchers. If Crotch's bumble bee nests are observed, the survey report shall also include recommendations for avoidance, and the location information shall be submitted to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) at the time of, or prior to, submittal of the survey report. W 112 Packet Pg. 395 2.b Riverview Development Project Qra#t Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Measure Requirements of Measure Compliance Method Verification Responsible Timing Parties MM BIO-4 Demarcation of Disturbance Limits. Prior to commencement of earthwork in the Retain a City- Prior to issuance of Implementation: undeveloped portion of the project site, the construction limits shall be clearly approved project grading permits, Applicant and demarcated (e.g., installation of flagging or temporary high -visibility construction fence), biologist to ensure during construction Construction as recommended by the Biological Monitor. All construction activities including compliance with Contractor equipment staging and maintenance shall be conducted within the marked disturbance biological resource Verification: limits to prevent inadvertent disturbance to sensitive vegetation communities outside the mitigation measures City of Santa Clarita limits of work. The flagging shall be maintained throughout construction. MM BIO-5 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Prior to issuance of a grading permits for Retain a City- Prior to issuance of Implementation: construction activity that would require more than one acre of earthwork, the project approved project grading permits Applicant developer shall develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that provides biologist to ensure Verification: for require erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be compliance with City of Santa Clarita implemented during construction activities. The SWPPP shall be submitted to the City for biological resource review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit. For construction activities mitigation measures on individual lots that are less than one acre in size, a site -specific listing of BMPs shall be prepared using appropriate and feasible measures included in the primary SWPPP document and shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The site -specific SWPPP shall include measures including, but not be limited to: (1) the regular use of water trucks or other means of site irrigation to minimize fugitive dust during earthmoving and prevent fugitive dust from escaping the property boundary; (2) prohibition of vehicle fueling on -site; and (3) requirement that secondary containment be used for the temporary use all hazardous materials during construction activities and such containment shall be located as far as feasible from jurisdictional resources. Subsequent to approval by the City, the requirements of the SWPPP shall be implemented prior to and during construction activities, as specifically required in the SWPPP. At the culvert in the northwest portion of the project site, a silt fence barrier shall be constructed around it prior to the start of construction activities. Wooden posts supporting the silt fence shall be spaced 2 to 3 feet apart and driven securely into the ground; a minimum of 18 to 20 inches deep. The bottom edge of the silt fence is required to extend across the bottom of the trench and the trench shall be backfilled and compacted to prevent stormwater and sediment from discharging underneath the silt fence. Silt fences shall be inspected weekly and immediately after storm events to ensure they are intact and that there are no gaps where the fence meets the ground or tears along the length of the fence. If gaps or tears are found during the inspection, the fabric is required to be repaired or replaced immediately. MM BIO-6 Invasive Plant Species Prevention. The project shall not include invasive plant species Prevent spread of Prior to issuance of Implementation: listed on the California Invasive Plant Council inventory in project landscaping palettes. invasive plant species grading permits, Applicant The City shall review and approve project landscape palettes to ensure that invasive to ensure compliance during construction Verification: plant species are excluded. In addition, to prevent the spread of invasive plant species with biological City of Santa Clarita during construction and until the establishment of common landscaped areas associated resource mitigation with the project (for a period of up to 5 years): measures All equipment shall be washed prior to entering and prior to leaving the project site in an upland location where any seed material from invasive species will be contained. 113 Packet Pg. 396 2.b Riverview Development Project Qra#t Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Compliance Verification Responsible Measure Requirements of Measure Method Timing Parties All vegetative material removed from the project impact footprint shall be transported in a covered vehicle and will be disposed of at a certified disposal site. MM BIO-7 Exterior Permanent Lighting. To address indirect impacts to special -status wildlife due Design exterior lights Prior to approval of Implementation: to lighting, exterior lighting associated with final project development shall be designed to to be minimal building permits Applicant be minimal (only as needed for security and safety) to lessen the attraction of birds, bats, Verification: and other sensitive wildlife species. City of Santa Clarita MM BIO-8 MM BIO-9 Nesting Bird Avoidance. Project construction shall be conducted in compliance with the conditions set forth in the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code to protect active bird/raptor nests. To the maximum extent feasible, vegetation removal shall occur during the non -breeding season for nesting birds (generally late September to early March) and nesting raptors (generally early July to late January) to avoid impacts to nesting birds and raptors. If the project requires that work be initiated during the breeding season for nesting birds (March 1—September 30) and nesting raptors (February 1—June 30), in order to avoid direct impacts on active nests, a pre -construction survey shall be conducted in the study area (defined as a 500-foot buffer around the project site) by qualified biologists (someone who has more than 3 years of experience conducting nesting bird surveys in the project region) for nesting birds and/or raptors within 3 days prior to project activities. If the biologist does not find any active nests within or immediately adjacent to the impact areas, the vegetation clearing/construction work shall be allowed to proceed. If the biologist finds an active nest within or immediately adjacent to the construction area and determines that the nest may be impacted or breeding activities substantially disrupted, the biologist shall delineate an appropriate buffer zone around the nest, depending on the sensitivity of the species and the nature of the construction activity. To protect any nest site, the following restrictions to construction activities shall be required until nests are no longer active, as determined by a qualified biologist: 1) clearing limits shall be established within a buffer around any occupied nest; and 2) access and surveying shall be restricted within the buffer of any occupied nest, unless otherwise determined by a qualified biologist. The buffer shall be up to 300 feet for non - raptor nesting birds and up to 500 feet for nesting raptors, based upon the biologist's determination of potential effect of project activities on the nest. Construction can proceed into the buffer when the qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active. Protected Tree Replacement. The Applicant would comply with the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Ordinance and would obtain an oak tree permit prior to the issuance of the grading permit for the project. Conditions of the oak tree permit may include the payment of a fee, planting of replacement trees on the project site, or donation of boxed trees to the City or other approved public agency to be used elsewhere in the city. The nine trees to be removed shall be replaced by a tree of the same species at a ratio determined by the Urban Forestry Division of the City of Santa Clarita, with a minimum of 55 replacement trees required. All replacement trees shall be at least a 24-gallon specimen in size and measure 2 inches or more in diameter, as measured from Conduct vegetation removal and site distance between September 30 and January 31. If this is not possible, conduct preconstruction nesting bird and raptor surveys. Obtain an oak tree permit, and submit quarterly tree inspection reports prepared by a City - approved oak tree expert During construction activities on the project site, between February 1 and September 30. Implementation: Applicant and Construction Contractor Verification: City of Santa Clarita Prior to issuance of Implementation: grading permits, and 2 Applicant years following Verification: planting of City of Santa Clarita replacement trees 114 Packet Pg. 397 2.b Riverview Development Project Qra#t Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Compliance Verification Responsible Measure Requirements of Measure Method Timing Parties approximately 4 feet above the base. Replacement trees shall be certified as being grown from a seed source collected in Los Angeles County. For replacement trees planted on the project site, the Applicant shall be responsible for submitting quarterly tree inspection reports to the City prepared by a certified oak tree expert that shall be required to document the condition of the trees. The inspection and reporting would be required for 2 years following the planting of the replacement trees. Any tree that fails during the 2-year period would be replaced by a 24-gallon specimen of the same species and then monitored for an additional 2 years. Cultural Resources MM CR-1 Archaeological Monitoring. Prior to ground -disturbing activities, the Applicant and/or Retain a qualified Prior to Implementation: subsequent responsible parties should retain a Principal Investigator/Archaeologist, archaeologist, prepare commencement of Applicant meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, and with experience in California required Plan, and construction, Verification: prehistoric and historic resources (experience within Los Angeles County preferred), to conduct monitoring monitoring to occur City of Santa Clarita complete the following: compose a Cultural Resource Monitoring and Inadvertent during construction Discovery Plan (Plan), manage archaeological monitoring, and address any inadvertent discoveries identified during project implementation. The Plan shall cover both development of the 35.2-acre project site as well as any necessary off -site improvements (e.g., transportation and infrastructure improvements) associated with the project. Proof of retainment of the Principal Investigator/Archaeologist should be provided to the City prior to the granting of a grading permit. The purpose of the Plan is to outline archaeological monitoring protocols and a program of treatment and mitigation in the case of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources during ground -disturbing phases and to provide for the proper identification, evaluation, treatment, and protection of any archaeological resources in accordance with CEQA throughout the duration of the project. Existence and importance of adherence to this Plan should be stated on all project site plans intended for use by those conducting the ground -disturbing activities. The Principal Investigator/Archaeologist should manage archaeological monitoring conducted by archaeological technicians during initial ground disturbances. Initial excavation is defined as initial construction -related earth moving of sediments from their place of deposition. As it pertains to archaeological monitoring, this definition excludes movement of sediments after they have been initially disturbed or displaced by project - related construction. The retained Principal Investigator/Archaeologist should oversee and establish monitoring efforts as needed (increase, decrease, or discontinue monitoring frequency) based on the observed potential for construction activities to encounter archaeological deposits or material. The archaeological monitor should be responsible for maintaining daily monitoring logs. The requirement for archaeological monitoring should be noted on all construction plans to ensure implementation. Upon completion of all ground -disturbing activities, an archaeological monitoring report should be prepared within 60 days following completion of ground disturbance and submitted to the City for review. This report should document compliance with approved cultural resource mitigation, all monitoring efforts, and include an appendix with daily monitoring logs. The final report should be submitted to the City and the SCCIC. 115 Packet Pg. 398 2.b Riverview Development Project Qra#t Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Measure Requirements of Measure Compliance Verification Responsible Method Timing Parties MM CR- 2 Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) Training. All construction Retain a qualified Prior to Implementation: personnel and monitors who are not trained archaeologists should be briefed regarding archaeologist to commencement of Applicant unanticipated discoveries prior to the start of ground -disturbing activities. A basic create a Worker construction Verification: presentation should be prepared and presented by a qualified archaeologist to inform Environmental City of Santa Clarita all personnel working on the project about the archaeological sensitivity of the area. Awareness Program The purpose of the WEAP training is to provide specific details on the kinds of archaeological materials that may be identified during construction of the project and explain the importance of and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. Each worker should also be instructed on the proper procedures to follow in the event that archaeological resources or human remains are uncovered during ground - disturbing activities. These procedures include work curtailment or redirection, and the immediate contact of the on -call archaeologist and if appropriate, tribal representative. Necessity of training attendance should be stated on all project site plans intended for use by those conducting the ground -disturbing activities. MM CR-3 Inadvertent Discovery Clause. In the event that potential prehistoric or historic -era archaeological resources (sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed during construction activities for the project, all construction work occurring within 50 feet of the find shall immediately stop and the Principal Investigator/Archaeologist notified immediately in order to assess of the discovery and determine whether additional study is warranted. Depending upon the nature of the discovery, the Principal Investigator/Archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves potentially significant under CEQA, additional work such as subsurface testing may be warranted. If the discovery is determined significant under CEQA and avoidance is not feasible, data recovery shall be required. If archaeological resources are discovered or are suspected to be of Native American origin, each of the consulting tribes for the project should also be notified. In the event that human remains are inadvertently encountered during construction activities, the remains and associated resources shall be treated in accordance with state and local regulations that provide requirements with regard to the accidental discovery of human remains, including California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, PRC Section 5097.98, and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). In accordance with these regulations, if human remains are found, the County Coroner must be immediately notified of the discovery. No further excavation or disturbance of the project site or any nearby area (within 100 feet of the find) reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the County Coroner has determined if the remains are potentially human in origin. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are, or are believed to be, Native American, he or she is required to immediately notify the NAHC. The NAHC must immediately notify those persons it believes to be the most likely descendant from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant should then complete their inspection and determine, in consultation with the property owner, the treatment and disposition of the human remains. Immediately cease work in the vicinity of an archaeological resource find and retain a qualified archaeologist to assess the find. During ground - disturbing activities Implementation: Applicant Verification: City of Santa Clarita 116 Packet Pg. 399 2.b Riverview Development Project Qra#t Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Requirements of Measure Compliance Verification Responsible Measure Method Timing Parties Geology and Soils MM GEO-1 Structural Engineering and Setback Requirements. Prior to issuance of a grading Retain a City- Prior to issuance of Implementation: permit, the Applicant shall consult a qualified structural engineer regarding the design of approved structural building permits and Applicant structural components (i.e., floor slab support) of the building to reduce adverse impacts engineer to ensure during construction Verification: associated with fault rupture, strong seismic ground shaking, ground failure, and compliance with City of Santa Clarita liquefaction. Design elements of structures for human occupancy should include a engineering setback of 75 feet from the San Gabriel Fault, and pipelines (including gas, water, storm requirements drain, and sewer) shall be constructed to allow flexure (Allan E. Seward Engineering Geology, Inc. 2007). During construction of the proposed project, the developer shall implement all recommendations provided in the project -specific geotechnical study, including, but not limited to, removal of unsuitable soils and uncertified fills, and over -excavation and recompacting of soils within the project site. Typical hillside grading development and grading ground improvement shall be implemented to withstand the anticipated ground shaking and static and seismic -induced settlement. MM GEO-2 Paleontological Resource Monitoring. The developer shall implement the following: Prepare and Prior to and during Implementation: a. Retain a Qualified Professional Paleontologist: A Project Paleontologist, implement a Paleontological construction activities Applicant Verification: defined as one who meets the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards Resources Monitoring City of Santa Clarita for a qualified professional paleontologist, should be retained to carry out all and Mitigation Plan regulatory compliance measures and protocols related to paleontological resources. b. Conduct Worker Training: The Project Paleontologist should develop WEAP training to educate the construction crew on the legal requirements for preserving fossil resources, as well as the procedures to follow in the event of a fossil discovery. This training program should be given to the crew before ground -disturbing work begins and should include handouts to be given to new workers as needed. C. Monitor for Paleontological Resources: Full-time monitoring should be required in areas mapped as Holocene and late Pleistocene young alluvium, undivided (Qya) when ground -disturbing activities impact previously undisturbed sediments greater than or equal to 5 feet below ground surface, or in areas mapped as Pleistocene to late Pliocene Saugus Formation, undivided (QTs) (regardless of depth). Monitoring should not be required when ground - disturbing activities impact only artificial fill, previously disturbed sediments, and areas mapped as Qya at depths less than 5 feet below ground surface. Monitoring should be conducted by a paleontological monitor who meets the standards of the SVP and should be supervised by the Project Paleontologist, who may periodically inspect construction activities to adjust the level of monitoring in response to subsurface conditions. Monitoring efforts can be increased, reduced, or ceased entirely if determined adequate by the Project Paleontologist in consultation with the Applicant and the City. Paleontological monitoring should include inspection of exposed sedimentary units during active excavations within sensitive geologic sediments. The monitor should have authority to temporarily divert activity away from exposed fossils to 117 Packet Pg. 400 2.b Riverview Development Project Qra#t Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Compliance Verification Responsible Measure Requirements of Measure Method Timing Parties evaluate the significance of the find and, should the fossils be determined significant, professionally and efficiently recover the fossil specimens and collect associated data. The monitor should record pertinent geologic data and collect appropriate sediment samples from any fossil localities. Recovered fossils should be prepared to the point of curation, identified by qualified experts, listed in a database to facilitate analysis, and deposited in a designated paleontological repository (e.g., Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County). d. Prepare a Paleontological Resources Monitoring Report: Upon conclusion of ground -disturbing activities, the Project Paleontologist overseeing paleontological monitoring should prepare a final paleontological resources monitoring report that documents the paleontological monitoring efforts for the project and describes any paleontological resources discoveries observed and/or recorded during the life of the project. If paleontological resources are curated, the final report and any associated data pertinent to the curated specimen(s) should be submitted to the designated repository. A copy of the final report should be filed with the City. Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM HAZ-1 Soil Management Plan. The developer and/or project contractor shall prepare and Prepare and Prior to and during Implementation: implement a Soil Management Plan for the removal of any identified contaminated soils implement a Soil construction activities Applicant and and their transportation off -site. The Soil Management Plan shall be prepared in Management Plan Construction coordination with the City and the Los Angeles County Fire Department (as the Certified Contractor Unified Program Agency) and in accordance with all relevant and applicable federal, Verification: state, and local laws and regulations that pertain to the transportation and disposal of City of Santa Clarita hazardous materials and waste. The Soil Management Plan shall: • describe the methodology to identify and manage (reuse or off -site disposal) contaminated soil during soil excavation and/or construction; and • provide protocols for confirmation sampling, segregation and stockpiling, profiling, backfilling, disposal, guidelines for imported soil, and backfill approval from the DTSC Information Advisory on Clean Imported Fill Material. The Soil Management Plan shall be implemented during project construction. Noise MM NOISE-1 Noise Abatement during Construction of Light Manufacturing Lot. The Approach earthwork During construction, Implementation: following noise control and/or sound abatement measures shall be implemented as prescribed on the specifically during the Applicant and during construction of Lot 5, which is the lot that is planned for the light light manufacturing site preparation, Construction manufacturing land use: lot; install specified grading, and paving Contractor A. Site Preparation: noise barriers during phases of the light Verification: construction manufacturing lot City of Santa Clarita 1. To the extent practicable, earthwork on the east side of the existing hill on Lot 5 shall start as far east and possible and proceed in an east -to -west direction to take advantage of the distance between the site preparation activity and the Action Family Rehab facility and the sound -blocking effects of the unworked terrain that should naturally occlude line -of -sight between this construction process and this noise -sensitive land use to the northwest. 118 Packet Pg. 401 2.b Riverview Development Project Qra#t Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Compliance Verification Responsible Measure Requirements of Measure Method Timing Parties Consistent with acoustical principles for noise reduction afforded by such natural features, this line -of -sight occlusion should yield the needed decibel reduction at this receptor and result in 8-hour Leq exposure levels that are compatible with FTA guidance (80 dBA). 2. Should line -of -sight occlusion not be feasible per A.1 above, then along or within the property line where the project site adjoins the Action Rehab facility, a 20-foot-tall temporary barrier shall be installed made of typical outdoor -appropriate plywood sheeting, acoustical sound blankets, or other materials (having sound transmission class [STC] 20 or better) to ensure line -of -sight occlusion between operating project construction equipment and the Action Family Rehab land use. B. Grading and Paving: An appropriate temporary barrier shall also be constructed prior to the grading and paving phases and shall remain in place until these phases of the construction are completed. The grading and phasing barrier shall be at least a 12-foot- tall temporary barrier made of typical outdoor -appropriate plywood sheeting, acoustical sound blankets, or other materials (having sound transmission class [STC] 20 or better) along or adjacent to the property line where the project site adjoins the Action Family Rehab facility, Tribal Cultural Resources MM TCR-1 Tribal Monitoring. The project developer shall retain a professional Tribal Monitor Tribal Monitor Prior to and during Implementation: procured by the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians and San Fernando Band procured by the construction Applicant of Mission Indians (Tribes) to observe all ground -disturbing activities including, but not Fernandeno Tataviam Verification: limited to, clearing, grubbing, grading, excavating, digging, trenching, plowing, drilling, Band of Mission City of Santa Clarita tunneling, quarrying, leveling, driving posts, auguring, blasting, stripping topsoil or similar Indians and San activity. Tribal Monitoring Services shall continue until confirmation is received from the Fernando Band of project developer, in writing, that all scheduled activities pertaining to Tribal Monitoring Mission Indians are complete. If the project's scheduled activities require the Tribal Monitor to leave the (Tribes) to observe all project for a period of time and return, confirmation shall be submitted to the Tribes by ground -disturbing the project developer, in writing, upon completion of each set of scheduled activities and activities reasonable notice shall be submitted to the Tribes by project developer, in writing, prior to the start of each set of scheduled activities. If tribal cultural resources are encountered, the Tribal Monitor will have the authority to request that ground -disturbing activities cease within 60 feet of discovery and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards retained by the project developer as well as the Tribal Monitor shall assess the find. MM TCR-2 Disposition and Treatment of Inadvertent Discoveries of Tribal Cultural Resources. Fernandeno Tataviam During ground- Implementation: The City of Santa Clarita and/or developer shall, in good faith, consult with the Band of Mission disturbing activities Applicant Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians and San Fernando Band of Mission Indians and San Verification: Indians on the disposition and treatment of any Tribal Cultural Resource encountered Fernando Band of City of Santa Clarita during all ground disturbing activities. Mission Indians should Tribal Cultural Resources be encountered 119 Packet Pg. 402 2.b Riverview Development Project Bra# Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration This page intentionally left blank. LO 0 N N d N CU L N r V d O L. a 3 m m W 3 m m m c M E L 0 4- C O CU 0 Z N C IL 3 m m LO 0 N N CU r c d E t v c� r r Q 120 Packet Pg. 403 2168 2.c f� \ t SVCA�, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 2136 Sound Science. Creative Solutions. October 8. 2024 Justin Sander 320 North Halstead Street, Suite 120 Pasadena, California 91107 Tel 626.240.0587 Fax 626.568.2958 www.swca.com Associate Planner City of Santa Clarita, Planning Division 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, California 91355 Re: Response to Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Riverview Development Project Dear Justin, In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Santa Clarita (City) prepared a Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed Riverview Development Project (project), located at 22500 Soledad Canyon Way (Assessor's Parcel Number [APN] 2836-011-018). The project site is south of Soledad Canyon Road and encompasses 35.2 acres. If approved by the City, the project would result in the construction and operation of 318 single-family residential units and a 126,790-square-foot light manufacturing facility and associated parking. On June 25, 2024, the City distributed a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the public and interested agencies and circulated the Draft IS/MND for public review. The NOI indicated the Draft IS/MND was available for review and comment for a total of 30 days (June 25, 2024, through July 16, 2024), and announced that a public hearing on the project would be held by the Monrovia Planning Commission on July 16, 2024. Attachment A provides responses to the individual comments received during the public comment period. During the public review period, the City received six comment documents (letters and emails) on the Draft IS/MND. The comment documents included comment letters from California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LASAN), Lozeau Drury LLP, and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Subsequently, on September 23, 2024, Lozeau Drury LLP submitted a letter withdrawing their previous comments of July 16, 2024, and recommending approval of the project. The comment documents, excluding the Lozeau Drury LLP communications, are included as Attachment B to this letter. The City, as the Lead Agency, is required to consider agency and public comments on a CEQA document as part of the decision process to approve a project. According to State CEQA Guidelines 15073.5(b), the two conditions which require an IS/MND to be recirculated are as follows: (1) A new, avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the effect to insignificance, or A-1 Packet Pg. 404 2.c Response to Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Riverview Development Project (2) The lead agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than significance and new measures or revisions must be required In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines 15073.5(c), recirculation is not required under the following circumstances: (1) Mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effective measures pursuant to Section 15074.1. (2) New project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the project's effects identified in the proposed negative declaration which are not new avoidable significant effects. (3) Measures or conditions of project approval are added after circulation of the negative declaration which are not required by CEQA, which do not create new significant environmental effects and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect. (4) New information is added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration. In response to the comments, several areas of the IS/MND have been expanded and/or clarified. As allowed in the State CEQA Guidelines 15073.5(c)(4), new information has been added to the IS/MND which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration. These clarifications and additions are shown in the Final IS/MND in strikeout (see ; for removed text) and underline underline; for added text). In addition, two biological resource mitigation measures have been revised/replaced with equal or more effective measures pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5(c)(1). These revisions are made specifically to Mitigation Measures MM-13I0-1 (Pre - Construction Rare Plant Survey and Conservation) and MM-131O-3 (Biological Monitoring). The revisions made to these mitigation measures provide for additional and more substantial monitoring efforts that are not required by CEQA. These efforts do not create new significant environmental effects and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect. They have been determined to be equal to and/or more effective in avoiding potentially significant biological resource impacts that were identified in the Draft IS/MND. Attachment C presents the additional information used to develop the Final IS/MND. None of the comments received during the comment period present new information pertaining to environmental issues that would result in significant changes to the environmental analysis conclusions contained in the Draft IS/MND. Specifically, no new significant effects have been identified nor has the City determined that proposed mitigation measures or project revisions would not reduce potential effects to less than significant; all potential impacts can be reduced to less than significant. Therefore, none of the conditions for recirculation of the IS/MND, as specified above in State CEQA Guidelines 15073.5(b), have been met. Lastly, no evidence has been provided demonstrating that the IS/MND was inadequate. Packet Pg. 405 2.c Response to Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Riverview Development Project While neither CEQA nor the State CEQA Guidelines requires detailed responses to the comments received during the public review period for a draft IS/MND, the comment and response table included as Attachment A provides responses to the individual comments for the City's consideration during the deliberation regarding the proposed project. Sincerely, Bobbette Biddulph, Senior Project Manager SWCA Environmental Consultants Attachments: Attachment A. Response to Comments Received on the June 2024 Draft IS/MND Attachment B. Comments Received on the June 2024 Draft IS/MND Attachment C. Additional Information Developed to Support the Final IS/MND Packet Pg. 406 2.c ATTACHMENT A Response to Comments Received on the June 2024 Draft IS/MND Riverview Development Project Packet Pg. 407 2.c to Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND for the Riverview Development Residence Response to Comments Received on June 2024 Draft IS/MND Comment Summary Response Comment Document 1: Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) (July 3, 2024) DTSC states that, if the proposed project requires buildings or other structures to be Buildings and other structures and built surfaces (e.g., pavement) planned for demolition demolished, surveys should be conducted for the presence of lead -based paints or require an asbestos -containing material survey, in accordance with the local South products, mercury, asbestos -containing materials, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk. Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1403 requirements and the U.S. DTSC recommends for the removal, demolition, and disposal of any of these chemicals Environmental Protection Agency National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air to be conducted in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies. Pollutants regulations for asbestos. A lead -based paint survey will also be required to evaluate the applicability of the lead in construction standard Title 8 California Code of Regulations Section 1532.1, which applies to all construction work including renovation and demolition activities where an employee may be occupationally exposed to lead. In addition, other hazardous materials which may be present within buildings also require proper clean-up, handling, and disposal in accordance with Universal Waste Rules. While these are standard requirements, the City will also provide for a condition of approval stating these requirements to ensure the proposed development complies with these standards. DTSC recommends that all imported soil and fill material be tested to ensure that they The project would require approximately 500,000 cubic yards of cut and approximately meet screening levels outlined in the Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance 420,000 cubic yards of fill. Grading would consist of lowering the isolated hill area at the Manual. DTSC's Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material Fact Sheet and the western part of the site and raising most of the remaining site. While existing site soils Human and Ecological Risk Office webpage are also listed as additional reference are planned to be used to the extent feasible, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM materials. GEO-1 would result in over -excavation and replacement of soils to specified depths that would ensure only engineered fill would be used within the project site to address expansive soils. Through a condition of approval, the City will require that imported soil and fill material be tested to ensure that they meet screening levels outlines in the Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual noted by DTSC. Comment Document 2: Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LASAN) (July 10, 2024) The comment letter notes that LASAN received the NOI for the IS/MND for the project This comment is introductory in nature and does not require a response. The comments and that previous comments submitted by LASAN in correspondence dated September from the September 15, 2023 letter are also responded to herein to provide a thorough 15, 2023, and enclosed a copy of those previous comments. record. LASAN notes that in Section 1.4.5 Utility and Drainage Improvements, Page 9, the This error has been corrected in the Final IS/MND. This change does not affect the second paragraph states incorrectly, "Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the environmental analysis contained in the document. site would be required to be annexed into the County Sanitation District, per Development Review Committee Comments." LASAN clarifies that the parcel is already annexed into the Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District. 3 d L d > 3 d d d c CU E O c O U c d E E O U O d c O d 0 Z 2 U) d d LO 0 N N U c d E t V CU a Packet Pg. 408 2.c Response to Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Riverview Development Project Comment Summary Response ai The proposed project is located approximately 0.5 mile from the Saugus Water As decided by the California Supreme Court, CEQA generally does not require the Reclamation Plant, which is owned and operated by LASAN. As such, the MND should analysis of the existing environment, in this case the Saugus Water Reclamation Plant, >_ consider and evaluate, if necessary, any potential impacts on the proposed project. on the project nor the future users or residents [California Building Industry Association W v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (S213478, December 17, 2015)]. An agency must analyze how environmental conditions might adversely affect a project's residents or users only where the project itself might worsen existing environmental j hazards in a way that will adversely affect them. This is not the case for the project d W under consideration. No revisions to the IS/MND are necessary as a result of this comment. c All other information concerning LASAN facilities and sewerage service contained in As LASAN concurs with the analysis contained in the IS/MND, no revisions or further CU E the document is current. response is required. 12 In the September 15, 2023, attachment to the July 10, 2024, letter, LASAN notes that This comment is noted and will be provided to the project developer. This comment C wastewater flow from the proposed project would discharge to the LASAN's Soledad does not conflict with the information presented in the Draft IS/MND. No revisions to the U Canyon Trunk Sewer. As such, LASAN advises that direct connections to the trunk IS/MND are necessary as a result of this comment. sewer that are 6 inches or less in diameter require a Trunk Sewer Connection Permit N issued by LASAN. Direct connections to the trunk sewer that are 8 inches or larger in diameter require submittal of Sewer Plans for review and approval by LASAN. E E In the September 15, 2023, attachment to the July 10, 2024, letter, LASAN provides This comment does not conflict with the information presented in the Draft IS/MND. No p information regarding LASAN's wastewater treatment facilities. Specifically, the revisions to the IS/MND are necessary as a result of this comment. U comments states that the Santa Clarita Valley Joint Sewerage System has a capacity O of 28.1 million gallons per day (mgd) and processes an average recycled flow of 18.4 d mgd. N c In the September 15, 2023, attachment to the July 10, 2024, letter, LASAN determines This comment provides additional information about LASAN's calculations related to O a - that the proposed project is expected to increase average wastewater flow to 89,402 anticipated wastewater flows anticipated by the project. This information does not (n gallons per day. conflict with the information provided in the IS/MND regarding anticipated wastewater W flows. As noted in the IS/MND, it is not anticipated that the project would require the a construction of new wastewater treatment facilities, as the system has sufficient capacity Z to accommodate additional growth. This is affirmed by the will -serve letter received from 2 U) the LASAN and included as Appendix K to the IS/MND and this subsequent comment letter. In the September 15, 2023, attachment to the July 10, 2024, letter, LASAN states the This comment is noted and will be provided to the project developer. City is required to pay connection fees to LASAN, to be determined by LASAN based j on the project's anticipated impact to the sewerage system. In the September 15, 2023, attachment to the July 10, 2024, letter, LASAN advises the This comment is noted and will be provided to the project developer. LO o City that the comments made do not constitute a guarantee of wastewater service but N show that LASAN intends to provide this service up to legally permitted levels, N consistent with the Southern California Association of Governments regional growth U forecast. 2 c d E t CU a A-6 Packet Pg. 409 2.c Response to Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Riverview Development Project Comment Summary Response Comment Document 3: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) (July 11, 2024) CDFW states that the project may result in temporal or permanent loss of suitable nesting and foraging habitat for Crotch's bumble bee (Bombus crotchii). The comment goes on to state that the Draft IS/MND relies on limited surveys outside the time frame (April to August) for highest detection probability and does not discuss the moderate potential for Crotch's bumble bee to be foraging and/or nesting within the project site. CDFW states that ground -disturbing activities may cause death or injury of adults, eggs, and larva; burrow collapse; nest abandonment; and reduced nest success for Crotch's bumble bee. The comment goes on to request that a mitigation measure should be incorporated in the Draft IS/MND to include focused surveys to confirm presence/absence of Crotch's bumble bee on the project site prior to project activities. CDFW does not provide evidence or definitive proof that this impact will occur. Helix Environmental Planning conducted surveys for the species in 2024 using CDFW's guidelines within the recommended survey period, and the results were negative' (see Attachment C). Therefore, the species is expected to be absent from the project site. The surveys completed for the project found few small mammal burrows, but no perennial bunch grasses or thatched annual grasses, underbrush piles, old bird nests, and dead trees or hollow logs were observed. As such, nesting opportunities were very low on the project site. The project would impact 6.04 acres of vegetation communities (Eriogonum fasciculatum var. foliolosum-Hesperoyucca whipplei Association; Artemisia californica, Artemisia californica- Eriogonum fasciculatum Association; Adenostoma fasciculatum- Eriogonum fasciculatum Association) that support floral resources that are known to be used by the species, with Eriogonum fasciculatum being associated as a nectar source. However, based on surveys in the Santa Clarita Valley over the past 2 years, there is evidence that the species has a strong preference for sage (Salvia ssp.) and deerweed (Acmispon glaber)2 (see Attachment C). A few white sage (Salvia apiana) were observed but did not rise to the level to be included as co -dominant in any of the associations. The project is within a region that has abundant natural open space areas in the hills surrounding the Santa Clarita Valley that support floral resources used by the species. Some of these areas are managed by Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, Angeles National Forest, and State Parks. As such, the loss of 6.04 acres of foraging habitat is not expected to be significant. CDFW does not provide evidence that this impact is likely, or that such an impact would be significant. Helix Environmental Planning conducted surveys for the species in 2024 using CDFW's guidelines within the recommended survey period, and the results were negative (see Attachment C). As such, the species is expected to be absent from the project site. While there is no evidence of a potentially significant impact and the City maintains the impact would be less than significant without mitigation, Mitigation Measure MM-131O-3 has been revised in the Final IS/MND to provide preconstruction surveying and monitoring for the Crotch's bumble bee prior to ground disturbance. In conclusion, the project would not create a significant impact related to the Crotch's bumble bee. While this impact would be less than significant prior to mitigation, the City is revising Mitigation Measure MM-131O-3 in the Final IS/MND to provide assurances that 'Helix Environmental Planning. 2024. Summary of the 2024 Crotch's Bumble Bee Focused Survey Results for the Riverview Project. Memorandum from L. Singleton (Senior Project Manager, Helix Environmental Planning) to P. Vanek (Integral Communities). August 26, 2024. 2 Dudek. 2024. Dudek Response to California Department of Fish and Wildlife Comment for the Riverview Development Project, Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH#2024061060). Memorandum from M. Cady (Senior Biologist, Dudek) to D. Peterson (Senior Planner, City of Santa Clarita). September 16, 2024. 3 Helix Environmental Planning. 2024. Summary of the 2024 Crotch's Bumble Bee Focused Survey Results for the Riverview Project. Memorandum from L. Singleton (Senior Project Manager, Helix Environmental Planning) to P. Vanek (Integral Communities). August 26, 2024. 3 d L d d d d 0 c CU E L O c O U c d E E O U O d c O d 0 Z 2 U) d d LO 0 N N U c d E t V CU a A-7 Packet Pg. 410 2.c Response to Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Riverview Development Project Comment Summary Response CDFW requests that the Draft IS/MND be amended to provide a discussion on habitat suitability for Crotch's bumble bee within and adjacent to the project site. The comment also recommends two potentially feasible mitigation measures: 1) The project proponent shall retain a qualified entomologist with the appropriate handling permits to conduct focused surveys. Focused surveys shall follow CDFW's Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023). Focused surveys shall also be conducted throughout the entire project site during the appropriate flying season to ensure no missed detection of Crotch's bumble bee occurs. Survey results, including negative findings, shall be submitted to CDFW and the City prior to implementing project ground -disturbing activities. 2) If Crotch's bumble bee is detected the project proponent shall coordinate with CDFW and obtain appropriate take authorization from CDFW (pursuant to California Fish and Game Code 2080 et seq). The project proponent shall comply with the mitigation measures detailed in the take authorization issued by CDFW. The project proponent shall provide a copy of a fully executed take authorization to the City prior to implementing project ground -disturbing activities and vegetation removal. CDFW states that project ground -disturbing activities would result in loss of suitable habitat, loss of population, and direct mortality of slender mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis). The comment goes on to state that the protocol surveys and seed collection proposed by Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-1 is not sufficient to adequately offset project -related impacts, as it does not include specific performance standards and actions pertaining to management of mitigation actions. CDFW also expresses concern that the Draft IS/MND does not provide a justification as to why a count of 20 individuals is the used as the minimum threshold. CDFW recommends that additional compensatory mitigation should be provided if any individual slender mariposa lily is observed. preconstruction surveying and monitoring would be integrated into the construction process. Additional information has been added to the IS/MND to address the Crotch's bumble bee. Helix Environmental Planning conducted surveys for Crotch's bumble bee in July and August 2024 using CDFW's guidelines within the recommended survey period, and the results were negative' (see Attachment C). As such, the species is expected to be absent from the project site and would not be impacted by the project. Regardless, Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-3 has been revised as discussed above. The density of the shrub vegetation in the area with suitable habitat for the species (limited to the knoll on the western end of the site) is expected to limit the number of individuals that could be impacted.' CDFW's own micro -habitat description for the species describes it occurring on shaded foothill canyons and often on grassy slopes within other habitats, which are not present in the site.' Slender mariposa lily is not a listed species, so impacts are considered by the loss to the species as a whole and not on the individual level. The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) has records of the species throughout the Santa Clarita Valley, with locations that have hundreds of individuals. Therefore, the loss of a few individuals would not reduce the number of individuals such that the species population would be compromised, and thus, the loss would be considered a less -than -significant impact under CEQA. As stated in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15065 (Mandatory Findings of Significance), the significance of the impacts are considered in the following context: (1) substantially degrade the quality of the environment, (2) substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, (3) cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- 4 Helix Environmental Planning. 2024. Summary of the 2024 Crotch's Bumble Bee Focused Survey Results for the Riverview Project. Memorandum from L. Singleton (Senior Project Manager, Helix Environmental Planning) to P. Vanek (Integral Communities). August 26, 2024. S Dudek. 2024. Dudek Response to California Department of Fish and Wildlife Comment for the Riverview Development Project, Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH#2024061060). Memorandum from M. Cady (Senior Biologist, Dudek) to D. Peterson (Senior Planner, City of Santa Clarita). September 16, 2024. 6 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2024. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB); RareFind query for Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis. Available at: https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/rarefmd/view/RareFind.aspx. Accessed September 2024. 3 d d d d d c CU E O c O U c d E E O U O d c O d 0 Z 2 V) d d u7 0 N N U c d E t U CU a A-8 Packet Pg. 411 2.c Response to Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Riverview Development Project Comment Summary Response sustaining levels, (4) threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or (5) reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. The small amount of potential habitat for the species that the project would impact is not expected to meet any of those findings. As such, Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-1 as originally drafted provides an equivalent compensation for the loss of those individuals. However, in response to the CDFW's comment and direction, MM-BIO-1 has been revised in the Final IS/MND to first require the project to replace those specimens that may be lost through planting replacements within the project site. However, if that is not reasonably possible, the project may still rely on seed collection as an equivalent alternative. The threshold of 20 individuals has also been removed. CDFW states that the mitigation measures proposed in the Draft IS/MND may not be The species discussed above are not listed as SSC. Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-2, sufficient to minimize project impacts on California Species of Special Concern (SSC). which provides a preconstruction survey where any special -status species found would Specifically, CDFW requests that SSC should be allowed to move out of harm's way on be relocated out of harm's way, and MM-BIO-3, which provides Biological Monitoring their own accord rather than actively relocated and that additional compensatory during initial vegetation removal and grading, provide sufficient mitigation by avoiding mitigation be incorporated if SSC presence is confirmed. and minimizing direct impacts to individuals of the species that may be present. Acquisition of, maintenance of, and establishing an endowment over, mitigation lands for the handling of potentially a few individuals is not proportionate to the impact, as the level of impact that would occur to the population of the species is negligible based upon presence of vast amount of open space in the region that is expected to provide suitable habitat for those species. Therefore, introduction of the suggested mitigation measures is not appropriate mitigation under CEQA, and Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-2 and MM- BIO-3, as written, adequately mitigate impacts to the species. Comment Document 4: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) (July 11, 2024) The SCAQMD identifies concerns about the potential health impacts of siting the proposed manufacturing uses near existing and new sensitive land uses since the operation could generate and attract heavy-duty diesel -fueled trucks that emit diesel particulate matter (DPM). Additionally, the SCAQMD states that the proposed residential uses are located north of the Southern Pacific Railroad line and recommends following California Air Resources Board (GARB) and SCAQMD land use guidance to ensure that sensitive receptors are not heavily affected by warehouse truck activities and other sources of emissions. LSA prepared a Health Risk Assessment (HRA)' (Appendix A of the IS/MND), which includes an operational health risk analysis to estimate the increased health risk levels for people living and working near the project site associated with toxic air contaminants (TACs), consistent with SCAQMD guidelines. The purpose of the HRA is to document the increased cancer and noncancer health risk levels from project -related emissions of TACs on existing nearby sensitive receptors, including residents and workers. The methodology for the operational HRA is described on pages 10 through 14 of the HRA. As stated on page 10, the operational HRA evaluates the potential health risk associated with diesel -powered trucks and equipment (diesel forklifts, two yard trucks, and a 500-horsepower [HP] backup generator). A multi -pathway assessment was conducted to evaluate the project's emissions following the modeling techniques recommended by the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the SCAQMD. The HRA was conducted using three models: (1) California Emissions Factor Model, Version 2021 (EMFAC2021) for on -road vehicle emissions factors and percentages of fuel type within the overall vehicle fleet; (2) the EPA AERMOD air dispersion model to determine how the TACs would move through the atmosphere after release from sources both on site and on surrounding roadways; and (3) CARB's HARP2 model to translate the pollutant concentrations from AERMOD into individual health risks at any sensitive receptor locations surrounding the project site. The results of the operational HRA are provided in Table C of the HRA. As 7 LSA. 2024. Health Risk Assessment for the Riverview Development Project. Santa Clarita, California. 3 d d d d d c CU E O c O U c d E E O U O d c O Q d 0 Z 2 U) d d LO 0 N N U c d E t V CU a A-9 Packet Pg. 412 2.c Response to Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Riverview Development Project Comment Summary Response The SCAQMD states that even though Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would reduce the impacts to a less -than -significant level, the mitigation measure should be revised to ensure the use of the cleanest technology, which currently is Tier 4 equipment, as it is available and feasible to reduce the impacts from the construction activities further. The SCAQMD suggests several strategies to reduce future resident exposure to DPM including building filtration systems. However, the SCAQMD states that the presumed effectiveness and feasibility of any filtration units should be carefully evaluated in more detail prior to assuming that they would sufficiently alleviate exposures to diesel particulate matter emissions. demonstrated in Table C, all health risk levels to nearby receptors from operation - related emissions of TACs would be below the SCAQMD's HRA thresholds. No significant health risk would occur from project operation emissions. Therefore, identification and analysis of mitigation measures is not required. Additionally, consistent with the California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (62 CalAth 369) decision, CEQA does not require an analysis of how existing environmental conditions would impact a project's future users or residents. As such, an analysis of the Southern Pacific Railroad line is not required under CEQA. No additional analysis is necessary. As discussed in the Air Quality, and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum for the Riverview Development' (Appendix A of the Draft IS/MND), a localized significance threshold (LST) analysis was prepared for the proposed project. Based on the results of the LST analysis, the proposed project would result in an exceedance of the SCAQMD LST for particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM,o) during project construction but would not result in an exceedance of the SCAQMD LST during project operation. However, as stated by the SCAQMD, proposed projects whose calculated emission budgets for the proposed construction or operational activities are above the LST emission levels found in the LST lookup tables should not assume that the project would necessarily generate adverse impacts. Detailed emission calculations and/or air dispersion modeling may demonstrate that pollutant concentrations are below recommended thresholds. As such, the HRA (Appendix A of the IS/MND) also included a project -specific construction health risk analysis, which evaluates construction -period health risk to off -site receptors. The results of the construction HRA are provided in Table B of the HRA. As demonstrated in Table B, with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM AIR-1, the mitigated cancer risk at the maximally exposed sensitive receptor would not exceed the SCAQMD's cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million. Therefore, with implementation of MM AIR-1, construction of the proposed project would not result in localized concentrations of PM10 that would exceed SCAQMD risk thresholds and would not expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Additionally, no significant health risk would occur from project construction emissions. As such, identification and analysis of additional mitigation, including the use of Tier 4 equipment, would not be required to reduce emissions to a less than significant level. As stated on page 11 of the HRA (Appendix A of the IS/MND), the health risk analysis assumes that sensitive receptors would be subject to DPM 24 hours per day, 350 days per year. As stated on page 11, the analysis does not include indoor adjustments for residents, which is conservative as typical people spend the majority of their time indoors versus remaining outdoors 24 hours per day, 350 days per year. As such, filtration units were not considered in the analysis. As demonstrated in Table C of the HRA, all health risk levels to nearby receptors from operation -related emissions of TACs would be below the SCAQMD's HRA thresholds. Since the analysis conservatively did not include indoor adjustments for residences, the interior spaces of the project would also not exceed any CEQA thresholds; therefore, interior mitigation measures, such as 8 LSA. 2024. Air Quality, and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum for the Riverview Development Project. Santa Clarita, California. 3 d d d d d c CU E O c O U c d E E O U O d c O d 0 Z 2 U) d d u7 0 N N U c d E t V CU a A-10 Packet Pg. 413 2.c Response to Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Riverview Development Project Comment Summary Response The SCAQMD states the proposed project would require the use of a new 500-HP diesel backup generation; therefore, air permits from the SCAQMD would be required. The SCAQMD also states that the Final IS/MND should include a discussion about any new stationary and portable equipment requiring SCAQMD air permits and identify SCAQMD as a Responsible Agency for the proposed project. Additionally, the SCAQMD states that the Final IS/MND should also include calculations and analyses for construction and operation emissions for the new stationary and portable sources, as this information would also be relied upon as the basis for the permit conditions and emission limits for the air permit(s). Comment Document 5: Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (July 16, 2024) enhanced filters would not be required. As discussed on page 17 of the HRA, with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM AIR-1, all health risk levels to nearby receptors from project -related emissions of TACs would be well below the SCAQMD's HRA thresholds. As such, no significant health risk would occur from project -related emissions and no additional mitigation would be required. As discussed on page 2 of the Air Quality, and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum for the Riverview Development and page 4 of the HRA (Appendix A of the Draft IS/MND), the analysis assumes that the proposed project would include two electric forklifts, two diesel forklifts, and two yard trucks and the installation of a 500 HP diesel backup generator. Additionally, as discussed on pages 10 and 11 of the Air Quality, and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum for the Riverview Development, the California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod) was used to calculate the long- term operational emissions associated with the project. CaIEEMod assumed the use of the onsite equipment associated with the proposed, including two electric forklifts, two diesel forklifts, and two yard trucks; and that this equipment would run 8 hours per day, 260 days per year. In addition, CaIEEMod included the use of a 500-HP diesel backup generator for up to 50 hours per year. The long-term operation emissions associated with the proposed project (including use of the forklifts, yard trucks, and backup generator) are shown in Table E of the Air Quality, and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum for the Riverview Development. Further, as discussed on page 10 of the HRA, the operational HRA evaluated potential health risk to people living and working near the proposed project associated with the exhaust of diesel -powered trucks and equipment (including the diesel forklifts, yard trucks, and backup generator). The health risk impacts associated with operation of the proposed project (including use of the forklifts, yard trucks, and backup generator) are shown in Table C of the HRA. As such, the calculations and analyses associated with the use of the stationary sources and portable equipment were included in the Air Quality, and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum for the Riverview Development, HRA, and IS/MND. No additional analysis is necessary. Additionally, comments regarding SCAQMD permits are noted. The proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules and permitting requirements prior to operating. Additional text has been added to the Final IS/MND to acknowledge that the SCAQMD would be a responsible agency if a permit is required for any new stationary or portable equipment requiring a SCAQMD permit. The Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff's Department (Sheriff's Department) states that the This comment does not conflict with the information presented in the IS/MND. As noted project would result in an increase in the population of the Station's service area which on page 76 of the IS/MND, the project would add approximately 1,272 residents to the would generate an increased demand for law enforcement services. As such, the City's population and could place increased demand on police protection services. The Sheriff's Department concludes that the applicant would be required to pay a law requirement for the law enforcement facilities mitigation fee will be provided to the enforcement facilities mitigation fee, as well as all other applicable development fees project developer. associated with the project. The Sheriffs Department also clarifies that the law enforcement facilities mitigation fee would ensure additional funding for facility space, and additional personnel resources and assets to address the needs of the project. A-11 3 d d d d d U c CU E L O c O U c d E E O U O d c O d 0 Z 2 U) d d u7 0 N N U c d E t V CU a Packet Pg. 414 2.c Response to Comments Received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Riverview Development Project Comment Summary Response The Sheriffs Department notes that the travel distance from the Sheriffs Department to the project site was incorrectly indicated as 1.4 miles within the Draft IS/MND and is rather, approximately 2.9 miles. The Sheriffs Department notes that it provides eight Special Protection Requirements and Recommendations for the project, including the incorporation of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design in the project design plans, limiting the height of hedge - type plants around security gates, installing motion sensors and gate hardware, the development of traffic and security plans which address vandalism and burglaries, the establishment of a Construction Traffic Management Plan to address construction - related traffic congestion and emergency access issues, providing easily visible numerical addresses on building corners, installing a fence adjacent to the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks, and for the City to consider how to minimize the traffic congestion impacts of the manufacturing use. This error has been corrected in the Final IS/MND; the actual distance travelling by road is approximately 2.5 miles. The prior measurement of 1.4 miles was a direct line measurement site -to -site. This change does not affect the environmental analysis contained in the document. Development of the Riverview project would comply with applicable regulatory requirements related to security and safety during construction and operation. Development would also include low-level exterior lighting, way -finding signage, and Crime Prevention through Environmental Design concepts to enhance safety and security. Vehicular access to the project site would be provided via four new access points, one of which would provide emergency access only, and one existing access point at Commuter Way and Soledad Canyon Road. These driveways would be constructed to City of Santa Clarita design standards, which would allow for access of emergency vehicles. As described in Section XVII of the IS/MND, Transportation, project -generated traffic would not substantially adversely affect the performance of nearby roadways, including Golden Valley Road. Therefore, emergency service response times and disaster evacuation routes would not be affected. Also, prior to operation, the project would receive all required permits and certificates for occupancy and operation, including those issued by the City Department of Building and Safety. Therefore, there would be no impact related to emergency access, and no mitigation measures are necessary. A-12 3 d L d d d d c CU E O c O U c d E E O U O d c O Q N d Q' 0 Z 5. U) d d u7 0 N N U c d E t V CU a Packet Pg. 415 2.c ATTACHMENT B Comments Received on June 2024 Draft IS/MND Riverview Development Project Packet Pg. 416 2.c S. iNN Department of Toxic Substances Control s ' Meredith Williams, Ph.D. Yana Garcia Director Gavin Newsom Secretary for 8800 Cal Center Drive Governor Environmental Protection Sacramento, California 95826-3200 SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL July 03, 2024 Justin Sauder Associate Planner City of Santa Clarita, Planning Division 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 isauder(a)santa-clarita.com RE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE RIVERVIEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT DATED JUNE 25, 2024, STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 2024061060 Dear Justin Sauder, The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) received a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Riverview Development Project (Project). The proposed project will construct 318 residential units (122 detached single-family condos and 196 attached townhomes and an approximate 127,000 square -foot light manufacturing industrial building. The Project also includes a community recreation area, and other on - site improvements including on -site parking and landscaping. The Project site is approximately 35.2 acres in size on a property formerly occupied by the Saugus Speedway and is directly adjacent to the existing Santa Clarita Metrolink Station. After reviewing the Project, DTSC recommends and requests consideration of the following comments: Packet Pg. 417 2.c Justin Sauder July 3, 2024 Page 2 1. If buildings or other structures are to be demolished on any project sites included in the proposed project, surveys should be conducted for the presence of lead -based paints or products, mercury, asbestos containing materials, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk. Removal, demolition, and disposal of any of the above -mentioned chemicals should be conducted in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies. In addition, sampling near current and/or former buildings should be conducted in accordance with DTSC's Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) Guidance Manual. 2. DTSC recommends that all imported soil and fill material should be tested to assess any contaminants of concern meet screening levels as outlined in the PEA Guidance Manual. Additionally, DTSC advises referencing the DTSC Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material Fact Sheet if importing fill is necessary. To minimize the possibility of introducing contaminated soil and fill material there should be documentation of the origins of the soil or fill material and, if applicable, sampling be conducted to ensure that the imported soil and fill material are suitable for the intended land use. The soil sampling should include analysis based on the source of the fill and knowledge of the prior land use. Additional information can be found by visiting DTSC's Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO) webpage. DTSC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the MND for the Riverview Development Project. Thank you for your assistance in protecting California's people and environment from the harmful effects of toxic substances. If you have any questions or would like any clarification on DTSC's comments, please respond to this letter or via email for additional guidance. Packet Pg. 418 2.c Justin Sauder July 3, 2024 Page 3 Sincerely, Tamara Purvis Associate Environmental Planner HWMP - Permitting Division — CEQA Unit Department of Toxic Substances Control Tamara. Purvis(a)dtsc.ca.gov cc: (via email) Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse State. Clearinghouse(a)opr.ca.gov Bobbette Biddulph Senior Project Manager SWCA Environmental Consultants bobbette.biddulph(a)swca.com Dave Kereazis Associate Environmental Planner HWMP-Permitting Division — CEQA Unit Department of Toxic Substances Control Dave. Kereazis(a)dtsc.ca.gov Scott Wiley Associate Governmental Program Analyst HWMP - Permitting Division — CEQA Unit Department of Toxic Substances Control Scott. Wi ley(a)dtsc. ca. gov Packet Pg. 419 2.c Robert C. Ferrante LOS ANGELES COUNTY Chief Engineer and General Manager SANITATION DISTRICTS 1955 Workman Mill Road, Whittier, CA 90601-1400 Converting Waste Into Resources Mailing Address: P.O. Box 4998, Whittier, CA 90607-4998 (562) 699-7411 • www.lacsd.org VIA EMAIL jsauderksanta-clarita.com Mr. Justin Sander, Associate Planner City of Santa Clarita, Planning Division 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mr. Sauder July 10, 2024 Ref. DOC 7256553 Second Response to Riverview Development Proiect The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (Districts) received a Notice of Intent (NOI) to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the subject project located in the City of Santa Clarita on June 27, 2024. Previous comments submitted by the Districts in correspondence dated September 15, 2023 (copy enclosed), still apply to the subject project with the following updated information: 1. Section 1.4.5 Utility and Drainage Improvements, Page 9: The second paragraph states "Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the site would be required to be annexed into the County Sanitation District, per Development Review Committee Comments." Please note that the parcel is already annexed into the Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District. 2. The proposed project is located approximately one-half mile from the Saugus Water Reclamation Plant, which is owned and operated by the Districts. As such, the MND should consider and evaluate, if necessary, any potential impacts on the proposed project. 3. All other information concerning Districts' facilities and sewerage service contained in the document is current. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (562) 908-4288, extension 2742, or phorsleyka,lacsd.org. Very truly yours, Patricia Horsley Environmental Planner Facilities Planning Department PLH:ts Enclosure DOC 7265483.SCV Packet Pg. 420 2.c LOS ANGELES COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS Converting Waste Into Resources VIA EMAIL reecelabountvna,allianceene.com Mr. Reece LaBounty Project Coordinator Alliance Land Planning & Engineering, Inc. 2248 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mr. LaBounty: Robert C. Ferrante Chief Engineer and General Manager 1955 Workman Mill Road, Whittier, CA 90601-1400 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 4998, Whittier, CA 90607-4998 (562) 699-7411 • www.lacsd.org September 15, 2023 Ref. DOC 7026091 Will Serve Letter for Tentative Tract May No. 83605 The Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District (District) received your will serve letter request for the subject project, located in the City of Santa Clarita, on September 12, 2023. We offer the following comments regarding sewerage service: 1. The wastewater flow originating from the proposed project will discharge directly to the Districts' Soledad Canyon Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 Trunk Sewer, located in Soledad Canyon Road west of Commuter Way. The Districts' 15—inch diameter trunk sewer has a capacity of 4 million gallons per day (mgd) and conveyed a peak flow of 2.3 mgd when last measured in 2018. A 6-inch diameter or smaller direct connection to a Districts' trunk sewer requires a Trunk Sewer Connection Permit issued by the Districts. An 8-inch diameter or larger direct connection to a Districts' trunk sewer requires submittal of Sewer Plans for review and approval by the Districts. For additional information, please contact the Districts' Engineering Counter at (562) 908-4288, extension 1205, or en in�gcounter&lacsd.org. 2. The District operates two water reclamation plants (WRPs), the Saugus WRP and the Valencia WRP, which provide wastewater treatment in the Santa Clanta Valley. These facilities are interconnected to form a regional treatment system known as the Santa Clarita Valley Joint Sewerage System (SCVJSS). The SCVJSS has a capacity of 28.1 mgd and currently processes an average recycled flow of 18.4 mgd. 3. The expected increase in average wastewater flow from the project, described in the application as 195 attached townhomes, 122 detached townhomes, and 68,000 square -feet of commercial buildings, is 89,402 gallons per day, after all structures on the project site are demolished. For a copy of the Districts' average wastewater generation factors, go to www.lacsd.org, under Services, then Wastewater Program and Permits and select Will Serve Program, and click on the Table 1, Loadings for Each Class of Land Use link. 4. The District is empowered by the California Health and Safety Code to charge a fee to connect facilities (directly or indirectly) to the District's Sewerage System or to increase the strength or quantity of wastewater discharged from connected facilities. This connection fee is used by the District for its capital facilities. Payment of a connection fee may be required before this project is permitted to discharge to the District's Sewerage System. For more information and a copy of the Connection Fee Information Sheet, go to www.lacsd.org, under Services, then Wastewater (Sewage) and select Rates & Fees. In determining the impact to the Sewerage System and applicable connection fees, the District will determine the user category DOC 7026107.DSCV A Century of Service Packet Pg. 421 Mr. Reece LaBounty September 15, 2023 2.c (e.g. Condominium, Single Family Home, etc.) that best represents the actual or anticipated use of the parcel(s) or facilities on the parcel(s) in the development. For more specific information regarding the connection fee application procedure and fees, the developer should contact the District's Wastewater Fee Public Counter at (562) 908-4288, extension 2727. 5. In order for the District to conform to the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the capacities of the District's wastewater treatment facilities are based on the regional growth forecast adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG). Specific policies included in the development of the SCAG regional growth forecast are incorporated into clean air plans, which are prepared by the South Coast and Antelope Valley Air Quality Management Districts in order to improve air quality in the South Coast and Mojave Desert Air Basins as mandated by the CAA. All expansions of District's facilities must be sized and service phased in a manner that will be consistent with the SCAG regional growth forecast for the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial. The available capacity of the District's treatment facilities will, therefore, be limited to levels associated with the approved growth identified by SLAG. As such, this letter does not constitute a guarantee of wastewater service, but is to advise the applicant that the District intends to provide this service up to the levels that are legally permitted and to inform the applicant of the currently existing capacity and any proposed expansion of District's facilities. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (562) 908-4288, extension 2708 or at dcurry@lacsd.org. Very truly yours, N",A. I ca _I Donna J. Curry Customer Service Specialist Facilities Planning Department DC:sw cc: A. Schmidt A. Howard DOC 7026107.DSCV A Century of Service Packet Pg. 422 Docusign Envelope ID: OE433554-1 13954A5E-13414-1 FE7BE5AABBE 2.c State of California — Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor �. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTONH. BONHAM, Director South Coast Region 3883 Ruffin Road r San Diego, CA 92123 (858) 467-4201 ""•�� www.wildlife.ca.gov July 11, 2024 Justin Sauder City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 isauder(a-)santa-clarita.com SUBJECT: RIVERVIEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, SCH#2024061060; Los Angeles County, CA Dear Justin Sauder: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) from the City of Santa Clarita (City; Lead Agency) for Riverview Development Project (Project). Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife. Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code. CDFW's Role CDFW is California's Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State [Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subdivision (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, § 15386, subdivision (a)]. CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (Id., § 1802). Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect State fish and wildlife resources. CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code, including lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.). Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in "take", Packet Pg. 423 Docusign Envelope ID: OE433554-1 13954A5E-13414-1 FE7BE5AABBE 2.c Justin Sauder City of Santa Clarita July 11, 2024 Page 2 of 17 as defined by State law, of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), or CESA-listed rare plant pursuant to the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA; Fish & G. Code, § 1900 et seq.), CDFW recommends the Project proponent obtain appropriate authorization under the Fish and Game Code. aZ14111x0i114Yd:71i9usP►I'II1JAIJi1_1ZYA Proponent: Forward Planning Objective: The Project proposes the construction of 318 single-family residential units and a 126,790 square foot building for light manufacturing use. The single-family residential units would be constructed towards the center of the Project site and the manufacturing building would be constructed in the northwest corner of the Project site. Within the residential area, community recreation amenities (i.e., dog park, pool, garden area, community lawn, etc.) would be constructed for community use. Vehicular access to the residential area of the Project site would be provided by three proposed driveways along Soledad Canyon Road. Vehicular access to the manufacturing building would be provided by a main driveway and a secondary right -turn in -and -out driveway. Approximately 819 parking spaces would be constructed for residential use and 219 parking spaces would be constructed near the manufacturing building. Additionally, four drainage basins would be constructed on site for stormwater management. Landscaping would occur throughout the Project site with trees, various shrubs, grasses, and ground cover. Furthermore, a 5-foot-high retaining wall is proposed along the northern side of the site, south of Soledad Canyon Road. Off -site improvements include a bus stop with a permanent shelter, a new bus turnout, new curb and gutters, base paving, and 5-foot minimum sidewalk along Soledad Canyon Road and Commuter Way. Moreover, existing Southern California Edison -owned streetlights along Soledad Canyon Road and Commuter Way would be removed and replaced with City standard streetlights. Lastly, the Project would also involve construction of a new telecommunications conduit for installation of fiber-optic cable along Soledad Canyon Road. Project Timeline: Site preparation and grading activities will commence in late 2024 and be concluded by December 2025. Building construction would begin in 2026 and be phased over four to five years. Location: The 35.2-acre Project site is located at 22500 Soledad Canyon Way in the City. The Project site is bound by Soledad Canyon Road to the north, Commuter Way to the east, Bouquet Canyon Road to the west, and a Southern Pacific railroad line used by Metrolink. The Assessor's Parcel Number associated with the Project site is 2836- 011-018. The Project site is separated from the Santa Clara River by Soledad Canyon Road and was formerly occupied by the Saugus Speedway. Packet Pg. 424 Docusign Envelope ID: OE433554-1 13954A5E-13414-1 FE7BE5AABBE 2.c Justin Sauder City of Santa Clarita July 11, 2024 Page 3 of 17 Biological Setting: A general biological survey was conducted on September 23, 2022, and findings from the survey were compiled in a Biological Resources Technical Report (BRTR). Focused surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica; Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed -threatened species and California Species of Special Concern (SSC)) were also conducted between April and June 2023.The majority of the Project site is developed and generally flat with undeveloped hillsides in the northwestern corner of the Project site. Native vegetation within the impacted areas of the Project site includes 0.10 acre of California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) scrub, 9.94 acres of California sagebrush (Artemisia californica) scrub, and 0.97 acre of chamise chaparral (Adenostoma fasciculatum) scrub. No special -status plants or natural communities were observed within the Project site during surveys. Additionally, no water features were identified within the Project site. Results from focused surveys indicated that no coastal California gnatcatcher were observed or audibly detected. During the general survey, a variety of common bird species were observed along with California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) and western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis). The undeveloped areas of the Project site may provide suitable habitat for slender mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis; California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1 B.2), Crotch's bumble bee (Bombus crotchii; CESA candidate species), southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi; SSC), California glossy snake (Arizona elegans; SSC), Blainville's horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii; SSC), coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri; SSC), and San Deigo desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia; SSC). Nine mitigation measures are incorporated in the MND to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate adverse Project impacts on slender mariposa lily, SSC, nesting birds, and oak tree replacement in compliance with the City's tree ordinance. Additionally, mitigation measures detailing exterior lighting, invasive plant species prevention, biological monitoring, and stormwater pollution prevention are also included. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City in adequately avoiding and/or mitigating the Project's impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. Additional comments or other suggestions may also be included to improve the document. CDFW recommends the measures or revisions below be included in a science -based monitoring program that contains adaptive management strategies as part of the Project's CEQA mitigation, monitoring and reporting program (Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.6; CEQA Guidelines, § 15097). Comment #1: Impacts on Crotch's bumble bee Issue: The Project will impact Crotch's bumble bee. Packet Pg. 425 Docusign Envelope ID: OE433554-1 13954A5E-13414-1 FE7BE5AABBE 2.c Justin Sauder City of Santa Clarita July 11, 2024 Page 4 of 17 Specific impacts: The Project may result in temporal or permanent loss of suitable nesting and foraging habitat of Crotch's bumble bee. Project ground -disturbing activities may cause death or injury of adults, eggs, and larva; burrow collapse; nest abandonment; and reduced nest success. Why impact would occur: The Project site lies within the current range of Crotch's bumble bee based on CDFW's Crotch's Bumble Bee Range Dataset (CDFW 2024a). As with any flying species, Crotch's bumble bee may fly throughout the City and utilize areas that have suitable nesting habitat and floral resources. Additionally, the BRTR notes that there is a moderate potential for Crotch's bumble bee to occur within the Project site (page 25). The on -site vegetation provides foraging opportunities and there is limited nesting potential within the undeveloped northwestern area of the Project site. Crotch's bumble bee primarily nest underground in abandoned small mammal burrows but may also nest under perennial bunch grasses or thatched annual grasses, under- brush piles, in old bird nests, and in dead trees or hollow logs (Williams et al. 2014; Hatfield et al. 2018). While the Project site may provide limited nesting habitat, the possibility of Crotch's bumble bee to be present on site cannot be completely ruled out considering that the general survey was a single survey conducted two years ago outside the timeframe (April to August) for highest detection probability. In addition to limited surveys, the MND does not discuss the moderate potential for Crotch's bumble bee to be foraging and/or nesting within the Project site. The MND also does not provide mitigation measures directly related to Crotch's bumble bee. A mitigation measure should be incorporated in the MND to include focused surveys to confirm presence/absence of Crotch's bumble bee on the Project site prior to Project activities. Without focused surveys, individual Crotch's bumble bee and/or nesting sites may go undetected resulting in incidental take of a CESA protected species. If presence of Crotch's bumble bee is confirmed, the Project would result in loss of confirmed habitat for this species. Evidence impact would be significant: The California Fish and Game Commission accepted a petition to list the Crotch's bumble bee as endangered under CESA, determining the listing "may be warranted" and advancing the species to the candidacy stage of the CESA listing process. The Project may substantially reduce and adversely modify habitat as well as reduce and potentially impair the viability of populations of Crotch's bumble bee. The Project may also reduce the number and range of the species without considering the likelihood that special status species on adjacent and nearby natural lands may rely upon the habitat that occurs on the proposed Project site In addition, Crotch's bumble bee has a State Ranking of S1/S2. This means that the Crotch's bumble bee is considered critically imperiled or imperiled and is extremely rare (often 5 or fewer populations). Crotch's bumble bee is also listed as an invertebrate of conservation priority under the California Terrestrial and Vernal Pool Invertebrates of Conservation Priority (CDFW 2017). Packet Pg. 426 Docusign Envelope ID: OE433554-1 13954A5E-13414-1 FE7BE5AABBE 2.c Justin Sauder City of Santa Clarita July 11, 2024 Page 5 of 17 Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s): Recommendation #1: Crotch's Bumble Bee Discussion - The MND should be amended to provide a discussion on habitat suitability for Crotch's bumble bee within and adjacent to the Project site. The discussion should also disclose the Project's potential direct and indirect impacts on Crotch's bumble bee. If the Project may impact Crotch's bumble bee, the MND should provide measures to minimize, and/or mitigate potential impacts to Crotch's bumble bee as well as habitat supporting the species. The discussion should be of a depth and scope that a CESA Incidental Take Permit can be issued based on the analysis provided in the MND. Mitigation Measure #1: Crotch's Bumble Bee Surveys - The Project proponent shall retain a qualified entomologist with the appropriate handling permits to conduct focused surveys. Focused surveys shall follow CDFW's Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023). Focused surveys shall also be conducted throughout the entire Project site during the appropriate flying season to ensure no missed detection of Crotch's bumble bee occurs. Survey results, including negative findings, shall be submitted to CDFW and the City prior to implementing Project ground -disturbing activities. Mitigation Measure #2: Incidental Take Permit - If Crotch's bumble bee is detected the Project proponent shall coordinate with CDFW and obtain appropriate take authorization from CDFW (pursuant to Fish & Game Code, § 2080 et seq). The Project proponent shall comply with the mitigation measures detailed in the take authorization issued by CDFW. The Project proponent shall provide a copy of a fully executed take authorization to the City prior to implementing Project ground -disturbing activities and vegetation removal. Comment #2: Impacts on Slender Mariposa Lily Issue: MM-1310-1 does not adequately offset Project -related impacts on slender mariposa lily. Specific impacts: Project ground -disturbing activities (i.e., grading, vegetation removal) would result in loss of suitable habitat, loss of population, and direct mortality of slender mariposa lily. Why impact would occur: Seed collection alone is not sufficient to offset Project impacts. According to the California Natural Diversity Database, there are recorded observations of slender mariposa lily near the Project site (CDFW 2024b). Additionally, the MND also states that there is a moderate potential for slender mariposa lily to occur on the Project site (page 28). While CDFW concurs that focused surveys should be done during the appropriate bloom period for highest detection probability, we disagree that protocol surveys and seed collection makes impacts to the species less than Packet Pg. 427 Docusign Envelope ID: OE433554-1 13954A5E-13414-1 FE7BE5AABBE 2.c Justin Sauder City of Santa Clarita July 11, 2024 Page 6 of 17 significant with mitigation. Compensatory mitigation should be provided if any individual slender mariposa lily is observed, especially since this rare plant is threatened in California. CDFW is also concerned that the MND does not provide biological justification as to why a count of 20 individuals is the minimum threshold. If slender mariposa lily is observed on the Project site, there is a possibility for multiple bulbs to exist underground that may or may not have bloomed. Moreover, handing seeds to a local organization for restoration opportunities does not guarantee successful creation of a slender mariposa lily population. As currently written, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 does not commit to mitigation that would adequately offset the direct loss of slender mariposa lily, nor does it adopt specific performance standards and actions pertaining to management of mitigation actions. The MND does not disclose where or when the seeds would be used in restoration projects. If restoration projects do not utilize the seeds until several years after collection, they may become inviable. Moreover, the mitigation measure does not provide success criteria for these restoration projects to ensure successful mitigation is achieved. In addition to no success criteria, long-term management actions for these restoration projects is not outlined in the mitigation measure. With limited information and no enforceable actions regarding the restoration projects, the proposed mitigation would be considered deferred. Evidence impact would be significant: Impacts on rare flora could be considered a significant effect on the environment. Plants with a CRPR of 1 B are rare throughout their range, endemic to California, and are seriously or fairly threatened. Most of the plants that are ranked 1 B have declined significantly over the last century. The additional threat rank of 0.1 indicates a species with over 80 percent of its occurrences threatened in California. The additional threat rank of 0.2 indicates a species with 20 to 80 percent of its occurrences threatened (CNPS 2024). Impacts to CRPR 1 B plant species and their habitat meet the definition of endangered, rare, or threatened species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15380). Some CRPR 3 and 4 species meet the definitions of endangered, rare, or threatened under CEQA. Impacts to CRPR 1 B plant species and their habitat may result in a mandatory finding of significance because the Project would have the potential to threaten to eliminate a plant community and substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065). Additionally, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is considered deferred mitigation [CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(1)(B)]. Insufficient mitigation may result in unmitigated temporal or permanent impacts to a rare plant species. Subsequently, the Project would continue to have a substantial adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species by CDFW. Packet Pg. 428 Docusign Envelope ID: OE433554-1 13954A5E-13414-1 FE7BE5AABBE 2.c Justin Sauder City of Santa Clarita July 11, 2024 Page 7 of 17 Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s): Mitigation Measure #3: MM 11310-1: Pre -Construction Rare Plant Survey and Seed Collection — The City should revise MM 1310-1 to incorporate the underlined language and omit language in strikethrough: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall have a qualified biologist (the Applicant shall submit the qualifications of the biologist to the City for review and approval) conduct a focused rare plant survey for slender mariposa lily within the undeveloped portion of the project site during the appropriate blooming period (March through June). The survey would consist of three passes, with one in April, May, and June. Reference site checks would be made for the species to determine if the species is blooming in the project vicinity. The surveys would conform to the California Native Plant Society's Botanical Survey Guidelines (2001), CDFW's Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (2018), and USFWS' Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants (2000). The results of the surveys would be documented in a report and submitted to the City. If the presence of slender mariposa lily is detected, Should the s ecGies be fqupd t a „ t Of 20 or h;ghor no Proiect activities shall commence. The Proiect proponent shall coordinate with CDFW to discuss avoidance of the slender mariposa lily on site. If complete avoidance is unattainable, the Proiect proponent shall provide compensatory mitigation to offset the Proiect's impact on rare plants observed on site at no less than 2:1. The total habitat acreage within the mitigation land shall be no less than 2:1. The Proiect proponent shall acquire CDFW approved mitigation land that has presence of slender mariposa lily and is located in the same watershed as the Proiect site. The mitigation land shall also provide equivalent or greater habitat value than that of the Proiect site. The Proiect proponent shall protect replacement habitat in perpetuity under a conservation easement dedicated to a local land conservancy or other appropriate entity that has been approved to hold and manage mitigation lands pursuant to Assembly Bill 1094. Recordation of the conservation easement shall occur prior to commencement of Proiect activities. An appropriate endowment shall also be provided for the long-term monitoring and management of mitigation lands. then Gepsf;uc-t ep of the ec-Gupie J ec-atiep shall be Seed has ,�, ,,,,/I��, } , but P401: to the Seed C-apsules opening to d4er-se the Seed. Seeds s r llairbe steFe Icc� i &eattYt'7ivie er hag in a apd rl� r�Ianee , , seeds would then be donated to a Gi4e appr'q�zed leGal C-OpSeAtation OFganization /o ry Criepds of the sapta Giara OiAiorl to be used in esteraf ep pec—to Mitigation Measure #4: Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan - The Project proponent shall retain a certified botanist to draft a Habitat Management and Monitoring Packet Pg. 429 Docusign Envelope ID: OE433554-1 13954A5E-13414-1 FE7BE5AABBE 2.c Justin Sauder City of Santa Clarita July 11, 2024 Page 8 of 17 Plan (HMMP) and submit it to the City and CDFW for review and approval prior to Project activities. The HMMP shall outline initial and long-term management and maintenance activities that would occur on mitigation lands. The HMMP shall provide measurable goals and success criteria for establishing self-sustaining populations (e.g., percent survival rate, absolute cover). Maintenance activities outlined in the HMMP shall include measures pertaining to control of exotic vegetation, irrigation schedule, and protection from future maintenance activities. Comment #3: Impacts on California Species of Special Concern Issue: The mitigation measure proposed in the MND may not be sufficient to minimize Project impacts on SSC. Specific Impact: Direct impacts to SSC could result from Project activities (e.g., equipment staging, mobilization, and grading); ground disturbance; vegetation clearing; trampling or crushing from construction equipment, vehicles, and foot traffic. Project ground -disturbing activities such as vegetation removal will also result in habitat destruction, causing the death or injury of adults, juveniles, eggs, or hatchlings. Why impact would occur: The MND states that southern California legless lizard, California glossy snake, Blainville's horned lizard, coastal whiptail, and San Diego desert woodrat have a moderate to high potential to occur on the Project site during Project activities (page 29). To reduce Project impacts, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 Pre - construction Wildlife Survey and Mitigation Measure BIO-3 Biological Monitoring are incorporated into the MND. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 states that if SSC are found, they would be relocated to a City approved off -site location with suitable habitat. Injury or death of SSC may occur during the transit process when relocating a species from one area to another. With a high level of risk involved in relocating species, SSC should be allowed to move out of harm's way on their own accord rather than actively relocated. In addition to relocation of SSC, the mitigation measures do not outline any compensatory mitigation if SSC presence is confirmed. Given that habitat loss on a local and regional scale is a major cause of population decline for these SSC, removal of confirmed SSC habitat would be considered a significant impact and should be mitigated appropriately. Evidence impact would be significant: A California Species of Special Concern is a species, subspecies, or distinct population of an animal native to California that currently satisfies one or more of the following (not necessarily mutually exclusive) criteria: 1) if the species is extirpated from the State or, in the case of birds, is extirpated in its primary season or breeding role; 2) if the species is listed as threatened or endangered under ESA-, but not CESA-, threatened, or endangered; 3) if the species meets the State definition of threatened or endangered but has not Packet Pg. 430 Docusign Envelope ID: OE433554-1 13954A5E-13414-1 FE7BE5AABBE 2.c Justin Sauder City of Santa Clarita July 11, 2024 Page 9 of 17 formally been listed; 4) if the species is experiencing, or formerly experienced, serious (noncyclical) population declines or range retractions (not reversed) that, if continued or resumed, could qualify it for State threatened or endangered status; and, 5) if naturally small populations exhibiting high susceptibility to risk from any factor(s), that if realized, could lead to declines that would qualify it for CESA threatened or -endangered status (CDFW 2024c). CEQA provides protection not only for CESA-listed species, but for any species including but not limited to SSC that can be shown to meet the criteria for State listing. These SSC meet the CEQA definition of rare, threatened, or endangered species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15380). The MND does not provide mitigation for potential impacts on SSC. Inadequate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for impacts to sensitive or special status species will result in the Project continuing to have a substantial adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special - status species by CDFW. Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s) Mitigation Measure #5: MM 11310-2: Pre -Construction Wildlife Survey — The City should revise MM BIO-2 to incorporate the underlined language and omit language in strikethrough: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a qualified biologist (the Applicant shall submit the qualifications of the biologist to the City for review and approval) shall conduct a survey of the proposed impact areas and 50-foot buffer within 72 hours of the proposed activities. Any coastal whiptail, Southern California legless lizard, California glossy snake, or Blainville's horned lizard found shall be passively ushered out of harm's way to an area that is unaffected by the Proiect. If the Proiect requires SCC to be removed, disturbed, or otherwise handled, the qualified biologist shall obtain all appropriate permits and prepare a species -specific list (or plan) of proper handling and passive relocation protocols. The list (or plan) of protocols shall be implemented during Proiect construction and activities/biological construction monitoring. The City/qualified biologist may coordinate with CDFW to prepare a passive relocation plan and shall be submitted to CDFW for review and comment prior to implementing Proiect ground -disturbing activities. Gifii_annrn�ied off site lncafinn in uifahle habitat fnr each cneciec If a San Diego desert woodrat midden is discovered during the survey, then the qualified biologist shall erect a fence with a 50-foot buffer around the midden. Adequate space should be provided for sufficient foraging habitat at the discretion of the qualified biologist in coordination with CDFW. If young are present, no work shall occur within the fenced area until the young have left the nest. If the woodrat midden cannot be left in place, the qualified biologist shall prepare a list (or plan) of proper handling and relocation Packet Pg. 431 Docusign Envelope ID: OE433554-1 13954A5E-13414-1 FE7BE5AABBE 2.c Justin Sauder City of Santa Clarita July 11, 2024 Page 10 of 17 protocols. The plan shall be submitted to CDFW for review and comment prior to Proiect.ground-disturbing activities. wouid :Pethedic- #y eieG to the ,ti,;ddep 44ate 4a to suitable habitat (dense shrubs) 50 feet of its leGation and outside of the decU/44epted- p a ietteF rePOO t^o e Submitted tothe Gi4� Mitigation Measure #6: Compensatory Mitigation - For SSC that have been confirmed and/or are expected to occur within the Project site, the Project proponent shall provide compensatory mitigation for temporary and permanent loss of any habitat supporting SSC. There shall be no net loss of habitat supporting SSC [CEQA Guidelines, § 15370(e)]. Compensatory mitigation shall be provided within the Project boundary at no less than 2.1. Mitigation shall provide appropriate habitat (depending on the species), refugia, and habitat structures that supports that species (e.g., woody material, rocks, brush piles, pools, burrows). Any proposed mitigation area/plan shall include a discussion on the territory size; nesting, breeding, foraging, and refuge locations; invasive, non-native plant and wildlife species present; food availability; and how all life cycle functions will be mitigated. Any mitigation plan for SSC shall be distributed and approved by CDFW prior to Project activities. The replacement habitat shall be protected in perpetuity under a conservation easement dedicated to a local land conservancy or other appropriate entity, which should include an appropriate endowment to provide for the long-term management of mitigation lands. Additional Comments Data. CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database [i.e., CNDDB], which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations [Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e)]. Accordingly, please report any special status species detected by completing and submitting CNDDB Online Field Survey Form (CDFW 2024d).The Project proponent should ensure that data was submitted data properly, with all data fields applicable filled out, prior to finalizing/adopting the environmental document. The data entry should also list pending development as a threat and then update this occurrence after impacts have occurred. The Project proponent should provide CDFW with confirmation of data submittal. Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan. CDFW recommends updating the MND's proposed Biological Resources Mitigation Measures to include mitigation measures recommended in this letter. Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments [Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.6; CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(2)]. As such, CDFW has provided comments and recommendations to assist the City in developing mitigation measures that are (1) consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4; (2) specific; (3) detailed (i.e., responsible party, timing, specific actions, location), and (4) clear for a measure to be fully enforceable and implemented successfully via mitigation monitoring and/or Packet Pg. 432 Docusign Envelope ID: OE433554-1 B95-4A5E-B414-1 FE7BE5AABBE 2.c Justin Sauder City of Santa Clarita July 11, 2024 Page 11 of 17 reporting program (Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.6-1 CEQA Guidelines, § 15097). The City is welcome to coordinate with CDFW to further review and refine the Project's mitigation measures. Per Public Resources Code section 21081.6(a)(1), CDFW has provided the City with a summary of our suggested mitigation measures and recommendations in the form of an attached Draft Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan (MMRP; Attachment A). Filing Fees The Project, as proposed, could have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the City and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the fee is required in order for the underlying Project approval to be operative, vested, and final (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & Game Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089). Conclusion CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Project to assist the City in adequately analyzing and minimizing/mitigating impacts to biological resources. CDFW requests an opportunity to review and comment on any response that the City has to our comments and to receive notification of any forthcoming hearing date(s) for the Project [CEQA Guidelines, § 15073(e)]. Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be direct to Julisa Portugal, Environmental Scientist, at Julisa.Portugal(a)wildlife.ca.gov or (562) 330-7563. Sincerely, E DocuSigned by /' errvi�r�t ! �aLn.PiL C3D449ECB7C 14DE... Jennifer Turner For Victoria Tang Environmental Program Manager South Coast Region EC: California Department of Fish and Wildlife Jennifer Turner Steve Gibson Frida Diaz-Barriga Cindy Hailey Packet Pg. 433 Docusign Envelope ID: OE433554-1 13954A5E-13414-1 FE7BE5AABBE 2.c Justin Sauder City of Santa Clarita July 11, 2024 Page 12 of 17 References: [CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2017. California Terrestrial and Vernal Pool Invertebrates of Conservation Priority. Available at: https://nrm.dfq.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentlD=149499&inline [CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023. Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species. Available at: https://nrm.dfg.ca.qov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentlD=213150&inline [CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2024a. Crotch's Bumble Bee Range — CDFW [ds3095]. Available at: https://data.ca.gov/dataset/crotchs-bumble-bee- range-cdfw-ds3095 [CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2024b. California Natural Diversity Database. Available at: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB [CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2024b. Threatened and Endangered Species. Available at: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/CESA [CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2024d. Submitting Data to the CNDDB. Available at: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. [CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2024. California Rare Plant Ranks. Available at: https://www.cnps.org/rare-plants/caIifornia-rare-plant-ranks Hatfield, R., Jepsen, S., Foltz Jordan, S., Blackburn, M., Code, Aimee. 2018. A Petition to the State of California Fish and Game Commission to List Four Species of Bumblebees as Endangered Species. Williams, P. H., R. W. Thorp, L. L. Richardson, and S.R. North America: An Identification guide. Princeton New Jersey. 208pp Colla. 2014. Bumble bees of University Press, Princeton, Packet Pg. 434 Docusign Envelope ID: OE433554-1 13954A5E-13414-1 FE7BE5AABBE 2.c Justin Sauder City of Santa Clarita July 11, 2024 Page 13 of 17 Attachment A: Draft Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan CDFW recommends the following language to be incorporated into a future environmental document for the Project. Biological Resources (BIO) Mitigation Measure (MM) or Recommendation (REC) Timing Responsible Part The Project proponent shall retain a qualified entomologist with the appropriate handling permits to conduct focused surveys. Focused surveys shall follow CDFW's Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act Project MM-BIO-1 — Candidate Bumble Bee Species. Focused surveys shall Prior to Project Proponent/ Crotch's Bumble also be conducted throughout the entire Project site during activities Qualified Bee Surveys the appropriate flying season to ensure no missed Entomologist detection of Crotch's bumble bee occurs. Survey results, including negative findings, shall be submitted to CDFW and the City prior to implementing Project ground - disturbing activities. If Crotch's bumble bee is detected the Project proponent shall coordinate with CDFW and obtain appropriate take authorization from CDFW (pursuant to Fish & Game Code, MM-13I0-2 — § 2080 et seq). The Project proponent shall comply with Prior to Project Project Incidental Take the mitigation measures detailed in the take authorization activities Proponent Permit issued by CDFW. The Project proponent shall provide a copy of a fully executed take authorization to the City prior to implementing Project ground -disturbing activities and vegetation removal. MM-13I0-3- MM Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall Prior to Project BIO-1 have a qualified biologist (the Applicant shall submit the issuance of Proponent/ ualifications of the biologist to the Cityfor review and gradingpermits Packet Pg. 435 Docusign Envelope ID: OE433554-1 13954A5E-13414-1 FE7BE5AABBE 2.c Justin Sauder City of Santa Clarita July 11, 2024 Page 14 of 17 approval) conduct a focused rare plant survey for slender Qualified mariposa lily within the undeveloped portion of the project Biologist site during the appropriate blooming period (March through June). The survey would consist of three passes, with one in April, May, and June. Reference site checks would be made for the species to determine if the species is blooming in the project vicinity. The surveys would conform to the California Native Plant Society's Botanical Survey Guidelines (2001); CDFW's Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (2018); and USFWS' Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants (2000). The results of the surveys would be documented in a report and submitted to the City. If the presence of slender mariposa lily is detected, no Project activities shall commence. The Project proponent shall coordinate with CDFW to discuss avoidance of the slender mariposa lily on site. If complete avoidance is unattainable, the Project proponent shall provide compensatory mitigation to offset the Project's impact on rare plants observed on site at no less than 2.1. The total habitat acreage within the mitigation land shall be no less than 2.1. The Project proponent shall acquire CDFW approved mitigation land that has presence of slender mariposa lily and is located in the same watershed as the Project site. The mitigation land shall also provide equivalent or greater habitat value than that of the Project site. The Project proponent shall protect replacement habitat in perpetuity under a conservation easement Packet Pg. 436 Docusign Envelope ID: OE433554-1 13954A5E-13414-1 FE7BE5AABBE 2.c Justin Sauder City of Santa Clarita July 11, 2024 Page 15 of 17 dedicated to a local land conservancy or other appropriate entity that has been approved to hold and manage mitigation lands pursuant to Assembly Bill 1094. Recordation of the conservation easement shall occur prior to commencement of Project activities. An appropriate endowment shall also be provided for the long- term monitoring and management of mitigation lands. The Project proponent shall retain a certified botanist to draft a Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) and submit it to the City and CDFW for review and approval prior to Project activities. The HMMP shall outline MM-13I0-4- initial and long-term management and maintenance Project Habitat activities that would occur on mitigation lands. The HMMP Prior to Project Proponent/ Management and shall provide measurable goals and success criteria for activities Certified Monitoring Plan establishing self-sustaining populations (e.g., percent Botanist survival rate, absolute cover). Maintenance activities outlined in the HMMP shall include measures pertaining to control of exotic vegetation, irrigation schedule, and rotection from future maintenance activities. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a qualified biologist (the Applicant shall submit the qualifications of the biologist to the City for review and approval) shall conduct a survey of the proposed impact areas and 50-foot buffer within 72 hours of the proposed activities. Any coastal Qualified MM-13I0-5- MM- whiptail, Southern California legless lizard, California Prior and during Biologist/ 13I0-2 glossy snake, or Blainville's horned lizard found shall be Project activities Project passively ushered out of harm's way to an area that is Proponent unaffected by the Project. If the Project requires SCC to be removed, disturbed, or otherwise handled, the qualified biologist shall obtain all appropriate permits and prepare a s ecies-s ecific list or Ian of proper handling and Packet Pg. 437 Docusign Envelope ID: OE433554-1 13954A5E-13414-1 FE7BE5AABBE 2.c Justin Sauder City of Santa Clarita July 11, 2024 Page 16 of 17 passive relocation protocols. The list (or plan) of protocols shall be implemented during Project construction and activities/biological construction monitoring. The City/qualified biologist may coordinate with CDFW to prepare a passive relocation plan and shall be submitted to CDFW for review and comment prior to implementing Project ground -disturbing activities. If a San Diego desert woodrat midden is discovered during the survey, then the qualified biologist shall erect a fence with a 50-foot buffer around the midden. Adequate space should be provided for sufficient foraging habitat at the discretion of the qualified biologist in coordination with CDFW. If young are present, no work shall occur within the fenced area until the young have left the nest. If the woodrat midden cannot be left in place, the qualified biologist shall prepare a list (or plan) of proper handling and relocation protocols. The plan shall be submitted to CDFW for review and comment prior to Project ground -disturbing activities. For SSC that have been confirmed and/or are expected to occur within the Project site, the Project proponent shall provide compensatory mitigation for temporary and permanent loss of any habitat supporting SSC. There shall be no net loss of habitat supporting SSC. Compensatory MM-13I0-6 — mitigation shall be provided within the Project boundary at Prior to Project Project Compensatory no less than 2.1. Mitigation shall provide appropriate activities proponent Mitigation habitat (depending on the species), refugia, and habitat structures that supports that species (e.g., woody material, rocks, brush piles, pools, burrows). Any proposed mitigation area/plan shall include a discussion on the territory size; nesting, breeding, foraging, and refuge locations; invasive, non-native plant and wildlife species Packet Pg. 438 Docusign Envelope ID: OE433554-1 13954A5E-13414-1 FE7BE5AABBE 2.c Justin Sauder City of Santa Clarita July 11, 2024 Page 17 of 17 present; food availability; and how all life cycle functions will be mitigated. Any mitigation plan for SSC shall be distributed and approved by CDFW prior to Project activities. The replacement habitat shall be protected in perpetuity under a conservation easement dedicated to a local land conservancy or other appropriate entity, which should include an appropriate endowment to provide for the long-term management of mitigation lands. The MND should be amended to provide a discussion on habitat suitability for Crotch's bumble bee within and adjacent to the Project site. The discussion should also disclose the Project's potential direct and indirect impacts REC 1 — Crotch's on Crotch's bumble bee. If the Project may impact Crotch's Prior to adopting Bumble Bee bumble bee, the MND should provide measures to CEQA Lead Agency Discussion minimize, and/or mitigate potential impacts to Crotch's document bumble bee as well as habitat supporting the species. The discussion should be of a depth and scope that a CESA Incidental Take Permit can be issued based on the analysis provided in the MND. Packet Pg. 439 2.c South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Conley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 . (909) 396-2000 • www.agmd.gov SENT VIA E-MAIL: j sauder2santa-clarita.com Justin Sauder, Associate Planner City of Santa Clarita, Planning Division 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Mitigated Negative Declaration (NIND) for the Proposed Riverview Development Project (Proposed Proiect) (SCH No.: 2024061060) July 11, 2024 South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) staff appreciate the opportunity to review the above -mentioned document. The City of Santa Clarita is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Lead Agency for the Proposed Project. To provide context, South Coast AQMD staff has provided a brief summary of the project information and prepared the following comments, which are organized by topic of concern. South Coast AQMD Staff s Summary of Project Information in the MND Based on the information provided in the MND, the Proposed Project includes constructing 318 single-family units and a 126,790-square-foot light industrial building on a 35.2-acre property.t The Proposed Project is located at 22500 Soledad Canyon Way in Santa Clarita.2 The proposed project site would be split into five planning areas (PAs), where PAs 1, 2, 3, and 4 are dedicated to residential development, while PA 5 is for a light manufacturing building.3 The light industrial building would provide 18 dock doors and generate approximately 609 average daily truck trips.4 According to aerial photographs, South Coast AQMD staff found that the nearest sensitive receptor is within 100 feet northwest of the Proposed Project site. The site preparation and grading are expected to begin in late 2024 and conclude by December 2025, with building construction commencing in 2026 and lasting for over four to five years.5 South Coast AQMD Staff s Comments on the MND Recommendation on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses (Residential Areas) The Proposed Project is located within the land use and zoning designation of Mixed -Use Corridor (MXC), 6 which allows the use of the proposed property. 7 However, South Coast AQMD is concerned about the potential health impacts of siting the manufacturing building that generates I MND. Page 1. 2 Ibid. s Ibid. Pages 5 and 7. a Appendix A - Health Risk Assessment. Page 12. s Ibid. Page 10. 6 Ibid. Page 4. Ibid. Page 20. Packet Pg. 440 Justin Sauder July 11, 2024 2.c 609 daily truck trips$ that are in close proximity to existing and new sensitive land uses since the operation generates and attracts heavy-duty diesel -fueled trucks that emit Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM). Based on the aerial photographs, South Coast AQMD staff found that the nearest existing sensitive receptor is within 100 feet northwest of the Proposed Project site at 22722 Soledad Canyon Road. Also, according to the IS-MND, Figure 3. Site Plan, it is estimated that the loading docks/truck idling would be less than 500 feet from existing and proposed residential areas. When the health impacts from the Proposed Project are added to the existing background, both existing and new residents living in the surrounding communities will likely face even greater exposure to air pollution and bear a disproportionate burden of increasing health risks. Moreover, the proposed high -density residential area will be north of the Southern Pacific Railroad line. Consequently, the lead agency is recommended to follow CARB and South Coast AQMD land - use guidance to ensure that sensitive receptors are not heavily affected by the warehouse truck activities and other sources of emissions. This guidance includes: 1) The CARB's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective is a general reference guide for evaluating and reducing air pollution impacts associated with new projects that go through the land use decision -making process with additional guidance on strategies to reduce air pollution exposure near high -volume roadways available in CARB's technical advisory.10 2) The South Coast AQMD's Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning" includes suggested policies that local governments can use in their General Plans or through local planning to prevent or reduce potential air pollution impacts and protect public health. It is recommended that the Lead Agency review this Guidance Document as a tool when making local planning and land use decisions. By adhering to these essential guidance documents and implementing proactive Mitigation Measures (MMs), the Lead Agency can avoid, eliminate, or reduce the adverse impacts of warehouse and truck activities on public health, ensuring that vulnerable communities are adequately protected from disproportionate exposure to air pollution. Recommend Revision to Air Quality Mitigation Measure In the air quality section of the MND, the Proposed Project's regional and localized construction and operational emissions have been quantified and compared to South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, 12 and the results are presented in Table 7.13 However, the localized 8 Appendix A - Health Risk Assessment. Page 12. 9 CARB's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective can be found at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/bandbook.pdf. 10 CARB's technical advisory can be found at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/landuse.htm. South Coast AQMD. 2005. Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning Available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/air-qualt-"idance/complete-guidance-document.pdf. 12 South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. Available at: https://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/c eq a/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf. 13 Ibid. Page 24. Packet Pg. 441 Justin Sauder July 11, 2024 2.c construction emissions show an exceedance for PMio. The mitigation measure MM AIR-114 is proposed with "all off -road diesel powered construction equipment of 50 hp or more used for the project construction at a minimum meets the California Air Resources Board Tier 2 emissions standards equipped with level 3 diesel particulate filters. " The MND concludes that with the implementation of MM AIR-1, the Proposed Project -related emissions would be less than significant.15 Even though the implementation of MM AIR-1 could reduce the impacts, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency revise the MM AIR-1 to ensure the use of the cleanest technology, which currently is Tier 4 equipment, as it is available and feasible to reduce the impacts from the construction activities further. Health Risk Reduction Strategies Many strategies are available to reduce exposures, including, but not limited to, building filtration systems with MERV 13 or better, or in some cases, MERV 15 or better is recommended, building design, orientation, location, vegetation barriers, landscaping screening, etc. Enhanced filtration units are capable of reducing exposures. However, enhanced filtration systems have limitations. For example, in a study that South Coast AQMD conducted to investigate filters,16 a cost burden is expected to be within the range of $120 to $240 per year to replace each filter panel. The initial start-up cost could substantially increase if an HVAC system needs to be installed and if standalone filter units are required. Installation costs may vary and include costs for conducting site assessments and obtaining permits and approvals before filters can be installed. Other costs may include filter life monitoring, annual maintenance, and training for conducting maintenance and reporting. In addition, because the filters would not have any effectiveness unless the HVAC system is running, there may be increased energy consumption that the Lead Agency should evaluate in the Final MND. It is typically assumed that the filters operate 100 percent of the time while residents are indoors, and the environmental analysis does not generally account for the times when the residents have their windows or doors open or are in common space areas of the project. These filters have no ability to filter out any toxic gases. Furthermore, when used filters are replaced, replacement has the potential to result in emissions from the transportation of used filters at disposal sites and generate solid waste that the Lead Agency should evaluate in the Final MND. Therefore, the presumed effectiveness and feasibility of any filtration units should be carefully evaluated in more detail prior to assuming that they will sufficiently alleviate exposures to diesel particulate matter emissions. South Coast AQMD Rules, Permits, and Responsible Agency Based on the information in Appendix A — Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis, the Proposed Project would require the use of a new 500-horsepower diesel backup generator.17 Hence, air permits from South Coast AQMD will be required, and the role of South Coast AQMD would change from a Commenting Agency to a Responsible Agency under CEQA. In addition, if South Coast AQMD is identified as a Responsible Agency, per CEQA Guidelines Sectionsl5086, the 14 Ibid. Page 26. ]s Ibid. Page 25. 16 This study evaluated filters rated MERV 13 or better. Available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/cega/handbook/agmdpilotstud, f�port.pdf. Also, see South Coast AQMD's 2012 Peer Review Journal article at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ina.12013. 17 Appendix A. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis. Page 2. 3 Packet Pg. 442 Justin Sauder July 11, 2024 2.c Lead Agency is required to consult with South Coast AQMD. In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15096 sets forth specific procedures for a Responsible Agency, including making a decision on the adequacy of the CEQA document for use as part of evaluating the applications for air permits. For these reasons, the Final MND should include a discussion about any new stationary and portable equipment requiring South Coast AQMD air permits and identify South Coast AQMD as a Responsible Agency for the Proposed Project. The Final MND should also include calculations and analyses for construction and operation emissions for the new stationary and portable sources, as this information will also be relied upon as the basis for the permit conditions and emission limits for the air permit(s). Please contact South Coast AQMD's Engineering and Permitting staff at (909) 396-3385 for questions regarding what types of equipment would require air permits. For more general information on permits, please visit South Coast AQMD's webpage at http://www.agmd.gov/home/permits. Conclusion The Lead Agency is recommended to revise the CEQA analysis to address the aforementioned comments and provide the necessary evidence to sufficiently support the conclusions reached. If the requested information and analysis are not included in the final CEQA document, either the Final MND or other type of CEQA document, the Lead Agency should provide reasons for not doing so. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15074, prior to approving the Proposed Project, the Lead Agency shall consider the MND for adoption together with any comments received during the public review process and notify each public agency when any public hearings are scheduled. Please provide South Coast AQMD with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the adoption of the Final MND. When responding to issues raised in the comments, detailed reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record to explain why specific comments and suggestions are not accepted must be provided. In addition, if the Lead Agency decides to adopt the Final MND, please provide South Coast AQMD with notice of any scheduled public hearing(s). Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. South Coast AQMD staff is available to work with the Lead Agency to address any air quality questions that may arise from this comment letter. Please contact Danica Nguyen, Air Quality Specialist, at dnguyenI2agmd.gov should you have any questions. SW:DN LAC240626-01 Control Number Sincerely, Sam 70" Sam Wang Program Supervisor, CEQA-IGR Planning, Rule Development & Implementation 4 Packet Pg. 443 2.c OFFICE OF_ THE SHERIFF A; 4�� COUNTY OF Los ANGELES X HAI.I. OF JUSTICE ROBERT G. LUNA, SHERIFF July 16, 2024 Mr. David Peterson, Senior Planner City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, California 91355 Dear Mr. Sauder: SANTA CLARITA RIVERVIEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (MASTER CASE NO. 21-205 ) NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT AN INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION REVIEW COMMENTS OJ�t,L OF LOS,,MCE CA LIFORN�P Thank you for inviting the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (Department) to review and comment on the June 2024 Notice of Intent to Adopt an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), for the Santa Clarita Riverview Development Project (Project). The proposed Project is located within the service area of the Department's Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff's Station (Station). It is likely the construction of the proposed Project will impact the current level of service provided by the Station for the potential increase in population and therefore may require a reevaluation with your city of the law enforcement services contract once completed. Please see the attached review comments provided by our Station (see correspondence dated July 16, 2024, from Captain Justin Diez). Also, for future reference, the Department provides the following updated address and contact information for all requests for reviews comments, law documents, and other related correspondence: 211 AVEST TEMPLE STREET, Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 -� •l lllfP /NS/� �= Packet Pg. 444 2.c Mr. Peterson - 2 - July 16, 2024 Tracey Jue, Bureau 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. Bee Bee Pee, of my staff, at (323) 526-5697. Sincerely, ROBERT G. LUNA, SHERIFF Tracey Jue, Bureau Director Facilities Planning Bureau Packet Pg. 445 SH-AD-32A (3/23) 2.c COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT -A tr-adi'lion (#'&i-vice Since 18i11 " DATE. July 16, 2024 FILE NO: OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE FROM: IN DIEZ, CAPTAIN TO: TRACEY JUE, BUREAU IN CLARITA VALLEY DIRECTOR FACILITIES STATION PLANNING BUREAU SUBJECT: REVIEW COMMENTS ON THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SANTA CLARITA RIVERVIEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (MASTER CASE 21-205) Santa Clarita Valley Sheriffs Station (Station) reviewed the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), dated June 2024, for the Santa Clarita Riverview Development Project (Project). The project proposes to construct 318 residential units (122 detached single-family condos and 196 attached townhomes, 22 of which are identified as affordable) and an approximately 127,000 square -foot light manufacturing industrial building. The project also includes a community recreation area, and other on -site improvements including on -site parking and landscaping. The project site is approximately 35.2 acres in size on a property formerly occupied by the Saugus Speedway and is directly adjacent to the existing Santa Clarita Metrolink Station. The site is zoned Mixed Use Corridor and is within the Jobs Creation Overlay Zone and the Alquist Priolo Fault Zone. According to Section XV Public Services for Police Service of the IS/MND pages 74 and 76, the proposed Project is expected to have less than significant impact on law enforcerent services provided by the Station. However, the proposed Project will increase current residents, employees and visitors, daytime, and nighttime population of the Station's service area, which will generate an increased demand for law enforcement services. To date, the Station is currently understaffed. However, assigning additional law enforcement personnel to the Station to meet an acceptable service ratio will require modification of the law enforcement services contract, for additional support personnel and equipment assets. The Project Applicant will be required to pay all applicable development fees associated with the Project, such as a law enforcement facilities mitigation fee, as applicable. In addition, according to the IS/MND page 76 Police Protection, "The project would not result in the construction or expansion of police facilities, as the current staffing and facilities are expected to be sufficient to serve the project. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse Packet Pg. 446 2.c Riverview Development Project -2- July 16, 2024 physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police facilities. As such, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary." The Station would like to clarify that the law enforcement facilities mitigation fee would ensure additional funding for facility space, and additional personnel resources and assets to address the needs as a result of the expansion and will need to be reviewed by your City and our Contract Law Enforcement Bureau in coordination with our Station. The Station would also like to note that the travel distance from the Station to the Project Site is approximately 2.9 miles, not 1.4 miles as indicated on Section XV Public Services Police Protection of the ISIMND page 76. The Station remains concerned that continued growth and intensification of multi -use land uses within the service area will ultimately contribute to significant cumulative impacts from this Project and other developments previously approved within the City on our department resources and operations. It is reasonable to expect that, although planned, continued development within the city will lead to a significant increase in the demand for law enforcement services and facilities. Meeting such demands requires additional resources, including patrol deputies, other sworn deputies, support personnel, and attendant assets, such as patrol vehicles, support vehicles, communications equipment, weaponry, office furnishings/equipment, etc. Resources should be evaluated as projects are completed. The Project Applicant will be required to pay all applicable development fees associated with the Project, such as the law enforcement facilities mitigation fee, as applicable. Also, the Station reviewed the concept drawings Figure 3 and 4 to provide the following comments: 1. Special Protection Requirements or Recommendations: a. The Department recommends that the principles of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) are incorporated in the design plans. The goal of CPTED is to reduce opportunities for criminal activities by employing physical design features that discourage anti -social behavior, while encouraging the legitimate use of the site. The overall tenets of CPTED include defensible space, territoriality, surveillance, lighting, landscaping, and physical security. The Station recommends installation of security cameras to reduce opportunities for criminal activities, where feasible. Packet Pg. 447 Riverview Development Project -3- July 16, 2024 b. The proposed Project will benefit from a landscaping maintenance program that would minimize opportunities for individuals to hide. The Station also recommends limiting the height of hedge -type plants around security gates to allow visibility from the street and trees should not block line of sight of building addresses from street patrol car height. c. The installation of security cameras for a video monitoring system and building lights with motion sensors is beneficial, where feasible. Appropriate gate hardware such as keypad/keycard access, automatic gate closers, and tire spike strips can be implemented where feasible to limit unauthorized access and for easy monitoring. In addition, the proposed locations of exterior building security cameras shall be considered in areas where law enforcement can adequately identify vehicle license plates upon entry/exit into the proposed Project with adequate fighting to enhance visibility. Installation of security cameras inside the building at each level's entry/exit points, at the elevators, and at the stairwells can be considered where feasible. d. Effective traffic and security plans be developed to address potential issues from vandalism and burglaries at the proposed Project site, in coordination with all jurisdictional approvals. e. A Construction Traffic Management Plan should also be established as part of the proposed Project to address construction -related traffic congestion and emergency access issues. If temporary lane closures are necessary for the installation of utilities, emergency access should be maintained at all times. Flag persons and/or detours should be provided as needed to ensure safe traffic operations, and construction signs should be posted to advise motorists of reduced construction zone speed limits. f. Provide numerical address on the corner of the building that can be easily viewed from the street. g. Where feasible, install a fence or CMU wall on the backside of the property adjacent to the railroad tracks at a height high enough so that it is not scalable for easy access into the proposed property. Packet Pg. 448 =2.c I ED Riverview Development Project -4- July 16, 2024 h. City consider types of light manufacturing and the vehicular traffic associated with it to minimize traffic congestion and/or opportunities for vehicle collisions on Soledad Canyon Road. At this time, the Station has no further comments on the proposed Project However, the Station reserves the right to amend or supplement our assessment upon subsequent reviews of the proposed Project once additional information becomes available. Thank you for including the Station in the review process for the proposed Project. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact please contact Operations Lieutenants, Brandon Barclay at (661)- 287-5702. IPacket Pg. 449 1 2.c ATTACHMENT C Additional Information Developed to Support the Final IS/MND Riverview Development Project Packet Pg. 450 Memorandum 2.c HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 16485 Laguna Canyon Road, Suite 150 Irvine, CA 92618 949.573.9450 tel 619.462.0552 fax www.helixeai.com Date: August 26, 2024 To: Peter Vanek, Integral Communities From: Lauren Singleton, Senior Biology Project Manager HELIX Environmental Planning Subject: Summary of the 2024 Crotch's Bumble Bee Focused Survey Results for the Riverview Project HELIX Project: 00357.00145.001 Message: HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. completed presence/absence survey for the Crotch's bumble bee (eombus crotchii), a candidate species under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) for the Riverview Project (project) located in the City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California. The survey was performed in accordance with survey guidelines outlined in the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's (CDFW) Survey Considerations for CESA Candidate Bumble Bee Species.' Focused surveys were completed on August 23, 2024. The initial habitat assessment and first survey were conducted on the same day, with all three surveys spaced at least two weeks apart within the Crotch's bumble bee colony active period (April to August). Crotch's bumble bee surveys were conducted by slowly walking throughout suitable habitat within the project site, accounting for suitable Crotch's bumble bee nesting locations, pollen and nectar sources, and foraging bumble bee activity. Table 1, Survey Information, details the survey dates, times, and conditions. ' California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023. Survey Considerations for CESA Candidate Bumble Bee Species. June 6. Available at: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentlD=213150&inline. Accessed August 2, 2024. Packet Pg. 451 2.c Memorandum to Peter Vanek August 26, 2024 Table 1 SURVEY INFORMATION Page 2 of 2 Site Survey Biologist Time Weather Conditions Visit Date (Start/Stop) (Start/Stop) HA1/1 07/19/2024 Cache Tucker 0745/1145 72°F, wind 1-3 mph, 5% cloud cover Taylor Chase' 88°F, wind 5-7 mph, 0% cloud cover 2 08/08/2024 Taylor Chase 0900/1100 82°F, wind 2-3 mph, 0% cloud cover 89°F, wind 3-4 mph, 0% cloud cover 3 08/23/2024 Taylor Chase 1300/1430 81°F, wind 4-6 mph, 0% cloud cover 86°F, wind 8-12 mph,' 0% cloud cover 1 Habitat assessment z Biologist attended Bombus crotchii Workshop - 2024 University of California Riverside Department of Entomology 3 Biologist attended Bombus Workshop - 2024 The Natural History Museum San Diego 4 Wind speed was below 8 mph until just before the survey was completed when winds increased speed. Flying insects were observed throughout the duration of the survey. Approximately 12 acres of potential Crotch's bumble bee habitat was identified on the project site, which included California buckwheat scrub, California sagebrush scrub, chamise chaparral, upland mustards, and disturbed habitat. During the first survey, suitable habitat was slowly walked and no more than three acres of suitable habitat was covered per hour per biologist. During the second and third surveys, most plants were either dead or in seed. Flowering plants within the areas identified as potential habitat were scarce (less than one percent cover). Therefore, the potential habitat was surveyed in fewer hours, with the biologist only concentrating on plants that had flowers at the time of the survey. No Bombus species were observed during the three surveys. Crotch's bumble bee individuals or nests were not detected during the survey effort and are presumed to be absent from the project site. Multiple honey bee (Apis mellifera) hives were observed within the project site, which may outcompete bumble bees for nectar sources. A focused survey report is currently being prepared and will be provided by September 13, 2024. He ir Packet Pg. 452 2.c 225 SOUTH LAKE AVENUE SUITE M210 PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101 T 626.204.9800 MEMORANDUM To: David Peterson, Senior Planner -City of Santa Clarita From: Michael Cady, Senior Biologist Subject: Dudek Response to California Department of Fish and Wildlife Comments for the Riverview Development Project, Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH#2024061060) Date: September 16, 2024 cc: Bobbette Biddulph, SWCA; Peter Vanek, Integral Communities; Carey Fernandes, Dudek; Chelsea Ohanesian, Dudek The following is Dudek's response to the comments California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) supplied in a letter dated July 11, 2024, after their review of the Biological Resources section of the Mitigated Negative Declaration that was prepared for the Riverview Development Project. Crotch's Bumble Bee The Project will impact Crotch's bumble bee. CDFW does not provide evidence or definitive proof that this impact will occur. Helix Environmental Planning conducted surveys for the species in 2024 using CDFW's guidelines within the recommended survey period and the results were negative. As such, the species is expected to be currently absent from the project site. The Project may result in temporal or permanent loss The project will impact 6.04 acres of vegetation of suitable nesting and foraging habitat of Crotch's communities (Eriogonum fasciculatum var. foliolosum- bumble bee. Hesperoyucca whipplei Association; Artemisia californica, Artemisia californica- Eriogonum fasciculatum Association; Adenostoma fasciculatum- Eriogonum fasciculatum Association) that support floral resources that are known to be used by the species, with Eriogonum fasciculatum being associated as a nectar source. Dudek's experience with the species over the past two years of surveys in the Santa Clarita Valley is the species has a strong preference for sage (Salvia ssp.) and deerweed (Acmispon glaber). A few white sage (Salvia apiana) were observed but did not rise to the level to be included as co -dominant in any of the asspciations. The project is within a region that has abundant natural open space areas in the hills surrounding the Santa Clarita Valley that support floral resources used by the species. Some of these areas are managed by Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authoritv, Angeles National Forest. and Z.c SUBJECT: DUDEK RESPONSE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMENTS FOR THE RIVERVIEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH#2024061060) Project ground -disturbing activities may cause death or injury of adults, eggs, and larva; burrow collapse; nest abandonment; and reduced nest success. State Parks. As such, the loss of 6.04 acres of foraging habitat is not expected to be significant. CDFW does not provide evidence that this impact is likely, or that such an impact would be significant. Helix Environmental Planning conducted surveys for the species in 2024 using CDFW's guidelines within the recommended survey period and the results were negative. While there is no evidence of a potentially significant impact, MM-BIO-3 will be revised per the following to address this concern: MM-BI0-3 Biological Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit the qualifications of the biologist(s) to the City for review and approval. The Applicant shall fund a City -approved, Biological Monitor during Project construction to monitor construction activities and to ensure compliance with all mitigation measures. The Biological Monitor shall be present on site during all native vegetation removal and initial ground disturbance activities in undeveloped areas. Each day prior to the commencement of activities, the Biological Monitor shall be responsible for conducting a pre -construction clearance survey and any wildlife (common or special - status) will be relocated offsite to a City -approved area. With regard to the Crotch bumble bee only, if construction activity will impact the 6.04 acres of potential foraging and nesting habitat(native vegetation communities) during the Crotch bumble bee nesting period (February 1 through October 31), the Biological Monitor shall conduct a pre -construction survey for Crotch bumble bee within the aforementioned 6.04 acres of natural vegetation area prior to the start of ground -disturbing construction activities within that 6.04 acres occurring during the Crotch bumble bee nesting period (February 1 through October 31). The survey shall ensure that no nests for Crotch bumble bee are located within that 6.04-acre area. The pre - construction survey shall be based on recommendations described in the "Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species," released by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) on June 6, 2023, or the most current at the time of construction. 2.c SUBJECT: DUDEK RESPONSE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMENTS FOR THE RIVERVIEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH#2024061060) The focused survey will be performed by a Biological Monitor with a CDFW-issued Scientific Collection Permit (SCP) in surveying for bumble bees and include at least three (3) survey passes that are not on sequential days or in the same week, preferably spaced two to four weeks apart. The timing of these surveys shall coincide with the Colony Active Period (April 1 through August 31 for Crotch bumble bee). Surveys may occur between 1 hour after sunrise and 2 hours before sunset. Surveys will not be conducted during wet conditions (e.g., foggy, raining, or drizzling) and surveyors will wait at least 1 hour following rain. Surveys may be conducted earlier than April 1 if other bees or butterflies are flying in the native vegetation communities on the project site. Surveys shall not be conducted when it is windy (i.e., sustained winds greater than 8 mph). Within non -developed habitats, the Biological Monitor shall look for nest resources suitable for bumble bee use. Ensuring that all nest resources receive 100% visual coverage, the biologist shall watch the nest resources for up to five minutes, looking for exiting or entering worker bumble bees. Worker bees should arrive and exit an active nest site with frequency, such that their presence would be apparent after five minutes of observation. If a bumble bee worker is detected, then a representative shall be identified to species. If a nest is suspected, the Biological Monitor can block the entrance of the possible nest with a sterile vial or jar until nest activity is confirmed (no longer than 30 minutes). Identification will include the SCP-permitted Biological Monitor netting/capturing the representative bumble bee in appropriate insect nets, per the protocol in U.S. National Protocol Framework for the Inventory and Monitoring of Bees. The bee shall be placed in a clear container for observation and photographic documentation if able. The bee will be photographed using a macro lens from various angles to ensure recordation of key identifying characteristics. If bumble bee identifying characteristics cannot be adequately captured in the container due to movement, the container will be placed in a cooler with ice until the bumble bee becomes inactive (generally within 15 minutes). Once inert, the bumble bee shall be removed from the container and placed on a white sheet of paper or card for examination and photographic documentation. The bumble bee shall be released into the same area from which it was captured upon completion of identification. Based on implementation of this method on a variety of other bumble bee 2.c SUBJECT: DUDEK RESPONSE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMENTS FOR THE RIVERVIEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH#2024061060) The on -site vegetation provides foraging opportunities and there is limited nesting potential within the undeveloped northwestern area of the Project site. Crotch's bumble bee primarily nest underground in abandoned small mammal burrows but may also nest under perennial bunch grasses or thatched annual grasses, underbrush piles, in old bird nests, and in dead trees or hollow logs. species, they become active shortly after removal from the cold environment, so photography must be performed quickly. If Crotch bumble bee nests are not detected, no further mitigation would be required. The mere presence of foraging Crotch bumble bees would not require implementation of additional minimization measures because they can forage up to 10 kilometers from their nests. If nest resources occupied by Crotch bumble bee are detected within the construction area, no construction activities shall occur within 100 feet of the nest, or as determined by the SCP-permitted Biological Monitor through evaluation of topographic features or distribution of floral resources. The nest resources will be avoided for the duration of the Crotch bumble bee nesting period (February 1 through October 31). Outside of the nesting season, it is assumed that no live individuals would be present within the nest as the daughter queens (gynes) usually leave by September, and all other individuals (original queen, workers, males) die. A written survey report will be submitted to the City within 30 days of the pre -construction survey. The report will include survey methods, weather conditions, and survey results, including a list of insect species observed and a figure showing the locations of any Crotch bumble bee nest sites or individuals observed. The survey report will include the qualification/resume of the SCP-permitted Biological Monitor for identification of photo vouchers, detailed habitat assessment, and photo vouchers. If Crotch bumble bee nests are observed, the survey report will also include recommendations for avoidance, and the location information will be submitted to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) at the time of, or prior to, submittal of the survey report. The initial survey found few small mammal burrows, but no perennial bunch grasses or thatched annual grasses, underbrush piles, old bird nests, and dead trees or hollow logs were observed. As such, nesting opportunities were considered to be very low on the project site. Further, Helix Environmental Planning conducted surveys for the species in 2024 using CDFW's uidelines and the results were negative. As such, the Z.c SUBJECT: DUDEK RESPONSE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMENTS FOR THE RIVERVIEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH#2024061060) While the Project site may provide limited nesting habitat, the possibility of Crotch's bumble bee to be present on site cannot be completely ruled out considering that the general survey was a single survey conducted two years ago outside the timeframe (April to August) for highest detection probability. In addition to limited surveys, the MIND does not discuss the moderate potential for Crotch's bumble bee to be foraging and/or nesting within the Project site. The MND also does not provide mitigation measures directly related to Crotch's bumble bee. A mitigation measure should be incorporated in the MIND to include focused surveys to confirm presence/absence of Crotch's bumble bee on the Project site prior to Project activities. Without focused surveys, individual Crotch's bumble bee and/or nesting sites may go undetected resulting in incidental take of a CESA protected species. If presence of Crotch's bumble bee is confirmed, the Project would result in loss of confirmed habitat for this species. The Project may substantially reduce and adversely modify habitat as well as reduce and potentially impair the viability of populations of Crotch's bumble bee. The Project may also reduce the number and range of the species without considering the likelihood that special status species on adjacent and nearby natural lands may rely upon the habitat that occurs on the proposed Project site. species is expected to be currently absent from the project site. Helix Environmental Planning conducted surveys for the species in 2024 using CDFW's guidelines and the results were negative. As such, the species is currently absent from the project site. The MIND determined that the species was not expected to nest on site and the impacts to potential foraging habitat was not significant. This was confirmed by the negative results of Helix Environmental Planning's surveys for the species in 2024 using CDFW's guidelines and the results were negative. As such, the species is currently absent from the project site. MM-13I0-3 will be revised as outlined above. Helix Environmental Planning conducted surveys for the species in 2024 using CDFW's guidelines and the results were negative. As such, the species is currently absent from the project site. Helix Environmental Planning conducted surveys for the species in 2024 using CDFW's guidelines and the results were negative. As such, the species is currently absent from the project site. The project is within a region that has abundant natural open space areas in the hills surrounding the Santa Clarita Valley that support floral resources used by the species. Some of these areas are managed by Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, Angeles National Forest, and State Parks. As such, the loss of 6.04 acres of potential foraging habitat (Eriogonum fasciculatum var foliolosum-Hesperoyucca whipplei, Artemisia californica- Eriogonum fasciculatum, and Adenostoma fasciculatum-Eriogonum fasciculatum associations) is not expected to be significant. Helix Environmental Planning conducted surveys for the species in 2024 using CDFW's guidelines and the results were negative. As such, the species is currently absent from the project site. 0 SUBJECT: DUDEK RESPONSE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMENTS FOR THE RIVERVIEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH#2024061060) The MND should be amended to provide a discussion on habitat suitability for Crotch's bumble bee within and adjacent to the Project site. The discussion should also disclose the Project's potential direct and indirect impacts on Crotch's bumble bee. If the Project may impact Crotch's bumble bee, the MND should provide measures to minimize, and/or mitigate potential impacts to Crotch's bumble bee as well as habitat supporting the species. The discussion should be of a depth and scope that a CESA Incidental Take Permit can be issued based on the analysis provided in the MND. The Project proponent shall retain a qualified entomologist with the appropriate handling permits to conduct focused surveys. Focused surveys shall follow CDFW's Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023). Focused surveys shall also be conducted throughout the entire Project site during the appropriate flying season to ensure no missed detection of Crotch's bumble bee occurs. Survey results, including negative findings, shall be submitted to CDFW and the City prior to implementing Project ground -disturbing activities. If Crotch's bumble bee is detected the Project proponent shall coordinate with CDFW and obtain appropriate take authorization from CDFW (pursuant to Fish & Game Code, § 2080 et seq). The Project proponent shall comply with the mitigation measures detailed in the take authorization issued by CDFW. The Project proponent shall provide a copy of a fully executed take authorization to the City prior to implementing Project ground -disturbing activities and vegetation removal. Slender MM-1310-1 does not adequately offset Project -related impacts on slender mariposa lily. Project ground -disturbing activities (i.e., grading, vegetation removal) would result in loss of suitable habitat, loss of population, and direct mortality of slender mariposa lily. The results of Helix Environmental Planning's 2024 surveys for the species, which were negative. MM-BIO- 3 will be revised as outlined above. Helix Environmental Planning conducted surveys for the species in 2024 using CDFW's guidelines and the results were negative. As such, the species is currently absent from the project site. Helix Environmental Planning conducted surveys for the species in 2024 using CDFW's guidelines and the results were negative. As such, the species is currently absent from the project site. The existing mitigation measure adequately mitigates potential impact to the slender mariposa lily. It should be noted that Table 1(Vegetation Communities and Land Covers in the Study Area) had an error regarding the number of acres of the Artemisia californica Association. Dudek reran the geospatial analysis, and it should be 0.26 acres of Artemisia californica Association and not 5.23 acres, with a total of 6.04 acres of native vegetation communities that could support slender mariposa lily, and not 11.01 acres. All other acre calculations in the table are correct. 2.c SUBJECT: DUDEK RESPONSE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMENTS FOR THE RIVERVIEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH#2024061060) The density of the shrub vegetation in the area with suitable habitat for the species (limited to the knoll on the western end of the site) is expected to limit the number of individuals that could potentially be impacted. This determination is informed by Dudek's extensive experience with the species in the Santa Clarita Valley, including on areas adjacent to the project site. This is also based upon CDFW's own micro -habitat description for the species that describes it occurring on shaded foothill canyons, and often on grassy slopes within other habitats', which are not present in the site. Slender mariposa lily is not a listed species, so impacts must be measured by the loss to the species as a whole and not on the individual level. The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) has records of the species throughout the Santa Clarita Valley, with locations that have hundreds of individuals. Therefore, the loss of a few individuals would not reduce the number of individuals such that the species population as a whole would be compromised, and thus, the loss would be considered a less -than - significant impact under CEQA. As such, MM-1310-1 as originally written provides an equivalent compensation for the loss of those individuals; however, MM-610-1 will be revised per the followingto provide additional mitigation and benefit: 1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2024. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB); RareFind query for Calochortus Q clavatus var. gracilis. Accessed September 2024. https:Happs.wildlife.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx 2.c SUBJECT: DUDEK RESPONSE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMENTS FOR THE RIVERVIEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH#2024061060) MM-BIO-1 Pre -Construction Rare Plant Survey and Conservation Seed Collee ion. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall have a qualified biologist (the Applicant shall submit the qualifications of the biologist to the City for review and approval) conduct a focused rare plant survey for slender mariposa lily within the undeveloped portion of the Project site during the appropriate blooming period (March through June). The survey will consist of a maximum of three passes; with ene iafrom March April, May, to June. Reference site checks will be made for the species to determine if the species are blooming in the Project vicinity. If the reference site check is positive for the species, then the following survey will determine the presence or absence of the species within the Project. If the reference site was positive for a species, and the survey of the Project site is negative, no further surveys would be required, and this mitigation measure would be considered satisfied. The surveys will conform to CNPS' Botanical Survey Guidelines; CDFW's Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities; and USFWS' Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Plants. The results of the surveys will be documented in a report and submitted to the City. Should affy-ef-the species be found h,�, then construction of the occupied location shall be delayed, and one of the following measures will be implemented: „"+.I the individuals have gene to seed Seeds shall be nnlleete d n n the seed has gnat Fedlr but p Fievr to the seed n disperse rles opening to r! the see�rr dFy, and da* plaee. The seeds will then be donated to a l ity a d e legal eenservatien organization (e.g �r� Alternative No. 1: The Project shall compensate for the loss of the species at a 1:1 ratio through the planting of replacement slender mariposa lily bulbs within the Z.c SUBJECT: DUDEK RESPONSE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMENTS FOR THE RIVERVIEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH#2024061060) Seed collection alone is not sufficient to offset Project impacts. According to the California Natural Diversity Database, there are recorded observations of slender mariposa lily near the Project site (CDFW 2024b). Additionally, the MND also states that there is a moderate potential for slender mariposa lily to occur on the Project site (page 28). While CDFW concurs that focused surveys should be done during the appropriate bloom period for highest detection probability, we disagree that protocol surveys and seed collection makes impacts to the species less than significant with mitigation. Compensatory mitigation should be provided if any individual slender mariposa lily is observed, especially since this rare plant is threatened in California. CDFW is also concerned that the MND does not provide biological justification as to why a count of 20 individuals is the minimum threshold. If slender mariposa lily is observed on the Project site, there is a possibility for multiple bulbs to exist underground that may or may not have bloomed. Moreover, handing seeds to a local organization for restoration Project, which will be maintained by the future homeowner's association in perpetuity_ Alternative No. 2: If replacement slender mariposa lily bulbs cannot be reasonably located to implement the first alternative. the Project shall compensate for the loss of discovered specimens by collecting the seeds of the onsite individuals. Seed collection and storage will be conducted by an entity with extensive experience performing those tasks (such as S&S Seeds or the California Botanical Garden) and approved by the City. The Project Applicant will then work with City -approved local conservation organization (e.g., Friends of Santa Clara River) to be used in restoration projects. The Applicant shall provide the City with documentation of the seeds use. Slender mariposa lily is not a listed species, so impacts should be measured by the loss to the species as a whole and not on the individual level per CEQA. As stated in Section 15065 (Mandatory Findings of Significance), the significance of the impacts must be seen in the following context: (1) substantially degrade the quality of the environment, (2) substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, (3) cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, (4) threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or (5) reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. The small amount of potential habitat for the species that the project would impact is not expected to meet any of those findings. As such, MM-1310-1 as originally drafted provides an equivalent compensation for the loss of those individuals. However, in response to the CDFW's comment and direction, MM-13I0-1 has been revised to first require the Project to replace those specimens that may be loss through planting replacements within the Project site. However, if that is not reasonably possible, the Project may still rely on seed collection, as an equivalent alternative. This determination is based upon a CEQA determination of what constitutes a significant impact, which is how non -listed species are analyzed, and not a biological determination. However, MM-13I0-1 has been revised to mitigate impact to any individuals found and has removed the 20 individual threshold. 2.G SUBJECT: DUDEK RESPONSE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMENTS FOR THE RIVERVIEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH#2024061060) opportunities does not guarantee successful creation of a slender mariposa lily population. As currently written, Mitigation Measure 1310-1 does not commit to mitigation that would adequately offset the direct loss of slender mariposa lily, nor does it adopt specific performance standards and actions pertaining to management of mitigation actions. The MND does not disclose where or when the seeds would be used in restoration projects. If restoration projects do not utilize the seeds until several years after collection, they may become inviable. Moreover, the mitigation measure does not provide success criteria for these restoration projects to ensure successful mitigation is achieved. In addition to no success criteria, long-term management actions for these restoration projects is not outlined in the mitigation measure. With limited information and no enforceable actions regarding the restoration projects, the proposed mitigation would be considered deferred. Impacts on rare flora could be considered a significant effect on the environment. Plants with a CRPR of 16 are rare throughout their range, endemic to California, and are seriously or fairly threatened... Impacts to CRPR 16 plant species and their habitat may result in a mandatory finding of significance because the Project would have the potential to threaten to eliminate a plant community and substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065). Additionally, Mitigation Measure 13I0-1 is considered deferred mitigation [CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(1)(B)]. Insufficient mitigation may result in unmitigated temporal or permanent impacts to a rare plant species. Subsequently, the Project would continue to have a substantial adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species by CDFW. The density of the shrub vegetation in the area with suitable habitat for the species is expected to limit the number of individuals that could potentially be impacted. This determination is informed by Dudek's extensive experience with the species in the Santa Clarita Valley on the Newhall Ranch project. This is also based upon CDFW's own micro -habitat description for the species that describes it occurring on shaded foothill canyons, and often on grassy slopes within other habitats2, which are not present in the site. That said, while the existing mitigation measure is sufficient, as explained above, in response to the CDFW's comment and direction, MM-1310-1 has been revised to first require the Project to replace those specimens that may be loss through planting replacements within the Project site. However, if that is not reasonably possible, the Project may still rely on seed collection, as an equivalent alternative. Slender mariposa lily is not a listed species, so impacts must be measured by the loss to the species as a whole and not on the individual level. The approximately 6.04 acres of potential habitat for the species that the project would impact is not expected to threaten to eliminate a plant community and substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species. The CNDDB has records of the species throughout the Santa Clarita Valley, with locations that have hundreds of individuals. As such, MM-1310-1 as both originally drafted and now revised provides sufficient mitigation to mitigate impact to any individuals found. The density of the shrub vegetation in the approximately 6.04-acre area with suitable habitat for the species is expected to limit the number of individuals that could potentially be impacted. This determination is informed by Dudek's extensive experience with the species in the Santa Clarita Valley. This is also based upon CDFW's own micro -habitat description for the species that describes it occurring on shaded foothill canyons, and often on grassy slopes 2 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2024. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB); RareFind query for Calochortus Q clavatus var. gracilis. Accessed September 2024. https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx 2.c SUBJECT: DUDEK RESPONSE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMENTS FOR THE RIVERVIEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH#2024061060) within other habitats3, which are not present in the site. The approximately 6.04 acres of potential habitat for the species that the project would impact is not expected to threaten to eliminate a plant community and substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species. The CNDDB has records of the species throughout the Santa Clarita Valley, with locations that have hundreds of individuals. As such, MM-1310-1, as both originally proposed and revised, provides an equivalent compensation for the loss of those individuals. Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation The density of the shrub vegetation in the area with Measure(s) suitable habitat for the species is expected to limit the number of individuals that could potentially be impacted. Acquisition of, maintenance of, and establishing an endowment over, mitigation lands for the loss of a few individuals is not proportionate to the impact, as the level of impact that would occur to the population of the species as a whole is negligible. Therefore, introduction of this new suggested mitigation measures is not appropriate mitigation under CEQA, and MM-1310-1, as originally written and revised, adequately mitigates impacts to the species. Impacts on Califomia Species of Special Concem (SSC) The mitigation measure proposed in the MND may not be sufficient to minimize Project impacts on SSC. Injury or death of SSC may occur during the transit process when relocating a species from one area to another. With a high level of risk involved in relocating species, SSC should be allowed to move out of harm's way on their own accord rather than actively relocated. In addition to relocation of SSC, the mitigation measures do not outline any compensatory mitigation if SSC presence is confirmed. Given that habitat loss on a local and regional scale is a major cause of population decline for these SSC, removal of confirmed SSC habitat would be considered a significant impact and should be mitigated appropriately. These are not listed species. MM-1310-2, which provides a pre -construction survey where any special -status species found will be relocated out of harm's way, and MM-13I0-3, which provides Biological Monitoring during initial vegetation removal and grading, provide sufficient mitigation by avoiding and minimizing direct impacts to individuals of the species that may be present. Acquisition of, maintenance of, and establishing an endowment over, mitigation lands for the handling of potentially a few individuals is not proportionate to the impact, as the level of impact that would occur to the population of the species as a whole is negligible based upon presence of vast amount of open space in the region that is expected to provide suitable habitat for those species. Therefore, introduction of the suggested mitigation measures is not appropriate mitigation under CEQA, and MM-13I0-2 and MM-13I0-3, as written, adequately mitigates impacts to the species. 3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2024. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB); RareFind query for Calochortus Q clavatus var. gracilis. Accessed September 2024. httPs:Happs.wildlife.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx 0 Agenda Item: 2 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PLANNING COMMISSION WW AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING MANAGER APPROVAL: DATE: July 16, 2024 SUBJECT: RIVERVIEW (MASTER CASE 21-205) APPLICANT: Peter Vanek LOCATION: 22500 Soledad Canyon Road CASE PLANNER: Justin Sauder RECOMMENDED ACTION Planning Commission: 1. Receive staff presentation; 2. Open the public hearing to receive testimony from the public; 3. Provide direction to staff on project -related issues; and 4. Continue the meeting to a date certain. REQUEST The applicant, Integral Communities, is proposing a development consisting of a residential component with 318 residential units and a non-residential component with an approximately 127,000 square -foot light manufacturing building on the subject property. The project also includes a proposal to subdivide the subject property into five parcels with a Tentative Map that would allow for the creation of condominium lots for the residential units. MEETING SCHEDULE The project will be introduced at the July 16, 2024, Planning Commission meeting. The meeting will provide an opportunity for the community and the Planning Commission to receive a project introduction, discuss the project, and ask questions of the applicant and staff. Staff will work with the applicant to address comments and bring the item back for consideration at the September 17, 2024, Planning Commission meeting, based on direction from the Planning Commission. Page 1 Packet Pg. 31 0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is located at 22500 Soledad Canyon Road (Assessor's Parcel Number 2836-011-018) within the Mixed -Use Corridor (MXC) zone in the community of Saugus. The project is also within the Jobs Creation Overlay Zone (JCOZ) and the High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (HFHSZ). The project site is directly adjacent to the Santa Clarita Metrolink Station and was formally utilized as the Saugus Speedway. Currently, there is a swap meet on Sundays and Tuesdays at the subject property. The property is approximately 35 acres in size and the majority of the site is relatively flat and paved, except for the northwest portion of the site which consists of a previously disturbed, remnant hillside. The overall cross slope of the site is approximately 14%. The project includes a Tentative Map that would divide the site into five planning areas. Four of the planning areas would contain the residential component of the project and the fifth planning area with contain the non-residential, light manufacturing component. The four residential planning areas are on approximately 28 acres which would contain 318 total residential units. This total includes 122 detached single-family condos and 196 attached townhomes, 22 of which are identified as affordable for low income households. o Planning Area 1 would include 17 buildings with 95 single-family attached units. o Planning Area 2 would include 60 single-family detached units. o Planning Area 3 would include 62 single-family detached units. o Planning Area 4 would include 31 buildings with 101 single-family attached units. The residential portion would also include several on -site amenities for residents including a pool, spa, bathroom, barbeque grills, picnic tables, dog park, tot lot, chess gaming tables, fire pit, and a community garden. There are also five seating nooks spread throughout the site which include benches, bike racks, and dog waste stations. Parking areas and landscaping are included within each planning area. Planning Area 5 encompasses approximately seven acres and includes an industrial building on the northwestern portion of the site. The building would include 116,790 square feet of light manufacturing and 10,000 square feet of office/mezzanine space with a maximum building height of 39 feet. The project also includes various on -site improvements such as landscaping, an employee break area, paving, parking and lighting, and 18 docking stations for trucks. The building is being contemplated for a light manufacturing use but there is currently no tenant proposed for the building. Should the project be approved, the applicant has agreed to record an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City of Santa Clarita for Planning Area 5. The offer of dedication would allow the City to take possession of the seven acres within Planning Area 5 in the event the applicant is unable to secure a tenant for the light manufacturing portion of the project either on the third anniversary after the map recordation, or when the Building Official issues a final certificate of occupancy for the last residential unit, whichever is soonest. Background Page 2 Packet Pg. 32 0 The subject site was formally utilized as the Saugus Speedway but its origins as an entertainment venue date back to 1926 when a rodeo was hosted for the first time. The rodeo continued annually into the 1950's, but in 1939 a new form of entertainment was introduced with auto racing on a dirt track. The annual rodeo was still held, but the property was also utilized as a race track known as Bonelli Stadium. Both auto racing and rodeos continued on the property for several years until the dirt race track was permanently covered in asphalt in 1956, and rodeos were no longer hosted. Auto racing continued, but in 1995 it was announced that the grand stands around the race track were deemed unsafe due to structural damage and the remainder of the racing season was cancelled. The subject property would no longer host races and has since been utilized for a swap meet. The swap meet currently still operates on Sunday and Tuesday mornings. Although the subject property has a diverse background as an entertainment venue, the Saugus Speedway site is not listed as a historic site by the City of Santa Clarita Historic Preservation Ordinance. The Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society provided a letter commending the applicant for the inclusion of project design features to honor the Saugus Speedway such as naming residential streets after legendary race car drivers and incorporating the checked flag color scheme into the community park. The letter from the Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society is attached for reference. Entitlements The following entitlements are included in the application: • Architectural Design Review (ADR): New construction projects contemplated by the underlying zone require an ADR to ensure consistency with the City of Santa Clarita's (City) Community Character and Design Guidelines (CCDG). • Conditional Use Permit (CUP): The industrial building is being contemplated for a light manufacturing use which requires approval of a CUP in the MXC zone. • Development Review (DR): New construction projects contemplated by the underlying zone require a DR to ensure consistency with the City's Unified Development Code (UDC). • Hillside Development Review (HDR): Projects proposed on properties with an average cross slope in excess of 10% are subject to an HDR. An HDR is also required for grading excavations or fills exceeding 1,500 cubic yards. The project would exceed the minimum threshold for both cross slope, and grading excavations and fills. • Initial Study (IS): Qualifying projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) require an IS to identify potential environmental impacts that may exist with the approval of the project. In this case, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared and will be discussed later in this report. • Landscape Plan Review (LPR) New projects incorporating the installation of landscape require an LPR to ensure all landscaping complies with all provisions of the UDC and General Plan. • Minor Use Permit (MUP) Floor area ratios (FAR) and residential densities less than the minimum required under the MXC zone are subject to approval of an MUP. • Oak Tree Permit (OTP) An OTP is required for the removal, relocation, encroachment, Page 3 Packet Pg. 33 0 or impacts to oak trees. The project would involve the removal of nine (9) oak trees including one (1) heritage oak tree. Tentative Map (TTM) A TTM is required for a subdivision of land consisting of four or more lots. The project is subject to the approval of the Planning Commission due to the CUP, OTP, and TTM. GENERAL PLANNING AND ZONING Land Use and Zoning Designations The subject property has a General Plan Land Use designation and Zoning designation of MXC. Section 17.35.010 of the UDC identifies the MXC zone as contemplating mixed use development that may be either vertical or horizontal, with the nonresidential uses being consistent with those uses in the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) and Community Commercial (CC) districts. The residential density range in mixed use corridors shall be a minimum of 11 units to a maximum of 30 units, while the minimum floor area ratio (FAR) for the nonresidential portion shall be .25 and the maximum shall be 1.0. Overlay Zones The subject property is located in the JCOZ. Section 17.38.015 of the UDC identifies that the purpose of the JCOZ is "to support the General Plan objective of promoting the creation of strong regional and local economies via the implementation of strategic land use planning policies. Specifically, the JCOZ will: (1) attract and promote the creation of high -quality jobs within the Cily's four targeted industries, which include aerospace, biomedical, entertainment, and technology, and other industries at the discretion of the Director; (2) enhance the City's overall jobs/housing balance; and (3) provide greater employment opportunities throughout the entire City." The JCOZ identifies design standards that supersede those of the underlying zone. In this case, new industrial buildings between 35 and 55 feet in height are permitted -by -right and do not require a CUP for height. Surrounding Land Uses To the west of the subject property are existing businesses, and to the east is the Santa Clarita Metrolink Station. The areas north and south of the project site are vacant. Undeveloped land zoned Public/Institutional that is owned by the City is directly south of the project site across the Union Pacific Railroad, and further south is the Whittaker Bermite property. The Santa Clara River is to the north across Soledad Canyon Road. Below, Table 1 summarizes the General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations surrounding the subject property. A zoning map of the surrounding area is attached for reference. Table 1 - Existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations Location I General Plan I Zoning I Land Use Page 4 Packet Pg. 34 0 Project Mixed Use Mixed Use Open Air Market/swap meet at the Site: Corridor Corridor former Saugus Speedway site North: Open Space Open Space Santa Clara River, across Soledad Canyon Road South: Public/Institutional Public/Institutional Undeveloped land, across the Union Pacific Railroad East: Specific Plan Specific Plan Santa Clarita Metrolink Station, across Commuter Way West: Community Community Existing businesses including a Commercial Commercial rehabilitation center Access The residential component would gain full access from the existing signalized ingress/egress to the Santa Clarita Metrolink Station on Commuter Way and would also gain right -in access from two new driveways on Soledad Canyon Road. The industrial component would also include two new driveways on Soledad Canyon Road. The westerly driveway would only allow right turns into the site and right turns out of the site. The easterly driveway would include a new traffic signal which would allow for ingress and egress with full right and left turn movements. ANALYSIS General Plan Consistency The project was analyzed for compliance with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the General Plan. The following apply: Objective H1-2: Enhance opportunities for affordable housing production on appropriate sites located near transit and services. Objective LU4.1: Promote creation of strong regional and local economies. Policy LU3.4.1: Promote the inclusion of green spaces, neighborhood parks, and other gathering places that allow neighbors to meet one another and encourage "eyes on the street" for safety purposes. Policy LU3.1.2: Provide a mix of housing types within neighborhoods that accommodate households with varied income levels. The project would provide a range of housing types available to different income levels near transit services, community amenities, and a light manufacturing use located on Soledad Canyon Road adjacent to the Santa Clarita Metrolink Station. The Housing Element identifies zoning capacity for the City to provide its fair share of the Page 5 Packet Pg. 35 0 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the Southern California Council of Governments (SCAG) region. During the extensive Housing Element review process, the City was able to provide sufficient Suitable Sites to accommodate its capacity throughout the market - rate, moderate -income, low-income, and very low-income categories, resulting in a Certified Housing Element through the State. The project site is identified as Suitable Site #23 in the Housing Element. Given its proximity to the Santa Clarita Metrolink Station, the project site was projected to have a capacity for 792 residential units with 225 units designated for low-income households and 567 units designated for moderate -income households. As proposed, the 296 market -rate units and 22 low-income units would contribute to meeting the City's RHNA obligation in the market -rate and low- income categories. However, the proposed project would not entirely meet the obligation for the units identified in the Housing Element for this Suitable Site. Failure to provide units in the designated income categories on this site could require the City to find alternative Suitable Sites to ensure adequate capacity remains to maintain a compliant Housing Element. Consistency with the UDC • Hillside Development & Grading As identified in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), the subject property was previously disturbed by grading and construction and was utilized as a rodeo and the Saugus Speedway; more recently the Saugus Swap Meet. The site has also been previously disturbed by the construction of Soledad Canyon Road and the Union Pacific Railroad. Although the average cross slope for the site is approximately 14%, the majority of the site is flat with a previously graded/disturbed remnant hillside on the northwest portion of the property. The difference in elevation from the highest portion of the property to the lowest and flattest portion of the property is approximately 105 feet. The project includes the creation of a seven -acre pad for a 127,000 square -foot industrial building where the remnant of the remaining hill is located. Creation of the pad would require the cut and fill of approximately 800,000 cubic yards of material and is anticipated to balance on -site. Specifically, the remnant hillside would be graded/cut and used to fill in lower portions of the subject property. Grading of the hill would make the seven -acre pad for the non-residential component consistent in grade with the majority of the subject property. JCOZ & Height The project is within the JCOZ which contemplates new industrial structure height of up to 55 feet without a CUP. The 55-foot threshold was defined for industrial structures within the JCOZ to allow for a usable interior floor -to -ceiling height identified by builders and operators of industrial uses. The project proposes an overall building height of 39 feet, consistent with heights contemplated by the JCOZ and typical of other recently approved industrial buildings within the City. 0 Site Design & Parking Page 6 Packet Pg. 36 0 During the plan review process, staff has determined that the project meets the design standards for both industrial and residential development within the MXC zone, with the exception of the minimum FAR for the industrial portion and the minimum required density for the residential portion. The FAR is calculated by dividing the total area of the building by the total area of the site. The industrial building is approximately 127,000 square feet and the site is approximately 1,533,000 square feet. The minimum required FAR for the non- residential component is .25 (which would be approximately 383,000 square -feet of non- residential development) and the proposed FAR is approximately .08 with the proposed 127,000 square -foot building. Pursuant to UDC Section 17.35.010.A.1, a FAR that is less than the minimum requires approval of a MUP. The site zoning calls for residential density within the range of 11 dwelling units per acre minimum, to a maximum of 30 dwelling units per acre. The project has a proposed density of nine units per acre. For comparison, the minimum number of units required by the zoning at the subject site is 385 and there are 318 units proposed. Pursuant to UDC Section 17.35.010.A.1, the residential portion of the project is also subject to the approval of a MUP because the minimum required density is not met. The UDC defines on -site parking for office uses at a rate of one space per 250 square feet and light manufacturing at one space per every 500 square feet. The UDC requires 274 on - site spaces for the non-residential component, and a total of 219 parking spaces are provided. However, projects within the JCOZ may request a 20% parking reduction with appropriate justification. The Transportation Demand Program provides justification for the reduction with rideshare programs and bicycle amenities such as showers and bike lockers. The 219 parking stalls are anticipated to meet the needs for the proposed use and the 20% reduction has been applied to the parking required for this project. The non-residential component is required to provide a total of 44 electric vehicle (EV) capable parking spaces on -site and 44 would be provided. Of the 44 EV-capable parking spaces required, a minimum of 11 must be operational electric vehicle charging stations and 11 would be provided. The UDC defines on -site parking for the residential component at a rate of two enclosed parking spaces for two or more -bedroom units and one guest parking space for every two units. The UDC requires a total of 796 on -site parking spaces and 819 would be provided including 636 enclosed parking spaces and 183 guest parking spaces. Guest parking will be distributed throughout the site, including 24 guest parking spaces in excess of the UDC requirement of 159 guest parking spaces. A site plan of the project is attached for reference. • Architecture The project is consistent with the City's architectural design standards and more specifically is consistent with the Community Character Design Guidelines for the community of Saugus. The proposed design of the light manufacturing building is conceptual and the final design requires review and approval of an ADR. However, as proposed, the building includes both horizontal and vertical articulation, varying rooflines, warm and neutral colors, and appropriate building materials such as precast concrete and brick. The building demonstrates 360-degree architecture with enhanced architectural treatments on the primary frontage Page 7 Packet Pg. 37 0 facing Soledad Canyon Road. The truck loading docks would be located to the rear of the building and would be screened from public view and the residential component by the building. All roof mounted equipment, such as air conditioning equipment, would also be screened from public view by the parapet. In addition, a significant number of 24-inch, 36- inch, 48-inch, and 60-inch box trees would be planted along the frontage of the industrial component on Soledad Canyon Road, and throughout the site, to further soften the structure's appearance. Many of the species of trees proposed on -site are evergreen and would reach approximate heights ranging from 35 feet to 100 feet tall at maturity, obscuring views of the building. The project includes retaining walls, the highest of which would measure ten feet. However, most of the retaining walls would not be visible, or be only partially visible, from the public view along Soledad Canyon Road. Landscape would be incorporated to obscure views of the publicly visible retaining walls. The residential component offers a variety of different architectural styles and elevations that are consistent and appropriate with the Community Character Design Guidelines and specifically for the community of Saugus. The detached dwelling units offer three different architectural styles in the form of a Modern Mission style, an Italianate style, and a Spanish Colonial style. All three styles demonstrate 360-degree architecture with enhanced architectural elements such as decorative tile on the primary elevation as well as elevations that are facing Soledad Canyon Road. Each style exhibits stucco siding, s-tile roofs, varying roof lines, window trim, and neutral, earth tone colors. The attached dwelling units also incorporate 360-degree architecture with enhanced elements on the primary elevation and elevations that front Soledad Canyon Road or Commuter Way. The attached residential buildings are consistent with the style of Modern Mission and Spanish Colonial and exhibit stucco siding, s-tile roofs, varying roof lines, window trim, decorative window shutters and window trim, decorative iron railing, and neutral, earth tone colors. The restroom building located at the community pool also exhibits 360-degree architecture comprised of stucco siding, an s-tile roof, and neutral colors to be consistent with the design of the residential buildings. Elevations, renderings, and landscape plans for the project are attached for reference. 0 Oak Trees There are a total of 10 oak trees on or near the project site. Of the 10 oak trees identified, nine would be removed due to construction and grading activity, including the one heritage oak tree. The project would be conditioned to comply with all requirements of the Oak Tree Preservation ordinance in the UDC including mitigation, replacing oak trees, and monitoring the health of newly planted oak trees. The nine oak trees to removed are valued at $155,544 by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). The project would plant eight mitigation oak trees with an ISA valuation of $158,000 which exceeds the replacement value of the oak trees on site. These eight new Coast Live Oak trees would be located at the project entrances and within the community parks at varying box sizes ranging from 60-inch to 96-inch box trees In addition to the eight mitigation oak trees, the applicant is proposing to plant an additional 22 oak trees throughout the entire project site for a total of 30 new oak trees. Of these, the Page 8 Packet Pg. 38 0 non-residential component would include six Coast Live Oak trees at a 60-inch box size located at the two project driveways and 13 Cork Oaks along the project frontage. The overall landscaping plan proposes over 700 trees throughout the project site. The applicant will be required to work with the Urban Forestry Division to provide a final mitigation plan for the oak trees to be mitigated as part of the project approval. An existing and proposed Oak Tree exhibit is attached for reference. • Housing The residential portion of the project would be divided into four different planning areas and would include 318 residential units including 122 detached single-family condos and 196 attached townhomes. Planning Area 1 would include 17 buildings with single-family attached units which includes 95 rowtown units. There would be four different plan types offered in the rowtown with a carriage or one -bedroom unit, and three plans that offer three -bedroom units. All units include private outdoor space in the form of either a balcony or a patio. Planning Area 2 would include 60 single-family detached cluster units and Planning Area 3 would include 62 single-family detached cluster units. The detached units would include four different plan types with three- and four -bedroom unit configurations. All units include private outdoor space in the form of a backyard. Finally, Planning Area 4 would include 31 buildings with a total of 101 single-family attached backyard town units. These attached units would include three different plan types with one, three, and four -bedroom unit configurations and would include private outdoor space in the form of a backyard. As previously stated, the project site is identified as a Suitable Site in the Housing Element. The proposed 22 dwelling units available for low-income households would contribute to meeting the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation. If approved, the applicant would be required to work with the Housing Division to record an affordability covenant for 55 years and plan for the proposed affordable units. 0 Jobs Housing Balance A goal of the General Plan is to achieve a balanced ratio of jobs to housing with at least 1.5 jobs per household for the entire City. The non-residential component of the project is projected to provide approximately 204 jobs and the residential component includes 318 dwelling units with a j ob to housing ratio of 0.64 jobs for every one dwelling unit. A tenant for the light industrial building has not been determined at this time, so the estimate was calculated by utilizing an industry standard from SCAG with one employee for every 829 square feet of light manufacturing floor area and one employee for every 200 square feet of office space. Off -Site Improvements Page 9 Packet Pg. 39 0 Off -site improvements associated with the project would be completed by the applicant and include installation of a traffic signal at the easterly driveway of the industrial component, street trees, sidewalk, curb, gutter, and the relocation of street lights along the project frontage on Soledad Canyon Road and Commuter Way. In addition, improvements along the frontage of the project site on Soledad Canyon Road include median modification, a bus stop, street widening and right-of-way dedication for a right -turn pocket at the intersection of Soledad Canyon Road and Commuter Way. Commuter Way must also be widened to accommodate three northbound lanes with one right -turn lane and two left turn lanes. Signal modifications are required at the intersection of Soledad Canyon Road and Commuter Way to accommodate eastbound U-turn movements. These improvements would be subject to the approval and permitting process of the Public Works Department and would be conditioned accordingly by the Engineering and Traffic Engineering Divisions. ENVIRONMENTAL ISIMND The project is subject to CEQA. An IS/MND was prepared for the project by SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) and circulated for a public review period from June 25, 2024, to July 16, 2024. The IS/MND analyzed potential impacts to seven areas and determined that, with mitigation, none of the impacts from the project would be significant. The IS/MND is attached for reference. Areas for Mitigation The IS/MND identified the seven areas as having impacts that, with mitigation, would be less than significant. The seven areas with mitigation measures are air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and tribal cultural resources. All other areas analyzed would have either less than significant impacts or no impacts. The majority of the potential impacts can be reduced to a level of less than significant with mitigation measures that are considered standard best management practices. However, there is a mitigation measure and a project design feature that are unique for the proposed project as outlined below: 0 Noise The project site is bordered by a rehabilitation center to the west that has been identified as a potential sensitive receptor. As such, to minimize the impacts of construction and grading noise, a mitigation measure has been included to grade the hill from the east to the west so that the hill itself would act a noise barrier. Once the hillside has been graded, a temporary sound wall would be constructed on the property line that reduce noise impacts on the rehabilitation facility. Also, it should be noted that the UDC requires a noise study to determine the ambient noise level of the project area due to the proximity to the Union Pacific Railroad. The noise study must measure the ambient Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). If the ambient Page 10 Packet Pg. 40 0 noise level exceeds 60 CNEL, the noise study must propose mitigations or recommendations to reduce interior noise levels of the residential units to 45 CNEL. The noise study will be conditioned to be submitted along with construction drawings to the Building and Safety Division. 0 Air Quality The project proposes design features intended to reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants and green house gas emissions such as the use of electric appliances and electric fire places rather than natural gas -powered appliances. Comments received regarding the IS/MND have been attached for reference. NOTWING All notices required by law were completed which consisted of a legal advertisement in The Signal newspaper on June 25, 2024, direct mailing to owners within 1,000 feet of the projcet site, and the placement of a sign on the subject property on July 1, 2024. As of the writing of this staff report, staff has received no correspondence from the community. CONCLUSION Staff recommends the Planning Commission open the public hearing, provide direction to staff, and continue the meeting to a date certain. ATTACHMENTS Overall Site Plan and Tentative Tract Map Non -Residential Development Plans (Site Plan, Landscaping, Renderings and Elevations) Residential Development Plans (Site Plan, Landscaping, Oak Trees, Renderings and Elevations) Comments on Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration SCVHS Support Letter Preliminary TDM Program (available in the Planning Commission reading file) Fiscal Impact and Economic Benefit Analysis (available in the Planning Commission reading file) Draft Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration (available in the Planning Commission reading file) Public Notice Page 11 Packet Pg. 41 RIVERVIEW SITE PLAN 6/17/24 z: `"✓ ram_ -.----- '"- WO �— Y__ msar�� WvLi' �'�r`,� rn�wxrwne warm nr wes wvm n,xae mw wwawnem mrm mw rn,wrwwe uinm 2.a a, ._- e� � -� -- --- -� i Z RIVERVIEW TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 83605 II 2.a I flOLFDM GIMp1Ii0M (PIIBLCi EASSOM PROJECT SUMMARY `"", "aim` °,".:?fe ;� ::aaa.:: m. >a, a �.. .'� •a EARTMNORK SLA" Sn wz FLOOD ZONE nsQe."a TOPOGRAPHY: ..e .....�...,..::. ,..... .a:s.a. •:.:.......,... a.,....."•�m..`.,:'ae°":..war.., > .:.....:. a.: mw BEJCHMPoC: ,a o.aaa iu:w.+.a.:�.aa -a ,w » • ue m :A:: mmwo .,t: m . mm.a.. :.. ,. ama:..a a.m. •.:"..:a.a MS,gx°N—E.. AS a LEGAL DIMCRIPTIM CONDOIMIIUTA NOTE PUBLIC UTLRE& GENERAL NOTES wE w«uonam r.mr e.Pa `E :NU N EaorcEe:xo :xa 9��N CRY OF SAMA CURRA y�`Pe TE— C-ENi[�RIVERVIEW NE—1 , �em �P TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 83605 n1rx: �ii�erv�nxEe o J� roe«° x d PA 4 y F SPA 1 LOT, J » -- of �q� — — — — Ct x o - : j 1 91 ea -�I� '', I[ �€ ���/ `•././ I \ \ ...-6u�{>���/:i=.�,�jff - :� / ? ®FFF F'rFr A F \\ 7g7g 9 444 GRAPHIC SCALE 1 W YSI l , mce 60 n K Px'� a m L.xL..IANCE ux wrcwem roe: eNMRIc ixewux�I71Ts ,o0 1 n.e rCennn`w.: n .rnxo s rx"rcceixo ixe x o cx moon Iq i-9B9B .. N, G � 2Eor CITY OF SANTA CLARITA JE [ RIVERVIEW TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 6300510-12 2.a � cv wrow l �= 4. SPA 4 x ° r J 1 I `\\` - ..� �` i✓.s�' / ��/ > 4 s ' lel.iru 4 n 'f I �b I C� @ g `m d 1 J ( k r I , vll Ar w r t $ Q l i w � T a � _ — IE GRAPHIC SCALE 1 W YS1 l � mce 60 A AL IANCE e wrcwem ux roe: N=RI c Co Ts wux�IT eroo 1 n.e rCenn°`w.: n .µAo s rxorcceixo ixe x o cs moon Iq r-eB9B v. N, G � 3Eor CITY of SANTA CLAILTA J3 [ RIVERVIEW TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 11111 m: W&'l'A- 2.a 0Ma.� ` _�i'9S7A/. :� III■II■I �h■�' .� _ail®Il��■JL. E. �■\■ �L� � PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS OF THE PROPERTY ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER ZONING � uam usr mrvE lux c)1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION APPLICANT 11ooAT;aITEI-El ".' APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE eervTa9G�asa�. TABULATION E,"1 .1 - ms �� fJ � 1 � 0 o c oSCPPfD PPEA lrvu LOR ��ory o-o a x1 1 suouLo a� n aom ar Tu6E corrrrzVc, oocuurrv,s ANC tAT �a. EEE oE,aL ro/o.e-n,.o �!� o . rv1aTE wd ^. RrvErv, o o E- Epa .x�e EEE 151_EE " REeu�_ � N� eEe o ,Paerv=ToeE u EOPEN L oe o R,pP^= c <oPNexN<TELe<,e„ 13 0 PPAD eePm Eo ,x� � ELOPNEm Pane To ssuarv1E of ©a �" EkNo; PPae ® etas P�a,ry, _ _P PEaT. LNE T � E n 1E. of EaNPL eR To PueLE ' �._ Pn oT an^EL �.= eE.e1E eLoe oPMErvT narv� es Plx exNlw<. ® 21 Pam^,L 1a Av f aE rvL r T ry Lerv^, xrv, N 1u 11,. LTE1 DE-1— 1a <s P­ DE �E .. feoN e�G ry wx s0 [uREnT[0 WITx a NiRiuuN 0 ex HL" rvs naE roe src w (AsBj�uicu cue 0 Lo T iu x T v T - t wnoirva eEreMn uu ISROscnPE PUR PNiop To 0 n e1on E Lo 1.1 IF ­11F—El ALL AI eorv%ory 0 m T reo Pos coin u.rvn. ,z x. wT Tre rvww Os Ta T - w/ 1 212 �EEEI ga1 T x E�arv. E�LLEa NaTE A5L IF`1= � 9�wxeE tea Np2H7 ra .111—D ON a —a SITEARFA N s.f 322,146 f q�LgN6 AREA 7 4.a anaela mE 5099 T Nkzzanme S.OW sf h6nufactumg it6,T50 sf TOTAL IR8190 sf R BRA RATN) Actual m bwe 0.39d AUTO PARKINGR�IIR® 39d% gllce: 1250 sf. 40 sells rhrfg: Imo e.f. 23d stllK 2]4 s PARKING REDUCTION 20%OF 274 SII1 =55 stalls(P 55) 219 sells PoUNG A 0J1 ® sn Ilh,g(12x 18 5'1 fI "d P Nn9 (9'x19'+5) ] s l PAPoONGRWUR® P✓ ppaOle (9' x 10 39 stlb 9 s�bK bK 6+5) 62 Ilk stalk ,IB*s� s abib 33 ebb EV 9 stab ebb 217 abl TRA LER PARKING PROV fID (1 TO— z19 :I. EGNNG �a Zone (NM-E) LAN—A L01NG IEIGHI ALLOWID PEl— r - a-5% al ttk gross are a of lire NarNrg M 1756 sf PROVIGFD 55,-12] sf 17 A% SETBACKS � a n v lars ck from Rona-25 AERIAL MAP e �PKhY ST��D C�H vo F 0 SITE s h,A 1e651 tameeo a,e��e. me. aoo 9� tel. a 6 A:949 3G eTal hpoCM1aehAVh..Lon Owns: INT®RAL Communllles ■ Project: SOLEDAD ROAD I— STLE— R9 SANTA CIAFIl CA Consultants: CIVIL Alliarte 'TR(.TLRAL 111111NCAL - PLLMBING ELECTWAL u o c. E Nwtat Lano,�ae R `FCIA SItlLsfrlWrlffR 0 Tile: OV=_RAILITE PLAN eTSa, _>410 C Late. 1L11— a SOLEDAD CANYON RnAr7 lqspv4ww//////, BUILDING 77� CID Gn QQ G o QJ- C-�, D- 22500 Soledad 0 20 40' 80 d HUNTER LANDSCAPE A9F 1 ,� �l I I .2d88 FAX 714.986.2488 Santa Clarita, California NORTH EAST SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD CORNER Perspective View 22500 SOLEDAD RD INTEGRAL C () Ill Ill LI 11 i I Ic'4 Packet Pg. 48 NORTH WEST SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD CORNER 2.b �J Perspective View 22500 SOLEDAD RD I INTEGRAL C () Ill Ill LI 11 i I Ic'4 Packet Pg. 49 i i OBLIQUE VIEW f k ; .... pt..1 Building Elevations - 32 ft .1- 22500 SOLEDAD ROAD C E INTEGRAL C 0 M Ill U 11 i I i C-S A nn'W11111 1 kF Al M 11 F I 01'PkN1 I Packet Pg. 50 OA�KRIDGE 10 20 0 15 Schematic Landscape Plan Oakridge Landscape "" mmE^'Rs°r°^t Data ^Ea ROzq L�1 RIVERVIEW - SANTA CLARITA t o� LEGEND 1 C , uniIYRec .f .,m 0i pal,'p, fI,1'' r,a11,ii pt arms area, BBQ 14.. Pcp d 'I1,1l tli t, ter ce, per wall S Ten^eP canter and w.adshade tructue wih hufge seal n3 alea;. ee L-2. 1.. F.Psed t-DerPlanting1- VJu_o Shade siru_Iure BBG e'ae witt�5l eoar1, i een c', acating. ace L-3. 16. B' woa arse lend palat pit-- iIlk, U math "yea tract' park design 3. for parkv&dea^mp-sed3—te.Fen^hladi,—, it mat ng. and d" bag station; theme. ee L;t. cce 17. ssieh parldrg tall and t,r i, r, Civil plays. 4. O11.0Ur, oily lien,W,Araev,i, pianotFvle eaeting.chwsteJes. and 16. teal lat,,� tuna iveard active asa3e. see L-L F-p-pa0rski1. 19. P-psed entry mrnument r,alllpilater(Fature. .. Face tmuk themrvd Nl-ht play arza(ur agrv=E-12wil, cl rtoer, apinrar, a,j 26. C_mun ty jno tag vale atati�n. s•,iPs. see L-B. 22. list monument = VerimJar entry ways e,it, Specimen tze A QVP p,r NQMP,L-1Lebasln. perCivil Engineer Plans. 26nka,cedvehealar^_aving. Bite reoka 11?bite lac, to accommodate 2o_ke pe,,b spaces'. D. klaw Glly MD Say. D. B. P. Testing rooksttih'lle�'elc_laradccn�relagItatano bench seating. FCk-yT-a. l4. Cityfi,T—Ml Trese.Saeh,ntiny Plan iShsat L-BA and L$Bl end 4. Trrsfimer Pr-trers,f be. nR-i try ve.getatinn. Evisting Tme Mitigation PIar ISFeet-tt. At 1T. PA-'ISirgkFami,PtS,-,,-Fwlov,rslomnmanily dasta'mebmaseW pemcl Parkrvilhr,mdshede sLuotwe, Mono tablesaati,g,oheas tables, 2E. O,,it taker units, ray I ISPA a^pmval. 1y park Benches aro real hv:n tnr passve and active. usage; see. I -4. 11 PA-215irgkFrm60elanhed-Cluster - murity tb:te' Ib-.. sandpar,,1 26. Chair EaL-2. C_ulsY ex Im kc+unils,eer US PS e:,,i, al. 27. Resigned Oily Mctr_Ink LM3 Parkv,ay on 0 ommuc;t Way. 12. PA:i SirgkF-1, CetaoFed-CWstertc-Tmorily cla=_te' ma lh:wes and panel 26. ,o Trani Enchsue. Iccla-r units, .ter tlSPi a^pmval. 29. Reaoing —kv, th la�gr-specimr-n shade t--s and Adi--k,"at"" 13. PA-415irg't", Atteciaa- Ba,vwi, T. i,p oommunq�clusmr-iilCiixas and K. Comm,n try aaraan a-,v,,ith reiaad plentus, daccnpawd gran ti, end pcttiny anal to ker,r to Fa r US IS cppr ^I. shell tand ISreet.Z! 31. 1,t,1 l co tcrata plapi, tlh parkM1-)tmapna lS heat L2 etd LB). 14 IURANCH o� Schematic Perspective 3D Views - Commuter Park Oakridge Landscape I"" . . . t R °^ p o RO,1 L-5 RIVERVIEW - SANTA CLARITA t o� 7 ROAD _g SOLE DAD CANYON 1 I 1►11 BUILDING AREA ail 126,790 S-F- tjI INOTBASIN r SOLED ANyo 0 A D . " --- °a 18 DOCK I teal. - it I ...... „u ........ it i aF, _ I 011111.111 ^ I I d dy I'oa uou ntl rto noaetl � brae sd F �a J a NOTES 1 Ir'gatlon(all subsurface pndlo'paint source) will heprovided, ' Construction the Consictan Document _ �_ ) � � --m- � � • phase, andto be installed perleml California ,star regulatiems(AB1881). 2. Transformers back 90 m reventers & other above-ground utilities to be screened with T� C9L landscape promoted prlcal codes & regulations. 3. Landscapelighting Q d ape up -lights, path lights/bollards ere.) re be caDminced with Electrical Engineer In future phase. 4. The plant palette listed provides a list of plant material to select from when preparing final •/ A �" JJ �i _ I o�l�j C landscape wnstruohan documents for this project However substitutions may be required due diti— A oval withlily, Salle reardscsts optherbe installed p 5. All trees within 5 of hardsca a to be installed with doe root barriers. PLANTING LEGEND sNRres wowsWJCI��' C� Name Name [eS Spm'rntl - tY. �1 I� �® Bymhol TypelForm Suggestions Trunk Slze Canopy Size (5-10 Yr.) (Rq. (Reg. 4) B. Cxl common Sri4 C 4) Qty. FM Zone F Ae s E 15,39 s NJ h h, illa . I .,a PALMS Botanical Name (Common Name, s ,f t s. I� os r s T., 1 r p ao my J_f '-mil H p: I p R.d I "Flhn V,aae Gr3; a �, Vedical Phoenix declyllfere (Dee Palmy Single 19' BT 35-45' Law 19 B30 r. a a M c LOY, y f o as e TREES Evergreen Quercus agrifale(coast Live Oak) Natural 48"196" 35-45Law 11 B30 m—Ia c man mine sl LISP Inv wl>coLs� - l - c, t Native Refer to Sheat L-8for MIN attsn Oak Trees m < art Pei ce2a • 1 1 yy y� � v a • a, .' c •ti C • _c C • c � C � y •1�-�1 c: 9 u s e hFlt 1ytB r GCm ,r ) Specimen Magnolia B D Blanchard Single 48 160' 1530' Low 3 B al", t t p p rl, s 0 dz of a gnolia (Southern MaSmrjE1 Box 20-25� oII t. tlk n o torn Olea'Wissn' W'Isnn Olive) Multi Law A-15 t r t d a es t eaaatat N uv rtIpp. v vatah,uU o@4 wuJm 'S%/ .• k Spscimen Dlmusp TI True Green' Single 24736" 30-40' MI 1 B F li. P ho 4a v d NG rk� Ll AA C'® IJ • U( r C� tit n o r "-- Natn a (True Green Ctlnce, Elm) Bax �a"ae a F° a' C a R C, C r y V s Y Lea i v .La tPI. @ v mart i„ , F T. i Aooent Lager;troemla Ixf'Nafchez' Single 36' Box 15-20' Men! 45 A-10 N a o 1 erar e w Inw � RD cnl/ e (whtle crape myrtle) Pn �, ®a mPaer q p O Street Tristanisconterla(Brishaae Box) Single 24'I36" 20-25' Mad 136 A-15 � %/� �a •._-� _ A ram„• CG(a :.e c.c Med "� • d �� a Deciduous Plabom revemoaa Single 24"136" 35-40' Med 27 B R IF - el R yea, 15GQ42 a.r ww�"m t Buffer Box an en I a ee Reaanah - Native California Sycamore) g Be, o waK,aa soea s C a a S' `��� • I t BV - O Flowering Ambutus come (Strawberry Tree) Mluglel 24"Boz 10-15' Low 164 A-15 v re cN.Tae ear saast Roaamoiy ese a.r. sv, _ ck- Cents a. Forest Pansy Sin�lgtltlle/ 20-25' Mod A-10 (Forest Pansy pedals) Multi �< / eOrap- N.y11P Common Name She6epr.1. wmCOLS _ Vertical Acacia stenophylla (Shoestring Acacia) Single 24"Is6" 15-20' Mod 71 A-15 omah Fa�Naky saoea fate, u��a. � cane a Inv. Melaleuca urn uenervla Cae ut tree) o`I B Box [0-26' Med A-15 r. vaseaua nahn-a "aL°s soMae°a.a. ww g q ( IP � nt � vela Neeolelmss 1 @ Columnar Prunus c.'Bright n Tight (Cherry Laurel) Columnar 24"Box 6;3' Mad 127 6 wurhn. rva nsans paarress Ir @,.4 Inw "''^vvuv,ro Carrier Pinus aldarioa(Mandell Rrae Single 15 Gal. 2025 LoN 12 B Ruunlo wERs ® -_. t t 'Li fib L,, d t tar I. _c r� i; Proposes Cy Abut, a Marine (Strawberry Tea) Single 24"Box 20-25 Lora 42 A-15 E ebc vie .1i ,Id a e w� .. try 1 Parkway Tree "City LNID Parkway Tree a �s=a"' q1' (Final Selections l Locations per TOTAL TREE C0- E47 e.t,atsrIn., Groat P,taS o-.ar mf,errum t LN s'a<. Law Multi -Unit Residential Standard Note. City', Dlreotisn) VINES e ESPALIERS 30t II t id -- O pKRIDGE @araMCN l ame Cotnmae a— Aired Spacing w'— elId,Eaatlaea�an on, olwvina SG,Pe%an Law Schematic Planting Plan A are per overa gross pri mi, acreage are man re . 15% f trees shall he 4B" has or greater. KEYMAP 20%of trees shall be 36" box or greater. Oakridge Landscape m'°'R`"'a" Ioa.L ta.�na"L�O� RIVERVIEW - SANTA CLARITA WA o� _ PLANTING LEGEND Symbol Typ,/F m BSu gestName jCommonName) Trunk S'ze C(5-10yYF.)e (Rog 4S QN. FMZo, __ _ __ v TREESVerticaI Phoenix tlactyl,(era (Date Palm) Single 168T 3545 Low 19 Bd0 — — — — — — - _ - e� � � _ _ - -� -'+`- - `� --- - - Evergreen Referte heetlla(Coastt atlon Oak Ti aural 46"AJ6" 36-45' Low 11 Bd0 ark , e'chard Singlet Bo U - [ ■.2,� Lwug/W Native�"''L^-�- mx - Spearman Magnofa DeD.eenohaNg Single 48"160" 1530' Low 3 B _ _ � L E D A D C A N Y O N R�0 A D---c Native e OTlea WilisGreeMa ( e Elm Box Law A 15 µ ,�� Y - nllg UTn,e Green' Single 24"/36" 3040' Mad 1 8 . on Dllve Multi _ p cite n p vtolia Absent Lagerstruernisxf'Namhez Single 36 Bor. 15-20' Mad 45 A-10 �� ❑ C - I C r��"' Myrtle} j Street& Trlstanla ccnferta(Brisbane Box) Single 24/36 20-25 Men! 136 A-15 ZI C �L �2 g : Buffer Bor. Deciduous platanus moemosa Single 2473E 35-40 Mad 27 B - '` e ♦ i Native (Caffurnia Sycamore) Box i� Fk ing Ambut is unedo (Strawberry Tree) Mu�jjs/ 24 Box 10-15 Low 164 A-15 O Comis c. Forest Pansy Singlal 20-25' Mad A-10 z (Forest Pansy Redbud) Multi ® ® L, O Vertical Acacia smnophylla (Shoestring Acacia) Single 24 /36" 15-20' Mad 71 A-15 Melaleuca qu'nquenervia(Cojeput tree) MoultilB Box 20-25Mad A-15 m 0 Columnar Prunus a. Bright n Tighf (Cherry Laurel) Columnar 24rrBox 6-8' Mad 127 B Confer P'nus eldarca(Nlondell Pine) Single 15 Gal. 20-25' Low 12 B C ❑ C ® I+ D ' Propposed lily Arbutus Marina (Strawberry Tree`, Single 24' Box 20-25' Low 42 A-15 =° �? ❑ C 1 -G Parkway Tree ^'City LMD Parkway Tree (Final Selections; Locations per TOTAL TREE QTY= 647 f n� Ciry's Direction) q Eu sHPLss Wucors ■ CIV: VV � � M,o � BOGnmal Name Common Name Sized Spaeinp lRep 41 c t L �]' C I (. ]' C ` � �x r'1 r;��� al PP I.. s � 02 C� I f 4 p yl'. M..' rn T.. 1, rp In R tl V.II wV a 5GA F 5GC a IT C' F`:3 ['© per] C�Lx°-1 PF Ai� wren er v.era iGG@42 .e �,.ir �-`-�.-. • � � I [ a > o r t1 C -- B G III C Name Srze d Sp q WUCULS �i\■■■ ■■ �: ( �7 C� -i t-��� Colo f t'zJ�7 +nr,`■'a ■■■■' . ■ 5iGGr.60 I,.M d' G,3A ee L tlkaJ PaseBabenY GG d 42 M 0©3 Loll, I o-f e ttlhbmh 5GA L �"6Im mEG- c II v t'a P 4 eoataa H, Lty 5cC 4 - In fate a o 0 0 #5 s • • r � � � + � Limit orWdrk -t EX - + ISiING RAILROAD A� TRACKS FUEL MODIFICATION ZONE NOTES: �ea fm��m ee oeae rta a,�aea 1. Irrigation (all subsurface and/or point source) will be provided, in the Construction Document phase, and m be installed per Wcal California water regulations IAB1881) . Pe ul 2. Transformers,back-flow preventers& other aboveground utilities to be screened with Olandscape as permitted per local codes & regulations. m a ee ter= rep 3. Landscape lighting jlandseepe up41ghts, path Iightslbollards, etc.) to be coordinated with om I iyr aaao. Electrical Bug 1near in future phase. 4. The plant palette listed provides a list of plant material to select fmm when preparing final O m. ,1N --earee,e:. _—s lrr m IN FTrom landscapeconstruction documents for this project. HmNever, substitutions may be r1-1 �e Tn�reIaea mama teed refuo trealee. Alltrrequired s dnetc availability, soils testssnouted with conditions. Schematic Planting Plan B 5. All trees within 5' of hardscape to be installed with deep root barriers. O pKRIDGE F II P ppl Guara 151@lie' AI dim LB t w, lP iPreet 51@3E AIdiem I d—,k, HeaeenA'5arctoo EG@3e I� - � pTl. F. spa. Fb pM1 by pp F11 p runt Y pY kpa E,G�gfr' M.dum EGQ C - M'dum R T ea 1 EI 11 15@ 42 L I I p w t o r m1e-.Lkbr N.. sea iR Tory 51 wT 46 L' 5G@lib c .A t 6r aIN C d N B B f.l. .rtlm, SzI WUCULS 1G Ad(4 L. �+ .�_Z_ N II plan kl to b _,ree, -IN o a rp,= 1GAa L A e �. L t t-L f f fi tC,t i h@ 72Lo: = FYI g II Itl ItlE uB - 1�A' Lou 11 {rn n -alai,Creek' 'F,ch Creek ay, um 1G do 7 e. Lnr +y T VINE'GEE'^,i— Bafanfca'Name Camman Name Sized Sptting WUCULS ,Wfsdyann u,a, a ant, cet's In,V,nc ;rlPcr Plnn tnu; A _ MiAlti-Unit Residential Standard Note: 30 trees per overall gross project acreage are required. 15% of trees shall be 48" box or greater. 20% of trees shall be 36" box or greater. KEYMAP Oakridge Landscape mme°'Re°'e'° cafe a en,. 0zq L-8E RIVERVIEW - SANTA CLARITA WA o� o� naEAn 126790 S.F. I � , — -- ILL", � u� E� 5�3-- — — —— O pKRIDGE -1,_� t pap kN b, Ro�=� ll a _ 9 — IIli I���,���FF PL W-7 77 �` ,>,.,.�_ •- �� Lr- .1�rrr�mrrrrrulrrr�ilmn�r� ti-,, � e Schematic Oak Tree Mitigation Planting Plan Riverview Oak Mitigation Summary - Preliminary J— seeaes '�' nnamu: asdrmia epg apertpt agrpona naerena aargmm net naeana aadrolia ge $ s s 5 tt4 Iola `preumi ry Onlfte oak Miligli. lup--t wme 5 $ se,pop.pp RARplaremnttWluedOa MtI,pl,n-P.rl282IFrg,E.n.Repm[ s 1lsssgg.gp) Omits Oak g n p eme�rc value m[�ressM p n q mmt $ 3p56.Op I t♦t✓ I� * Oakridp Landscape RIVERVIEW - SANTA CLARITA 'l4Jd'E RIVERVIEW OAK TREE EXHIBrr (NTH DEVELOPMENT) 1/10/22 �j ..a - . _ a - Aim&SiS �rf 1.,. tM-gyp , y -a'i qr"�., _ _ _ , .? `� tL-" •�.,r,'tfi'rf �.�''�r r iE 11 a x y� s- 1 y h � � 4 y��^y `+Yet` S � � � ,• ; � r R s g$ �• ` w pop Y 1,2 FF'' �, z - -AMA r l MATERIAL NOTES 1. CONCRETE 'S' ROOF TILE 2. STUCCO ROOF ELEVATION 05.29.24 2 L—lal,61 RONT ELEVATION SCALE: 1 /a' - 1'O REAR ELEVATION CAIE:i""=1' 08' ' 4' FRONT & REAR ELEVATIONS ENHANCED SCALE: 1 /4" = 1' RIVERVIEW I INTEGRAL COMMUNITIES A a " °'"°'°"'3';°attp°683723l1 — Il I.,. n, // 80120! 103,kd-31 SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA =°1 nun 92P7 3/949 553.891 .11 /t 6t.A Santa nu ca 9 2.d South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 (909) 396-2000 • www.agmd.gov SENT VIA E-MAIL: j sauder(a,Santa-carita. com Justin Sauder, Associate Planner City of Santa Clarita, Planning Division 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Proposed Riverview Development Proiect (Proposed Proiect) (SCH No.: 2024061060) July 11, 2024 South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) staff appreciate the opportunity to review the above -mentioned document. The City of Santa Clarita is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Lead Agency for the Proposed Project. To provide context, South Coast AQMD staff has provided a brief summary of the project information and prepared the following comments, which are organized by topic of concern. South Coast AQMD Staff s Summary of Project Information in the MND Based on the information provided in the MND, the Proposed Project includes constructing 318 single-family units and a 126,790-square-foot light industrial building on a 35.2-acre property.l The Proposed Project is located at 22500 Soledad Canyon Way in Santa Clarita.2 The proposed project site would be split into five planning areas (PAs), where PAs 1, 2, 3, and 4 are dedicated to residential development, while PA 5 is for a light manufacturing building.3 The light industrial building would provide 18 dock doors and generate approximately 609 average daily truck trips.4 According to aerial photographs, South Coast AQMD staff found that the nearest sensitive receptor is within 100 feet northwest of the Proposed Project site. The site preparation and grading are expected to begin in late 2024 and conclude by December 2025, with building construction commencing in 2026 and lasting for over four to five years.5 South Coast AQMD Staff s Comments on the MND Recommendation on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses (Residential Areas) The Proposed Project is located within the land use and zoning designation of Mixed -Use Corridor (MXC), 6 which allows the use of the proposed property. 7 However, South Coast AQMD is concerned about the potential health impacts of siting the manufacturing building that generates 1 N1ND. Page 1. 2lbid. ' Ibid. Pages 5 and 7. 4 Appendix A - Health Risk Assessment. Page 12. 'Ibid. Page 10. ' Ibid. Page 4. 7lbid. Page 20. Packet Pg. 61 Justin Sauder July 11, 2024 2.d 609 daily truck trips$ that are in close proximity to existing and new sensitive land uses since the operation generates and attracts heavy-duty diesel -fueled trucks that emit Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM). Based on the aerial photographs, South Coast AQMD staff found that the nearest existing sensitive receptor is within 100 feet northwest of the Proposed Project site at 22722 Soledad Canyon Road. Also, according to the IS-MND, Figure 3. Site Plan, it is estimated that the loading docks/truck idling would be less than 500 feet from existing and proposed residential areas. When the health impacts from the Proposed Project are added to the existing background, both existing and new residents living in the surrounding communities will likely face even greater exposure to air pollution and bear a disproportionate burden of increasing health risks. Moreover, the proposed high -density residential area will be north of the Southern Pacific Railroad line. Consequently, the lead agency is recommended to follow CARB and South Coast AQMD land - use guidance to ensure that sensitive receptors are not heavily affected by the warehouse truck activities and other sources of emissions. This guidance includes: 1) The CARB's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective is a general reference guide for evaluating and reducing air pollution impacts associated with new projects that go through the land use decision -making process with additional guidance on strategies to reduce air pollution exposure near high -volume roadways available in CARB's technical adviso1y.10 2) The South Coast AQMD's Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning" includes suggested policies that local governments can use in their General Plans or through local planning to prevent or reduce potential air pollution impacts and protect public health. It is recommended that the Lead Agency review this Guidance Document as a tool when making local planning and land use decisions. By adhering to these essential guidance documents and implementing proactive Mitigation Measures (MMs), the Lead Agency can avoid, eliminate, or reduce the adverse impacts of warehouse and truck activities on public health, ensuring that vulnerable communities are adequately protected from disproportionate exposure to air pollution. Recommend Revision to Air Quality Mitigation Measure In the air quality section of the MND, the Proposed Project's regional and localized construction and operational emissions have been quantified and compared to South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds,12 and the results are presented in Table 7.13 However, the localized s Appendix A - Health Risk Assessment. Page 12. 9 CARB°s Air Quality andLand Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective can be found at: http://www.arb.ca.�zov/ch/handbook.12df. ° CARB's technical advisory can be found at: https://www.arb.ca.�zov/ch/landuse.htm. South Coast AQMD. 2005. Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning. Available at: http://www.agmd.�zov/docs/default-source/planning/air-qualiiyy_uidance/complete-guidance-document.12df. " South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. Available at: https://www.agmd.�zov/does/default- source/cega/handbook/south-coast-agmd-air-quality-significance-threshoIds.1)df. 1 Ibid. Page 24. 2 Packet Pg. 62 Justin Sauder July 11, 2024 2.d construction emissions show an exceedance for PMio. The mitigation measure MM AIR-114 is proposed with "all off -road diesel powered construction equipment of 50 hp or more used for the project construction at a minimum meets the California Air Resources Board Tier 2 emissions standards equipped with level 3 diesel particulate filters. " The MND concludes that with the implementation of MM AIR-1, the Proposed Project -related emissions would be less than significant.15 Even though the implementation of MM AIR-1 could reduce the impacts, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency revise the MM AIR-1 to ensure the use of the cleanest technology, which currently is Tier 4 equipment, as it is available and feasible to reduce the impacts from the construction activities further. Health Risk Reduction Strategies Many strategies are available to reduce exposures, including, but not limited to, building filtration systems with MERV 13 or better, or in some cases, MERV 15 or better is recommended, building design, orientation, location, vegetation barriers, landscaping screening, etc. Enhanced filtration units are capable of reducing exposures. However, enhanced filtration systems have limitations. For example, in a study that South Coast AQMD conducted to investigate filters,16 a cost burden is expected to be within the range of $120 to $240 per year to replace each filter panel. The initial start-up cost could substantially increase if an HVAC system needs to be installed and if standalone filter units are required. Installation costs may vary and include costs for conducting site assessments and obtaining permits and approvals before filters can be installed. Other costs may include filter life monitoring, annual maintenance, and training for conducting maintenance and reporting. In addition, because the filters would not have any effectiveness unless the HVAC system is running, there may be increased energy consumption that the Lead Agency should evaluate in the Final MND. It is typically assumed that the filters operate 100 percent of the time while residents are indoors, and the environmental analysis does not generally account for the times when the residents have their windows or doors open or are in common space areas of the project. These filters have no ability to filter out any toxic gases. Furthermore, when used filters are replaced, replacement has the potential to result in emissions from the transportation of used filters at disposal sites and generate solid waste that the Lead Agency should evaluate in the Final MND. Therefore, the presumed effectiveness and feasibility of any filtration units should be carefully evaluated in more detail prior to assuming that they will sufficiently alleviate exposures to diesel particulate matter emissions. South Coast AQMD Rules, Permits, and Responsible Agency Based on the information in Appendix A — Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis, the Proposed Project would require the use of a new 500-horsepower diesel backup generator.17 Hence, air permits from South Coast AQMD will be required, and the role of South Coast AQMD would change from a Commenting Agency to a Responsible Agency under CEQA. In addition, if South Coast AQMD is identified as a Responsible Agency, per CEQA Guidelines Sections15086, the 14Ibid. Page 26. s Ibid. Page 25. 6 This study evaluated filters rated NMRV 13 or better. Available at: http://www.agmd.�zov/does/defaultsource/cega/handbook/agmdl2ilotstudyfinalrel2ort.12d£ Also, see South CoastAQMD's 2012 Peer Review Journal article at httt)s://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ina.12013. 17 Appendix A. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis. Page 2. 3 Packet Pg. 63 Justin Sauder July 11, 2024 2.d Lead Agency is required to consult with South Coast AQMD. In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15096 sets forth specific procedures for a Responsible Agency, including making a decision on the adequacy of the CEQA document for use as part of evaluating the applications for air permits. For these reasons, the Final MND should include a discussion about any new stationary and portable equipment requiring South Coast AQMD air permits and identify South Coast AQMD as a Responsible Agency for the Proposed Project. The Final MND should also include calculations and analyses for construction and operation emissions for the new stationary and portable sources, as this information will also be relied upon as the basis for the permit conditions and emission limits for the air permit(s). Please contact South Coast AQMD's Engineering and Permitting staff at (909) 396-3385 for questions regarding what types of equipment would require air permits. For more general information on permits, please visit South Coast AQMD's webpage at http://www.agmd.gov/home/permits. C nn rl n ci nn The Lead Agency is recommended to revise the CEQA analysis to address the aforementioned comments and provide the necessary evidence to sufficiently support the conclusions reached. If the requested information and analysis are not included in the final CEQA document, either the Final MND or other type of CEQA document, the Lead Agency should provide reasons for not doing so. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15074, prior to approving the Proposed Project, the Lead Agency shall consider the MND for adoption together with any comments received during the public review process and notify each public agency when any public hearings are scheduled. Please provide South Coast AQMD with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the adoption of the Final MND. When responding to issues raised in the comments, detailed reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record to explain why specific comments and suggestions are not accepted must be provided. In addition, if the Lead Agency decides to adopt the Final MND, please provide South Coast AQMD with notice of any scheduled public hearing(s). Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. South Coast AQMD staff is available to work with the Lead Agency to address any air quality questions that may arise from this comment letter. Please contact Danica Nguyen, Air Quality Specialist, at dnguyenl(a_�,agmd. ov should you have any questions. SW:DN LAC240626-01 Control Number Sincerely, Saw Zug Sam Wang Program Supervisor, CEQA-IGR Planning, Rule Development & Implementation 4 Packet Pg. 64 2.d LOS ANGELES COUNTY Robert Ferrante Chief Engineer and General Manager SANITATION DISTRICTS 1955 Workman Mill Road, Whittier, CA 90601-1400 Converting Waste Into Resources Mailing Address: P.O. Box 4998, Whittier, CA 90607-4998 (562) 699-7411 • www.lacsd.org VIA EMAIL jsauderksanta-clarita.com Mr. Justin Sauder, Associate Planner City of Santa Clarita, Planning Division 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mr. Sander July 10, 2024 Ref. DOC 7256553 Second Response to Riverview Development Proiect The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (Districts) received a Notice of Intent (NOI) to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the subject project located in the City of Santa Clarita on June 27, 2024. Previous comments submitted by the Districts in correspondence dated September 15, 2023 (copy enclosed), still apply to the subject project with the following updated information: Section 1.4.5 Utility and Drainage Improvements, Page 9: The second paragraph states "Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the site would be required to be annexed into the County Sanitation District, per Development Review Committee Comments." Please note that the parcel is already annexed into the Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District. 2. The proposed project is located approximately one-half mile from the Saugus Water Reclamation Plant, which is owned and operated by the Districts. As such, the MND should consider and evaluate, if necessary, any potential impacts on the proposed project. All other information concerning Districts' facilities and sewerage service contained in the document is current. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (562) 908-4288, extension 2742, or phorsleyklacsd.org. Very truly yours, %�a�iirir%a �o Patricia Horsley Environmental Planner Facilities Planning Department PLH:ts Enclosure DOC 7265483.SCV Packet Pg. 65 2.d 064 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS Converting Waste Into Resources VIA EMAIL reecelabountvnallianceen2.com Mr. Reece LaBounty Project Coordinator Alliance Land Planning & Engineering, Inc. 2248 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mr. LaBounty: Robert C. Ferrante Chief Engineer and General Manager 1955 Workman Mill Road, Whittier, CA 90601-1400 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 4998, Whittier, CA 90607-4998 (562) 699-7411 • www.lacsd.org September 15, 2023 Ref. DOC 7026091 Will Serve Letter for Tentative Tract Map No. 83605 The Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District (District) received your will serve letter request for the subject project, located in the City of Santa Clarita, on September 12, 2023. We offer the following comments regarding sewerage service: The wastewater flow originating from the proposed project will discharge directly to the Districts' Soledad Canyon Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 Trunk Sewer, located in Soledad Canyon Road west of Commuter Way. The Districts' 15—inch diameter trunk sewer has a capacity of 4 million gallons per day (mgd) and conveyed a peak flow of 2.3 mgd when last measured in 2018. A 6-inch diameter or smaller direct connection to a Districts' trunk sewer requires a Trunk Sewer Connection Permit issued by the Districts. An 8-inch diameter or larger direct connection to a Districts' trunk sewer requires submittal of Sewer Plans for review and approval by the Districts. For additional information, please contact the Districts' Engineering Counter at (562) 908-4288, extension 1205, or en ing eeringcounternlacsd.org. 2. The District operates two water reclamation plants (WRPs), the Saugus WRP and the Valencia WRP, which provide wastewater treatment in the Santa Clarita Valley. These facilities are interconnected to form a regional treatment system known as the Santa Clarita Valley Joint Sewerage System (SCVJSS). The SCVJSS has a capacity of 28.1 mgd and currently processes an average recycled flow of 18.4 mgd. The expected increase in average wastewater flow from the project, described in the application as 195 attached townhomes, 122 detached townhomes, and 68,000 square -feet of commercial buildings, is 89,402 gallons per day, after all structures on the project site are demolished. For a copy of the Districts' average wastewater generation factors, go to www.lacsd.ors4, under Services, then Wastewater Program and Permits and select Will Serve Program, and click on the Table 1, Loadings for Each Class of Land Use link. 4. The District is empowered by the California Health and Safety Code to charge a fee to connect facilities (directly or indirectly) to the District's Sewerage System or to increase the strength or quantity of wastewater discharged from connected facilities. This connection fee is used by the District for its capital facilities. Payment of a connection fee may be required before this project is permitted to discharge to the District's Sewerage System. For more information and a copy of the Connection Fee Information Sheet, go to www.lacsd.org, under Services, then Wastewater (Sewage) and select Rates & Fees. In determining the impact to the Sewerage System and applicable connection fees, the District will determine the user category DOC 7026107.DSCV A Century of Service Packet Pg. 66 Mr. Reece LaBounty 2 September 15, 2023 2.d (e.g. Condominium, Single Family Home, etc.) that best represents the actual or anticipated use of the parcel(s) or facilities on the parcel(s) in the development. For more specific information regarding the connection fee application procedure and fees, the developer should contact the District's Wastewater Fee Public Counter at (562) 908-4288, extension 2727. In order for the District to conform to the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the capacities of the District's wastewater treatment facilities are based on the regional growth forecast adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Specific policies included in the development of the SCAG regional growth forecast are incorporated into clean air plans, which are prepared by the South Coast and Antelope Valley Air Quality Management Districts in order to improve air quality in the South Coast and Mojave Desert Air Basins as mandated by the CAA. All expansions of District's facilities must be sized and service phased in a manner that will be consistent with the SCAG regional growth forecast for the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial. The available capacity of the District's treatment facilities will, therefore, be limited to levels associated with the approved growth identified by SCAG. As such, this letter does not constitute a guarantee of wastewater service, but is to advise the applicant that the District intends to provide this service up to the levels that are legally permitted and to inform the applicant of the currently existing capacity and any proposed expansion of District's facilities. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (562) 908-4288, extension 2708 or at dcurry@lacsd.org. Very truly yours, vbv,In,A. �, C,Iwv Donna J. Curry Customer Service Specialist Facilities Planning Department DC: sw cc: A. Schmidt A. Howard DOC 7026107.DSCV A Century of Service Packet Pg. 67 2.d Department of Toxic Substances Control (Jc� Meredith Williams, Ph.D. Yana Garcia Director Gavin Newsom Secretary for 8800 Cal Center Drive Governor Environmental Protection Sacramento, California 95826-3200 SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL July 03, 2024 Justin Sauder Associate Planner City of Santa Clarita, Planning Division 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 isauder(a)santa-clarita. com RE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE RIVERVIEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT DATED JUNE 25, 2024, STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 2024061060 Dear Justin Sauder, The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) received a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Riverview Development Project (Project). The proposed project will construct 318 residential units (122 detached single-family condos and 196 attached townhomes and an approximate 127,000 square -foot light manufacturing industrial building. The Project also includes a community recreation area, and other on - site improvements including on -site parking and landscaping. The Project site is approximately 35.2 acres in size on a property formerly occupied by the Saugus Speedway and is directly adjacent to the existing Santa Clarita Metrolink Station. After reviewing the Project, DTSC recommends and requests consideration of the following comments: Packet Pg. 68 2.d Justin Sauder July 3, 2024 Page 2 1. If buildings or other structures are to be demolished on any project sites included in the proposed project, surveys should be conducted for the presence of lead -based paints or products, mercury, asbestos containing materials, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk. Removal, demolition, and disposal of any of the above -mentioned chemicals should be conducted in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies. In addition, sampling near current and/or former buildings should be conducted in accordance with DTSC's Preliminary Endangers, iiient Assessment (PEA) Guidance Manual. 2. DTSC recommends that all imported soil and fill material should be tested to assess any contaminants of concern meet screening levels as outlined in the PEA Guidance Manual. Additionally, DTSC advises referencing the DTSC Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material Fact Sheet if importing fill is necessary. To minimize the possibility of introducing contaminated soil and fill material there should be documentation of the origins of the soil or fill material and, if applicable, sampling be conducted to ensure that the imported soil and fill material are suitable for the intended land use. The soil sampling should include analysis based on the source of the fill and knowledge of the prior land use. Additional information can be found by visiting DTSC's Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO) webpage. DTSC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the MND for the Riverview Development Project. Thank you for your assistance in protecting California's people and environment from the harmful effects of toxic substances. If you have any questions or would like any clarification on DTSC's comments, please respond to this letter or via for additional guidance. Packet Pg. 69 2.d Justin Sauder July 3, 2024 Page 3 Sincerely, Tamara Purvis Associate Environmental Planner HWMP - Permitting Division — CEQA Unit Department of Toxic Substances Control Tamara. Purvis(a)dtsc.ca.gov cc: (via email) Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse State. Clearinghouse(a)opr.ca.gov Bobbette Biddulph Senior Project Manager SWCA Environmental Consultants bobbette. biddulph(a)swca. com Dave Kereazis Associate Environmental Planner HWMP-Permitting Division — CEQA Unit Department of Toxic Substances Control Dave. Kereazis(a)dtsc. ca. gov Scott Wiley Associate Governmental Program Analyst HWMP - Permitting Division — CEQA Unit Department of Toxic Substances Control Scott. Wiley(a)dtsc. ca. gov Packet Pg. 70 Docusign Envelope ID: OE433554-1 B95-4A5E-B414-1 FE7BE5AABBE 2.d State of California — Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTONH. BONHAM, Director South Coast Region 3883 Ruffin Road San Diego, CA 92123 (858) 467-4201 www.wildlife.ca.aov July 11, 2024 Justin Sauder City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 0sauder(a)-santa-clarita. com SUBJECT: RIVERVIEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, SCH#2024061060; Los Angeles County, CA Dear Justin Sauder: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) from the City of Santa Clarita (City; Lead Agency) for Riverview Development Project (Project). Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife. Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code. CDFW's Role CDFW is California's Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State [Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subdivision (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, § 15386, subdivision (a)]. CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (Id., § 1802). Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect State fish and wildlife resources. CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code, including lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.). Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in "take", Packet Pg. 71 Docusign Envelope ID: OE433554-1 B95-4A5E-B414-1 FE7BE5AABBE 2.d Justin Sauder City of Santa Clarita July 11, 2024 Page 2 of 17 as defined by State law, of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), or CESA-listed rare plant pursuant to the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA; Fish & G. Code, § 1900 et seq.), CDFW recommends the Project proponent obtain appropriate authorization under the Fish and Game Code. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY Proponent: Forward Planning Objective: The Project proposes the construction of 318 single-family residential units and a 126,790 square foot building for light manufacturing use. The single-family residential units would be constructed towards the center of the Project site and the manufacturing building would be constructed in the northwest corner of the Project site. Within the residential area, community recreation amenities (i.e., dog park, pool, garden area, community lawn, etc.) would be constructed for community use. Vehicular access to the residential area of the Project site would be provided by three proposed driveways along Soledad Canyon Road. Vehicular access to the manufacturing building would be provided by a main driveway and a secondary right -turn in -and -out driveway. Approximately 819 parking spaces would be constructed for residential use and 219 parking spaces would be constructed near the manufacturing building. Additionally, four drainage basins would be constructed on site for stormwater management. Landscaping would occur throughout the Project site with trees, various shrubs, grasses, and ground cover. Furthermore, a 5-foot-high retaining wall is proposed along the northern side of the site, south of Soledad Canyon Road. Off -site improvements include a bus stop with a permanent shelter, a new bus turnout, new curb and gutters, base paving, and 5-foot minimum sidewalk along Soledad Canyon Road and Commuter Way. Moreover, existing Southern California Edison -owned streetlights along Soledad Canyon Road and Commuter Way would be removed and replaced with City standard streetlights. Lastly, the Project would also involve construction of a new telecommunications conduit for installation of fiber-optic cable along Soledad Canyon Road. Project Timeline: Site preparation and grading activities will commence in late 2024 and be concluded by December 2025. Building construction would begin in 2026 and be phased over four to five years. Location: The 35.2-acre Project site is located at 22500 Soledad Canyon Way in the City. The Project site is bound by Soledad Canyon Road to the north, Commuter Way to the east, Bouquet Canyon Road to the west, and a Southern Pacific railroad line used by Metrolink. The Assessor's Parcel Number associated with the Project site is 2836- 011-018. The Project site is separated from the Santa Clara River by Soledad Canyon Road and was formerly occupied by the Saugus Speedway. Packet Pg. 72 Docusign Envelope ID: OE433554-1 B95-4A5E-B414-1 FE7BE5AABBE 2.d Justin Sauder City of Santa Clarita July 11, 2024 Page 3 of 17 Biological Setting: A general biological survey was conducted on September 23, 2022 and findings from the survey were compiled in a Biological Resources Technical Report (BRTR). Focused surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica; Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed -threatened species and California Species of Special Concern (SSC)) were also conducted between April and June 2023.The majority of the Project site is developed and generally flat with undeveloped hillsides in the northwestern corner of the Project site. Native vegetation within the impacted areas of the Project site includes 0.10 acre of California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) scrub, 9.94 acres of California sagebrush (Artemisia californica) scrub, and 0.97 acre of chamise chaparral (Adenostoma fasciculatum) scrub. No special -status plants or natural communities were observed within the Project site during surveys. Additionally, no water features were identified within the Project site. Results from focused surveys indicated that no coastal California gnatcatcher were observed or audibly detected. During the general survey, a variety of common bird species were observed along with California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) and western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis). The undeveloped areas of the Project site may provide suitable habitat for slender mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis; California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1 B.2), Crotch's bumble bee (Bombus crotchii; CESA candidate species), southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi; SSC), California glossy snake (Arizona elegans; SSC), Blainville's horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii; SSC), coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri; SSC), and San Deigo desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia; SSC). Nine mitigation measures are incorporated in the MND to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate adverse Project impacts on slender mariposa lily, SSC, nesting birds, and oak tree replacement in compliance with the City's tree ordinance. Additionally, mitigation measures detailing exterior lighting, invasive plant species prevention, biological monitoring, and stormwater pollution prevention are also included. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City in adequately avoiding and/or mitigating the Project's impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. Additional comments or other suggestions may also be included to improve the document. CDFW recommends the measures or revisions below be included in a science -based monitoring program that contains adaptive management strategies as part of the Project's CEQA mitigation, monitoring and reporting program (Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.6; CEQA Guidelines, § 15097). Comment #1: Impacts on Crotch's bumble bee Issue: The Project will impact Crotch's bumble bee. Packet Pg. 73 Docusign Envelope ID: OE433554-1 B95-4A5E-B414-1 FE7BE5AABBE 2.d Justin Sauder City of Santa Clarita July 11, 2024 Page 4 of 17 Specific impacts: The Project may result in temporal or permanent loss of suitable nesting and foraging habitat of Crotch's bumble bee. Project ground -disturbing activities may cause death or injury of adults, eggs, and larva; burrow collapse; nest abandonment; and reduced nest success. Why impact would occur: The Project site lies within the current range of Crotch's bumble bee based on CDFW's Crotch's Bumble Bee Range Dataset (CDFW 2024a). As with any flying species, Crotch's bumble bee may fly throughout the City and utilize areas that have suitable nesting habitat and floral resources. Additionally, the BRTR notes that there is a moderate potential for Crotch's bumble bee to occur within the Project site (page 25). The on -site vegetation provides foraging opportunities and there is limited nesting potential within the undeveloped northwestern area of the Project site. Crotch's bumble bee primarily nest underground in abandoned small mammal burrows but may also nest under perennial bunch grasses or thatched annual grasses, under- brush piles, in old bird nests, and in dead trees or hollow logs (Williams et al. 2014; Hatfield et al. 2018). While the Project site may provide limited nesting habitat, the possibility of Crotch's bumble bee to be present on site cannot be completely ruled out considering that the general survey was a single survey conducted two years ago outside the timeframe (April to August) for highest detection probability. In addition to limited surveys, the MND does not discuss the moderate potential for Crotch's bumble bee to be foraging and/or nesting within the Project site. The MND also does not provide mitigation measures directly related to Crotch's bumble bee. A mitigation measure should be incorporated in the MND to include focused surveys to confirm presence/absence of Crotch's bumble bee on the Project site prior to Project activities. Without focused surveys, individual Crotch's bumble bee and/or nesting sites may go undetected resulting in incidental take of a CESA protected species. If presence of Crotch's bumble bee is confirmed, the Project would result in loss of confirmed habitat for this species. Evidence impact would be significant: The California Fish and Game Commission accepted a petition to list the Crotch's bumble bee as endangered under CESA, determining the listing "may be warranted" and advancing the species to the candidacy stage of the CESA listing process. The Project may substantially reduce and adversely modify habitat as well as reduce and potentially impair the viability of populations of Crotch's bumble bee. The Project may also reduce the number and range of the species without considering the likelihood that special status species on adjacent and nearby natural lands may rely upon the habitat that occurs on the proposed Project site. In addition, Crotch's bumble bee has a State Ranking of S1/S2. This means that the Crotch's bumble bee is considered critically imperiled or imperiled and is extremely rare (often 5 or fewer populations). Crotch's bumble bee is also listed as an invertebrate of conservation priority under the California Terrestrial and Vernal Pool Invertebrates of Conservation Priority (CDFW 2017). Packet Pg. 74 Docusign Envelope ID: OE433554-1 B95-4A5E-B414-1 FE7BE5AABBE 2.d Justin Sauder City of Santa Clarita July 11, 2024 Page 5 of 17 Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s): Recommendation #1: Crotch's Bumble Bee Discussion - The MND should be amended to provide a discussion on habitat suitability for Crotch's bumble bee within and adjacent to the Project site. The discussion should also disclose the Project's potential direct and indirect impacts on Crotch's bumble bee. If the Project may impact Crotch's bumble bee, the MND should provide measures to minimize, and/or mitigate potential impacts to Crotch's bumble bee as well as habitat supporting the species. The discussion should be of a depth and scope that a CESA Incidental Take Permit can be issued based on the analysis provided in the MND. Mitigation Measure #1: Crotch's Bumble Bee Surveys - The Project proponent shall retain a qualified entomologist with the appropriate handling permits to conduct focused surveys. Focused surveys shall follow CDFW's Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023). Focused surveys shall also be conducted throughout the entire Project site during the appropriate flying season to ensure no missed detection of Crotch's bumble bee occurs. Survey results, including negative findings, shall be submitted to CDFW and the City prior to implementing Project ground -disturbing activities. Mitigation Measure #2: Incidental Take Permit - If Crotch's bumble bee is detected the Project proponent shall coordinate with CDFW and obtain appropriate take authorization from CDFW (pursuant to Fish & Game Code, § 2080 et seq). The Project proponent shall comply with the mitigation measures detailed in the take authorization issued by CDFW. The Project proponent shall provide a copy of a fully executed take authorization to the City prior to implementing Project ground -disturbing activities and vegetation removal. Comment #2: Impacts on Slender Mariposa Lily Issue: MM-1310-1 does not adequately offset Project -related impacts on slender mariposa lily. Specific impacts: Project ground -disturbing activities (i.e., grading, vegetation removal) would result in loss of suitable habitat, loss of population, and direct mortality of slender mariposa lily. Why impact would occur: Seed collection alone is not sufficient to offset Project impacts. According to the California Natural Diversity Database, there are recorded observations of slender mariposa lily near the Project site (CDFW 2024b). Additionally, the MND also states that there is a moderate potential for slender mariposa lily to occur on the Project site (page 28). While CDFW concurs that focused surveys should be done during the appropriate bloom period for highest detection probability, we disagree that protocol surveys and seed collection makes impacts to the species less than Packet Pg. 75 Docusign Envelope ID: OE433554-1 B95-4A5E-B414-1 FE7BE5AABBE 2.d Justin Sauder City of Santa Clarita July 11, 2024 Page 6 of 17 significant with mitigation. Compensatory mitigation should be provided if any individual slender mariposa lily is observed, especially since this rare plant is threatened in California. CDFW is also concerned that the MND does not provide biological justification as to why a count of 20 individuals is the minimum threshold. If slender mariposa lily is observed on the Project site, there is a possibility for multiple bulbs to exist underground that may or may not have bloomed. Moreover, handing seeds to a local organization for restoration opportunities does not guarantee successful creation of a slender mariposa lily population. As currently written, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 does not commit to mitigation that would adequately offset the direct loss of slender mariposa lily, nor does it adopt specific performance standards and actions pertaining to management of mitigation actions. The MND does not disclose where or when the seeds would be used in restoration projects. If restoration projects do not utilize the seeds until several years after collection, they may become inviable. Moreover, the mitigation measure does not provide success criteria for these restoration projects to ensure successful mitigation is achieved. In addition to no success criteria, long-term management actions for these restoration projects is not outlined in the mitigation measure. With limited information and no enforceable actions regarding the restoration projects, the proposed mitigation would be considered deferred. Evidence impact would be significant: Impacts on rare flora could be considered a significant effect on the environment. Plants with a CRPR of 1 B are rare throughout their range, endemic to California, and are seriously or fairly threatened. Most of the plants that are ranked 1 B have declined significantly over the last century. The additional threat rank of 0.1 indicates a species with over 80 percent of its occurrences threatened in California. The additional threat rank of 0.2 indicates a species with 20 to 80 percent of its occurrences threatened (CNPS 2024). Impacts to CRPR 1 B plant species and their habitat meet the definition of endangered, rare, or threatened species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15380). Some CRPR 3 and 4 species meet the definitions of endangered, rare, or threatened under CEQA. Impacts to CRPR 1 B plant species and their habitat may result in a mandatory finding of significance because the Project would have the potential to threaten to eliminate a plant community and substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065). Additionally, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is considered deferred mitigation [CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(1)(B)]. Insufficient mitigation may result in unmitigated temporal or permanent impacts to a rare plant species. Subsequently, the Project would continue to have a substantial adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species by CDFW. Packet Pg. 76 Docusign Envelope ID: OE433554-1 B95-4A5E-B414-1 FE7BE5AABBE 2.d Justin Sauder City of Santa Clarita July 11, 2024 Page 7 of 17 Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s): Mitigation Measure #3: MM BIO-1: Pre -Construction Rare Plant Survey and Seed Collection — The City should revise MM 1310-1 to incorporate the underlined language and omit language in strikethrough: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall have a qualified biologist (the Applicant shall submit the qualifications of the biologist to the City for review and approval) conduct a focused rare plant survey for slender mariposa lily within the undeveloped portion of the project site during the appropriate blooming period (March through June). The survey would consist of three passes, with one in April, May, and June. Reference site checks would be made for the species to determine if the species is blooming in the project vicinity. The surveys would conform to the California Native Plant Society's Botanical Survey Guidelines (2001); CDFW's Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (2018); and USFWS' Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants (2000). The results of the surveys would be documented in a report and submitted to the City. If the presence of slender mariposa lily is detected, Should the spec es be found t a oo„nf of 20 or hi.,ihor no Project activities shall commence. The Project proponent shall coordinate with CDFW to discuss avoidance of the slender mariposa lily on site. If complete avoidance is unattainable, the Project proponent shall provide compensatory mitigation to offset the Proiect's impact on rare plants observed on site at no less than 2.1. The total habitat acreage within the mitigation land shall be no less than 2.1. The Proiect proponent shall acquire CDFW approved mitigation land that has presence of slender mariposa lily and is located in the same watershed as the Proiect site. The mitigation land shall also provide equivalent or greater habitat value than that of the Proiect site. The Proiect proponent shall protect replacement habitat in perpetuity under a conservation easement dedicated to a local land conservancy or other appropriate entity that has been approved to hold and manage mitigation lands pursuant to Assembly Bill 1094. Recordation of the conservation easement shall occur prior to commencement of Proiect activities. An appropriate endowment shall also be provided for the long-term monitorinq and management of mitigation lands. then GGR6tF, G6GR Gf the .,. GUlg ed 1.,.. gGR Shall be ...-.--••--, I— r..-. --�,-�,•�-,�---- --i-__,-- -r-......V -- -•-r-•-- -••- -,,-,--, l� SeedS Shaurrbe be 4 bf;9c'rtFh7bie-PaPeF bags iR a- , r' rl'GC.htic , CriepEls of the Cana Qia Fa C) VeF) in to be ageR nroiont& (e.g., Ued eSte Mitigation Measure #4: Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan - The Project proponent shall retain a certified botanist to draft a Habitat Management and Monitoring Packet Pg. 77 Docusign Envelope ID: OE433554-1 B95-4A5E-B414-1 FE7BE5AABBE 2.d Justin Sauder City of Santa Clarita July 11, 2024 Page 8 of 17 Plan (HMMP) and submit it to the City and CDFW for review and approval prior to Project activities. The HMMP shall outline initial and long-term management and maintenance activities that would occur on mitigation lands. The HMMP shall provide measurable goals and success criteria for establishing self-sustaining populations (e.g., percent survival rate, absolute cover). Maintenance activities outlined in the HMMP shall include measures pertaining to control of exotic vegetation, irrigation schedule, and protection from future maintenance activities. Comment #3: Impacts on California Species of Special Concern Issue: The mitigation measure proposed in the MND may not be sufficient to minimize Project impacts on SSC. Specific Impact: Direct impacts to SSC could result from Project activities (e.g., equipment staging, mobilization, and grading); ground disturbance; vegetation clearing; trampling or crushing from construction equipment, vehicles, and foot traffic. Project ground -disturbing activities such as vegetation removal will also result in habitat destruction, causing the death or injury of adults, juveniles, eggs, or hatchlings. Why impact would occur: The MND states that southern California legless lizard, California glossy snake, Blainville's horned lizard, coastal whiptail, and San Diego desert woodrat have a moderate to high potential to occur on the Project site during Project activities (page 29). To reduce Project impacts, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 Pre - construction Wildlife Survey and Mitigation Measure BIO-3 Biological Monitoring are incorporated into the MND. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 states that if SSC are found, they would be relocated to a City approved off -site location with suitable habitat. Injury or death of SSC may occur during the transit process when relocating a species from one area to another. With a high level of risk involved in relocating species, SSC should be allowed to move out of harm's way on their own accord rather than actively relocated. In addition to relocation of SSC, the mitigation measures do not outline any compensatory mitigation if SSC presence is confirmed. Given that habitat loss on a local and regional scale is a major cause of population decline for these SSC, removal of confirmed SSC habitat would be considered a significant impact and should be mitigated appropriately. Evidence impact would be significant: A California Species of Special Concern is a species, subspecies, or distinct population of an animal native to California that currently satisfies one or more of the following (not necessarily mutually exclusive) criteria: 1) if the species is extirpated from the State or, in the case of birds, is extirpated in its primary season or breeding role; 2) if the species is listed as threatened or endangered under ESA-, but not CESA-, threatened, or endangered; 3) if the species meets the State definition of threatened or endangered but has not Packet Pg. 78 Docusign Envelope ID: OE433554-1 B95-4A5E-B414-1 FE7BE5AABBE 2.d Justin Sauder City of Santa Clarita July 11, 2024 Page 9 of 17 formally been listed; 4) if the species is experiencing, or formerly experienced, serious (noncyclical) population declines or range retractions (not reversed) that, if continued or resumed, could qualify it for State threatened or endangered status; and, 5) if naturally small populations exhibiting high susceptibility to risk from any factor(s), that if realized, could lead to declines that would qualify it for CESA threatened or -endangered status (CDFW 2024c). CEQA provides protection not only for CESA-listed species, but for any species including but not limited to SSC that can be shown to meet the criteria for State listing. These SSC meet the CEQA definition of rare, threatened, or endangered species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15380). The MND does not provide mitigation for potential impacts on SSC. Inadequate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for impacts to sensitive or special status species will result in the Project continuing to have a substantial adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special - status species by CDFW. Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s) Mitigation Measure #5: MM BIO-2: Pre -Construction Wildlife Survey — The City should revise MM BIO-2 to incorporate the underlined language and omit language in strikethrough: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a qualified biologist (the Applicant shall submit the qualifications of the biologist to the City for review and approval) shall conduct a survey of the proposed impact areas and 50-foot buffer within 72 hours of the proposed activities. Any coastal whiptail, Southern California legless lizard, California glossy snake, or Blainville's horned lizard found shall be passively ushered out of harm's way to an area that is unaffected by the Project. If the Projcect requires SCC to be removed, disturbed, or otherwise handled, the qualified biologist shall obtain all appropriate permits and prepare a species -specific list (or plan) of proper handling and passive relocation protocols. The list (or plan) of protocols shall be implemented during Projcect construction and activities/biological construction monitoring. The City/qualified biologist may coordinate with CDFW to prepare a passive relocation plan and shall be submitted to CDFW for review and comment prior to implementing Projcect ground-disturbinq activities. Q4, ppr-e ed e# site aGagen in suitable habitat fi r o�nh c� ec4e �, If a San Diego desert woodrat midden is discovered during the survey, then the qualified biologist shall erect a fence with a 50-foot buffer around the midden. Adequate space should be provided for sufficient foraging habitat at the discretion of the qualified biologist in coordination with CDFW. If young are present, no work shall occur within the fenced area until the young have left the nest. If the woodrat midden cannot be left in place, the qualified biologist shall prepare a list (or plan) of proper handlinq and relocation Packet Pg. 79 Docusign Envelope ID: OE433554-1 B95-4A5E-B414-1 FE7BE5AABBE 2.d Justin Sauder City of Santa Clarita July 11, 2024 Page 10 of 17 pm WA AWA AN Mitigation Measure #6: Compensatory Mitigation - For SSC that have been confirmed and/or are expected to occur within the Project site, the Project proponent shall provide compensatory mitigation for temporary and permanent loss of any habitat supporting SSC. There shall be no net loss of habitat supporting SSC [CEQA Guidelines, § 15370(e)]. Compensatory mitigation shall be provided within the Project boundary at no less than 2.1. Mitigation shall provide appropriate habitat (depending on the species), refugia, and habitat structures that supports that species (e.g., woody material, rocks, brush piles, pools, burrows). Any proposed mitigation area/plan shall include a discussion on the territory size; nesting, breeding, foraging, and refuge locations; invasive, non-native plant and wildlife species present; food availability; and how all life cycle functions will be mitigated. Any mitigation plan for SSC shall be distributed and approved by CDFW prior to Project activities. The replacement habitat shall be protected in perpetuity under a conservation easement dedicated to a local land conservancy or other appropriate entity, which should include an appropriate endowment to provide for the long-term management of mitigation lands. Additional Comments Data. CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database [i.e., CNDDB], which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations [Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e)]. Accordingly, please report any special status species detected by completing and submitting CNDDB Online Field Survey Form (CDFW 2024d).The Project proponent should ensure that data was submitted data properly, with all data fields applicable filled out, prior to finalizing/adopting the environmental document. The data entry should also list pending development as a threat and then update this occurrence after impacts have occurred. The Project proponent should provide CDFW with confirmation of data submittal. Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan. CDFW recommends updating the MND's proposed Biological Resources Mitigation Measures to include mitigation measures recommended in this letter. Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments [Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.6; CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(2)]. As such, CDFW has provided comments and recommendations to assist the City in developing mitigation measures that are (1) consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4; (2) specific; (3) detailed (i.e., responsible party, timing, specific actions, location), and (4) clear for a measure to be fully enforceable and implemented successfully via mitigation monitoring and/or Packet Pg. 80 Docusign Envelope ID: OE433554-1 B95-4A5E-B414-1 FE7BE5AABBE 2.d Justin Sauder City of Santa Clarita July 11, 2024 Page 11 of 17 reporting program (Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.6; CEQA Guidelines, § 15097). The City is welcome to coordinate with CDFW to further review and refine the Project's mitigation measures. Per Public Resources Code section 21081.6(a)(1), CDFW has provided the City with a summary of our suggested mitigation measures and recommendations in the form of an attached Draft Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan (MMRP; Attachment A). Filing Fees The Project, as proposed, could have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the City and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the fee is required in order for the underlying Project approval to be operative, vested, and final (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & Game Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089). Conclusion CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Project to assist the City in adequately analyzing and minimizing/mitigating impacts to biological resources. CDFW requests an opportunity to review and comment on any response that the City has to our comments and to receive notification of any forthcoming hearing date(s) for the Project [CEQA Guidelines, § 15073(e)]. Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be direct to Julisa Portugal, Environmental Scientist, at Julisa.Portugal(a)wildlife.ca.gov or (562) 330-7563. Sincerely, --DocuSigned by, ovN'�P2 C3D449ECB7C 14DE... Jennifer Turner For Victoria Tang Environmental Program Manager South Coast Region EC: California Department of Fish and Wildlife Jennifer Turner Steve Gibson Frida Diaz-Barriga Cindy Hailey Packet Pg. 81 Docusign Envelope ID: OE433554-1 B95-4A5E-B414-1 FE7BE5AABBE 2.d Justin Sauder City of Santa Clarita July 11, 2024 Page 12 of 17 References: [CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2017. California Terrestrial and Vernal Pool Invertebrates of Conservation Priority. Available at: https://nrm.dfq.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentlD=149499&inline [CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023. Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species. Available at: httos://nrm.dfq.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentlD=213150&inline [CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2024a. Crotch's Bumble Bee Range — CDFW [ds3095]. Available at: https://data.ca.gov/dataset/crotchs-bumble-bee- range-cdfw-ds3095 [CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2024b. California Natural Diversity Database. Available at: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB [CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2024b. Threatened and Endangered Species. Available at: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/CESA [CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2024d. Submitting Data to the CNDDB. Available at: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. [CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2024. California Rare Plant Ranks. Available at: https://www.cnps.org/rare-plants/california-rare-plant-ranks Hatfield, R., Jepsen, S., Foltz Jordan, S., Blackburn, M., Code, Aimee. 2018. A Petition to the State of California Fish and Game Commission to List Four Species of Bumblebees as Endangered Species. Williams, P. H., R. W. Thorp, L. L. Richardson, and S.R. Colla. 2014. Bumble bees of North America: An Identification guide. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 208pp Packet Pg. 82 Docusign Envelope ID: OE433554-1 B95-4A5E-B414-1 FE7BE5AABBE 2.d Justin Sauder City of Santa Clarita July 11, 2024 Page 13 of 17 Attachment A: Draft Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan CDFW recommends the following language to be incorporated into a future environmental document for the Project. Biological Resources (BIO) Mitigation Measure (MM) or Recommendation (REC) Timing Responsible Part The Project proponent shall retain a qualified entomologist with the appropriate handling permits to conduct focused surveys. Focused surveys shall follow CDFW's Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act Project MM-1310-1 — Candidate Bumble Bee Species. Focused surveys shall Prior to Project Proponent/ Crotch's Bumble also be conducted throughout the entire Project site during activities Qualified Bee Surveys the appropriate flying season to ensure no missed Entomologist detection of Crotch's bumble bee occurs. Survey results, including negative findings, shall be submitted to CDFW and the City prior to implementing Project ground - disturbing activities. If Crotch's bumble bee is detected the Project proponent shall coordinate with CDFW and obtain appropriate take authorization from CDFW (pursuant to Fish & Game Code, MM-1310-2 — § 2080 et seq). The Project proponent shall comply with Prior to Project Project Incidental Take the mitigation measures detailed in the take authorization activities Proponent Permit issued by CDFW. The Project proponent shall provide a copy of a fully executed take authorization to the City prior to implementing Project ground -disturbing activities and vegetation removal. MM-1310-3- MM Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall Prior to Project BIO-1 have a qualified biologist (the Applicant shall submit the issuance of Proponent/ ualifications of the biologist to the Cityfor review and gradingpermits Packet Pg. 83 Docusign Envelope ID: OE433554-1 B95-4A5E-B414-1 FE7BE5AABBE 2.d Justin Sauder City of Santa Clarita July 11, 2024 Page 14 of 17 approval) conduct a focused rare plant survey for slender Qualified mariposa lily within the undeveloped portion of the project Biologist site during the appropriate blooming period (March through June). The survey would consist of three passes, with one in April, May, and June. Reference site checks would be made for the species to determine if the species is blooming in the project vicinity. The surveys would conform to the California Native Plant Society's Botanical Survey Guidelines (2001); CDFW's Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (2018); and USFWS' Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants (2000). The results of the surveys would be documented in a report and submitted to the City. If the presence of slender mariposa lily is detected, no Project activities shall commence. The Project proponent shall coordinate with CDFW to discuss avoidance of the slender mariposa lily on site. If complete avoidance is unattainable, the Project proponent shall provide compensatory mitigation to offset the Project's impact on rare plants observed on site at no less than 2:1. The total habitat acreage within the mitigation land shall be no less than 2.1. The Project proponent shall acquire CDFW approved mitigation land that has presence of slender mariposa lily and is located in the same watershed as the Project site. The mitigation land shall also provide equivalent or greater habitat value than that of the Project site. The Project proponent shall protect replacement habitat in perpetuity under a conservation easement Packet Pg. 84 Docusign Envelope ID: OE433554-1 B95-4A5E-B414-1 FE7BE5AABBE 2.d Justin Sauder City of Santa Clarita July 11, 2024 Page 15 of 17 dedicated to a local land conservancy or other appropriate entity that has been approved to hold and manage mitigation lands pursuant to Assembly Bill 1094. Recordation of the conservation easement shall occur prior to commencement of Project activities. An appropriate endowment shall also be provided for the long- term monitoring and management of mitigation lands. The Project proponent shall retain a certified botanist to draft a Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) and submit it to the City and CDFW for review and approval prior to Project activities. The HMMP shall outline MM-113104- initial and long-term management and maintenance Project Habitat activities that would occur on mitigation lands. The HMMP Prior to Project Proponent/ Management and shall provide measurable goals and success criteria for activities Certified Monitoring Plan establishing self-sustaining populations (e.g., percent Botanist survival rate, absolute cover). Maintenance activities outlined in the HMMP shall include measures pertaining to control of exotic vegetation, irrigation schedule, and rotection from future maintenance activities. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a qualified biologist (the Applicant shall submit the qualifications of the biologist to the City for review and approval) shall conduct a survey of the proposed impact areas and 50-foot buffer within 72 hours of the proposed activities. Any coastal Qualified MM-11310-5- MM- whiptail, Southern California legless lizard, California Prior and during Biologist/ 113I0-2 glossy snake, or Blainville's horned lizard found shall be Project activities Project passively ushered out of harm's way to an area that is Proponent unaffected by the Project. If the Project requires SCC to be removed, disturbed, or otherwise handled, the qualified biologist shall obtain all appropriate permits and prepare a species -specific list or Ian of proper handling and Packet Pg. 85 Docusign Envelope ID: OE433554-1 B95-4A5E-B414-1 FE7BE5AABBE 2.d Justin Sauder City of Santa Clarita July 11, 2024 Page 16 of 17 passive relocation protocols. The list (or plan) of protocols shall be implemented during Project construction and activities/biological construction monitoring. The City/qualified biologist may coordinate with CDFW to prepare a passive relocation plan and shall be submitted to CDFW for review and comment prior to implementing Project ground -disturbing activities. If a San Diego desert woodrat midden is discovered during the survey, then the qualified biologist shall erect a fence with a 50-foot buffer around the midden. Adequate space should be provided for sufficient foraging habitat at the discretion of the qualified biologist in coordination with CDFW. If young are present, no work shall occur within the fenced area until the young have left the nest. If the woodrat midden cannot be left in place, the qualified biologist shall prepare a list (or plan) of proper handling and relocation protocols. The plan shall be submitted to CDFW for review and comment prior to Projectground-disturbing activities. For SSC that have been confirmed and/or are expected to occur within the Project site, the Project proponent shall provide compensatory mitigation for temporary and permanent loss of any habitat supporting SSC. There shall be no net loss of habitat supporting SSC. Compensatory MM-1310-6 — mitigation shall be provided within the Project boundary at Prior to Project Project Compensatory no less than 2.1. Mitigation shall provide appropriate activities proponent Mitigation habitat (depending on the species), refugia, and habitat structures that supports that species (e.g., woody material, rocks, brush piles, pools, burrows). Any proposed mitigation area/plan shall include a discussion on the territory size; nesting, breeding, foraging, and refuge locations; invasive, non-native plant and wildlife species Packet Pg. 86 Docusign Envelope ID: OE433554-1 B95-4A5E-B414-1 FE7BE5AABBE 2.d Justin Sauder City of Santa Clarita July 11, 2024 Page 17 of 17 present; food availability; and how all life cycle functions will be mitigated. Any mitigation plan for SSC shall be distributed and approved by CDFW prior to Project activities. The replacement habitat shall be protected in perpetuity under a conservation easement dedicated to a local land conservancy or other appropriate entity, which should include an appropriate endowment to provide for the long-term management of mitigation lands. The MND should be amended to provide a discussion on habitat suitability for Crotch's bumble bee within and adjacent to the Project site. The discussion should also disclose the Project's potential direct and indirect impacts REC 1 — Crotch's on Crotch's bumble bee. If the Project may impact Crotch's Prior to adopting Bumble Bee bumble bee, the MND should provide measures to CEQA Lead Agency Discussion minimize, and/or mitigate potential impacts to Crotch's document bumble bee as well as habitat supporting the species. The discussion should be of a depth and scope that a CESA Incidental Take Permit can be issued based on the analysis provided in the MND. Packet Pg. 87 2.e SANTA CLARITA L HISTORY 00 ENTER C Planning Commission City of Santa Clarita 23920 W. Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 March 12, 2024 On behalf of the Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society Board of Directors, I am writing to express our appreciation for the inclusion of appropriate historic elements into the design plans for the Riverview project, which is slated for the old Saugus Speedway property. The Saugus Speedway holds a special place in the hearts of many residents in and beyond our community, serving as an important motorsports venue for decades — and before that, as a rodeo grounds that drew as many as 18,000 spectators at a time. We applaud the efforts of the Riverview development team to pay homage to this iconic landmark. The development team worked closely with the Historical Society to ensure that the spirit of the Saugus Speedway is preserved and celebrated within Riverview. From honoring legendary drivers in residential street names to the infusion of the Speedway's color scheme and "checkered flag" design into a community park, as well as a representation of the grandstands "roof' appearance from rodeo days, and more, the proposed plans reflect the importance of preserving our local history for future generations. By embracing the historical legacy of the Saugus Speedway, Riverview has the opportunity to create a distinctive identity that makes it unique from other prof ects while fostering a sense of pride and connection for its future residents. The Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society commends the development team for its decision to bring an important piece of our valley's past into the future. We believe the current design plans for Riverview are a fitting tribute to the enduring legacy of the Saugus speedway and look forward to seeing them come to fruition. Sincerely, LEON WORDEN Vice President, Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society I PO Box 221925, Newhall CA 91322-19251 scvhs.oro, Packet Pg. 88 2.i 9ANTA C,� 9� 1d CITY OF SANTA CLARITA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION: Master Case 21-205: Architectural Design Review 21-025, Conditional Use Permit 21-014, Development Review 21-019, Initial Study 21-008, Landscape Plan Review 21-015, Minor Use Permit 21-027, Oak Tree Permit 21-003, and Tentative Tract Map 83605 PROJECT APPLICANT: Integral Communities PROJECT LOCATION: 22500 Soledad Canyon Road (Assessor's Parcel Number 2836-011-018) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant, Integral Communities, is requesting to construct 318 residential units (122 detached single-family condos and 196 attached townhomes, 22 of which are identified as affordable) and an G approximately 127,000 square -foot light manufacturing industrial building. The project also includes a community recreation area, and other on -site improvements including on -site parking and landscaping. The project site is approximately 35.2 acres in size on a property former occupied by the Saugus Speedway, and is directly adjacent C z to the existing Santa Clarita Metrolink Station. The site is zoned Mixed Use Corridor, is within the Jobs Creation Overlay Zone and the Alquist Prieto Fault Zone. The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on this matter on the following date: DATE: Tuesday, July 16, 2024 TIME: At or after 6:00 p.m. LOCATION: City Hall, Council Chambers 23920 Valencia Blvd., First Floor Santa Clarita, CA 91355 The Planning Commission agenda can be found at www.santaclarita.gov/agendas by July 12, 2024. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: An Initial Study (IS) and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared for the proposed project and is available for a period of public review, during which the City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department will receive comments, beginning at noon on June 25, 2024, and ending at noon on July 16, 2024. During the public review period, a copy of the draft IS/MND and all supporting documents will be located 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. https:Hsantaclarita.s4ov/planning/environmental 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 hearing described in this notice, or written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Clarita at, or prior to, the public hearings. If you wish to have written comments included in the materials the Planning Commission receives prior to the public hearing, it must be submitted to the Community Development Department by Friday, July 5, 2024. For further information regarding this proposal, you may contact the project planner, by appointment, at the City of Santa Clarita, Permit Center, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 140, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Telephone: (661) 255-4330. Website: www.santaclarita.gov/planning. Send written correspondence via e-mail to jsauder�santa-clarita.gov, or by US mail to: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Project Planner: Justin Sauder, Associate Planner. Patrick Leclair Planning Manager Published: The Signal, June 25, 2024 Packet Pg. 89 2.i PROPOSED PROJECT SITE 22500 Soledad Canyon Road Assessor's Parcel Number 2836-011-018 Ln 0 N N 6 Z d N ca U L Y U) C(z C L N% U r O Z a a� E s ca r r a Packet Pg. 90 O Agenda Item: 3 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING MANAGER APPROVAL: DATE: September 17, 2024 SUBJECT: RIVERVIEW (MASTER CASE 21-205) APPLICANT: Peter Vanek LOCATION: 22500 Soledad Canyon Road CASE PLANNER: Justin Sauder RECOMMENDED ACTION Planning Commission: 1. Receive presentation from staff and the applicant; 2. Continue the public hearing to receive testimony from the public; 3. Provide direction to staff on project -related issues; 4. Continue the meeting to a date certain; and 5. Take such additional, related, actions that may be desirable. REQUEST The applicant, Integral Communities, is proposing a development consisting of 318 residential dwelling units and a non-residential component with an approximately 127,000 square -foot light manufacturing building on the former Saugus Speedway property. The project also proposes to subdivide the property into rive parcels with a Tentative Map that would allow for condominiums. MEETING SCHEDULE The project was introduced at the July 16, 2024, Planning Commission meeting. The meeting provided an opportunity for the community and the Planning Commission to receive a project introduction, discuss the project, and ask questions of the applicant and staff. Several members of the community spoke on the item as well as the applicant. The Planning Commission asked questions of the applicant and staff, and directed staff to bring the item back to the September 17, 2024, Planning Commission meeting. Page 1 Packet Pg. 123 O PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is located at 22500 Soledad Canyon Road (Assessor's Parcel Number 2836-011-018) within the Mixed -Use Corridor (MX-C) zone in the community of Saugus. The project is also within the Jobs Creation Overlay Zone and the High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The project site is directly adjacent to the Santa Clarita Metrolink Station and was formally utilized as the Saugus Speedway. Currently, there is a swap meet on Sundays and Tuesdays at the subject property. The property is approximately 35 acres in size and the majority of the site is relatively flat and paved, except for the northwest portion of the site which consists of a previously disturbed hillside. The overall cross slope of the site is approximately 14 percent. The project includes a Tentative Map that would divide the site into five planning areas. Four of the planning areas would contain the residential component of the project and the fifth planning area would contain the non-residential, light manufacturing component. The site plan is attached for reference. PLANNING COMMISSION FOLLOW-UP During their discussion at the July 16 meeting, the Planning Commission posed several questions regarding the project and directed staff and the applicant to address some of the questions specifically. In summary, the Planning Commission asked for additional information regarding: • Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) identified in the Housing Element; • Health of oak trees; • Traffic impacts; • Mixed use design; • Operational characteristics of the light manufacturing use; • Buffers between transit corridors and the project; • Phasing of the amenities; • Transportation Demand Management Program; • Rehabilitation Facility; • Schools; and • Jobs Creation Overlay Zone Housing Element The Planning Commission expressed a desire for the project to meet the minimum density for the residential component and wanted to know what the impacts to the RHNA would be for the proposed project based on the inclusion of the 22 affordable housing units. The project site is in the MX-C zone which allows for density ranging from 11 dwelling units per acre to 30 dwelling units per acre. The total site is approximately 35 acres so the minimum number of required dwelling units is 385 (11 units per acre) and the maximum number of required dwelling units is 1,050 (30 units per acre). As proposed, the project includes a Minor Use Permit to provide less density (318 units) than required by the Santa Clarita Municipal Code. The applicant is not proposing to increase the number of overall dwelling units or the number of affordable units. Page 2 Packet Pg. 124 O The Riverview project site is identified as Suitable Site #23 in the Housing Element and is projected to have a capacity for 792 units with 225 units for low-income and 567 units for moderate -income levels. The project is proposing 22 units in the low-income category with the remaining 296 being market rate. The project does not propose any units in the moderate -income category. Overall, the Housing Element has Citywide "buffer" of 345 low-income units and 462 moderate - income units. In other words, the City's calculations for meeting its RHNA obligations includes a pool of excess units. When projects provide fewer units than were allocated for that site in the Housing Element, then the City must draw down from the excess units to remain on track for meeting RHNA obligations. Were this project approved as proposed, the overall Housing Element low-income buffer would be reduced to 142 units. However, the moderate -income buffer would be completely depleted and would require 105 units to be included in the moderate - income category from the "B List." Table 1 below summarizes the impacts to the RHNA numbers if the project is approved. Table 1 Moderate Income Low Income Market Rate Suitable Site #23 567 225 n/a Project 0 22 296 RHNA Buffer 462 345 6,791 RHNA Buffer if Project Approved (as is) -105 142 6,495 B List 890 3,427 N/A California law (Government Code § 65915, et seq.) allows developers to increase the density of housing projects by building more affordable housing. This project, as currently proposed, would provide approximately 7% of the overall units as affordable. This does not allow the project to qualify for a density bonus. However, depending on the percentage of units designated as affordable, it is possible to receive a 100% density bonus (AB1287) which would double the maximum density from 1,050 units to 2,100 units. Furthermore, if a project provides 100% of the units as affordable and is within a half mile of a major transit stop, the City cannot limit the developer from requesting a density bonus in excess of 100% (AB1763). The applicant has is not proposing any changes to the number of units designated as affordable at this time. Oak Trees The project requires the removal of nine oak trees, including a heritage oak tree. The Planning Commission asked if any oaks, including the heritage tree, could potentially be saved and remain in place. Commissioners also asked what would happen to the oak trees that are removed. All nine oak trees are located within areas that are within a proposed building footprint or within an area that would be graded, and therefore are proposed to be removed. According to City's Special District's Urban Forestry Division, the heritage oak tree has structural issues that could potentially jeopardize the success of its survival if it were to be relocated. Furthermore, the Page 3 Packet Pg. 125 O heritage oak is located on a slope, which is typically not a good candidate for relocation. A tree that is located on a slope would need to be planted on a new slope and oriented in the same direction as the original location in order to create the ideal conditions for a successful transplant. The Planning Commission could require the applicant to provide a "transplant study" prepared by an approved tree relocating company to see if the tree can be successfully relocated. Please refer to the attached oak tree report provided by the applicant for more information. As a condition of approval, the applicant is required to recycle all material generated from the removal of the oaks and utilize the material on -site. Traffic Impacts on Soledad Canyon Road and Commuter Way The Planning Commission expressed concerns about the traffic impact of the project on Commuter Way and Soledad Canyon Road. The applicant's traffic consultant, Gibson Transportation Consulting Inc., prepared a Traffic Analysis (attached) and alternatives for the design of Commuter Way, which also includes a level of services (LOS) analysis for the intersection of Commuter Way and Soledad Canyon Road. The analysis includes existing conditions, future conditions with the approval of the project, and future conditions with the approval of the project plus an increase in train traffic that doubles the automobile traffic in and out of the Metrolink station. Under the existing conditions, the LOS for both Commuter Way and Soledad Canyon Road operates at an A level. If the project is approved, the LOS for both roads would remain at an A with increased traffic from the project. In the scenario with additional Metrolink traffic/ridership, Commuter Way would operate at an A level and Soledad Canyon Road would operate at a B level. If approved, the Traffic Division will work with the applicant to finalize the configuration of Commuter Way. Mixed Use Design The Planning Commission discussed the nature of the project as it related to the MX-C zone and whether or not a commercial/retail use would be more compatible with the residential portion of the project rather than the building proposed for light manufacturing. As proposed, the project contains a residential portion and a separate non-residential portion with a building that is proposed to be utilized for a light manufacturing use. The two uses are proposed on separate parcels and there are no connections between the two uses proposed. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the project at this time. Operational Characteristics of a Light Manufacturing Use The Planning Commission inquired about the daily operations of the light manufacturing use such as hours of operation and how and when the truck bays would be utilized. As a tenant has not been secured for the non-residential portion of the project, the applicant was not able to provide additional information into the daily operations at this time. Buffers Between Transit Corridors Page 4 Packet Pg. 126 O The Planning Commission wanted to better understand the relationship between the major transit corridors such as Soledad Canyon Road and the Union Pacific Railroad and the project. As such, the applicant provided cross sections (attached) that depict the buffer between the project and the transit corridors. Cross Sections A and B depict the landscape buffer on Soledad Canyon Road along the frontage of the non-residential portion of the project and Cross Section C depicts the buffer from the non- residential portion to the residential portion of the project. There is a landscape parkway, a walkway or sidewalk and landscape buffer that ranges between approximately 16-feet and 47- feet wide along Soledad Canyon Road and the non-residential building. Between the residential and non-residential portions, the cross section depicts walkways, landscape buffers, driveways, and a drainage basin for an overall distance between the non-residential building and the residences of approximately 210 feet. The applicant also provided cross sections depicting the buffers around the residential portion of the project. Section 1 shows the buffer between the Union Pacific Railroad and the residential portion of the project and includes the side yards of residences, a retaining wall, and a landscaped slope that leads up to the property line for a buffer that is approximately 49 feet wide. Beyond the property line is an additional slope that leads up to the railroad tracks. Section 2 is from Soledad Canyon Road and depicts the parkway, sidewalk, landscaping, a retaining wall, and the rear yards of residences. The buffer between Soledad Canyon Road and the property wall in this section is approximately 29 feet wide. Finally, Section 3 is on Commuter Way and includes a parkway and a mixed -use trail leading up to the property line with a retaining wall, a sloped planting area, and an on -site sidewalk adjacent to the rear yards of residences. The buffer between Commuter Way and the residence at this cross section is approximately 32-feet wide. Phasing ofAmenities and Housing The Planning Commission inquired about the timing of construction of the on -site amenities compared to the construction timing for each planning area. The applicant indicated that the amenities will be phased with each planning area so that residents have access to amenities throughout the construction process. A phasing or construction schedule that would provide a timeframe and specific dates for the phasing of amenities has not been provided at this time. Transportation Demand Management Program The Planning Commission asked to see an updated Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM) that quantified how the specified programs would reduce potential traffic to the non-residential portion of the project. The applicant has updated the TDM (attached) and concluded that the specified programs will reduce the inbound daily vehicle trips by 31.5 percent. This reduction in daily vehicle trips is then provided as justification for the parking reduction of 20 percent for the non-residential portion of the project. Rehabilitation Facility The Planning Commission wanted to ensure that the applicant reached out to the Action Rehabilitation Facility to the west of the project site. The applicant has confirmed that contact Page 5 Packet Pg. 127 O was made and the Action Rehabilitation Facility is aware of the project. Schools The Planning Commission wanted to ensure that the local schools were notified of the project. The Newhall School District, College of the Canyons, William S. Hart Union School District, and Saugus Union School District were notified of the project as part of the noticing for the Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). No responses from the notified school districts were received. If approved, the developer would be responsible for payment of mitigation fees to each of the applicable school districts. Jobs Creation Overlay Zone The Planning Commission had questions regarding the residential portion of the project within the Jobs Creation Overlay Zone (JCOZ). The intent purpose of the JCOZ is to promote the creation of high -quality jobs and enhance the City's overall jobs/housing balance and while there are specific incentives for office and industrial buildings within the JCOZ, the underlying zone of MX-C allows for residential uses. One of the incentives that is offered within the JCOZ is a parking reduction. The applicant is requesting the maximum reduction of required on -site parking of 20%. The applicant is not proposing to change the project at this time. ENVIRONMENTAL The project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. An IS/MND was prepared for the project by SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) and circulated for a public review period from June 25, 2024, to July 16, 2024. The IS/MND analyzed potential impacts to seven areas and determined that, with mitigation, none of the impacts from the project would be significant. Staff received comment letters regarding the IS/MND and are working with the applicant and SWCA to provide responses to comments. CORRESPONDENCE As of the writing of this staff report, staff has received three emails (attached) from the community regarding the status of the project, inquiring if more affordable housing could be provided at the project site, and if the site could be utilized as a park or remain as a race track. CONCLUSION Staff recommends the Planning Commission receive presentation from staff and the applicant, continue the public hearing, provide direction to staff, and continue the meeting to a date certain. ATTACHMENTS Overall Site Plan and Tentative Tract Map Page 6 Packet Pg. 128 O Oak Tree Report Riverview Cross Sections Gibson Traffic Analysis TDM Email Correspondence Page 7 Packet Pg. 129 - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RIVERVIEW SITE PLAN 6/17/24 - ---- - - - - - I'- -------27— ------------- : -- - ----------- ------- --------------------- FI, AA AlB— o ------- --- -2 RIVERVIEW TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 83605 11 3.a I Von w'- m $te 027 EASEMENTS PROJECT SUMMARY PUBLIC UTILITIES EARTHWORK SUMMARY <D Ell— 1-1­ OWNER 4,_ D— —ELLI FLOOD ZONE A`71 ATTI �1— TOPOGRAPHY: 11— A5 TH � `TTE%11�TPL�I�T�E4`EZIT MT� PIHN�1�1` %I`L� ETH.11 1.1A 1� 0—H 1111 BENCHMARK ... . ....... .. ... .... .. —LL —1 1— ILEI LEGAL DESCRIFTON EILEI Ap.�Tl�E�T�HlElo.`T�IE ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER lElE CONDOMINIUM NOTE. �E GENERAL NOTES E111-11- DE—T—Tl 4, P11111 11 P-1 �ol_LBTlELELlTl,—El­1) .11 703S` D_IT—�D —�—Q�ITL,�L,�T LEIDT� IF HE T F UL �OCA%�S O%A—T-1�11TITNITI�E'l� I�EEI�,11— TE, 'AL T� THE —1— �l THE EAToET LEGEND P�OIPE�CTE E, 'T EllIT- 1— LI�E EllIT- -1—D P-1 LIIE EllIT- 1-1 —E ABBREVIATIONS: F� F IE 117E 1-1E F.T 'T 1-- 1-1 'TT'D IE 0—TE1 I cre­3"L't'­` CITY OF SANTA CLARFA E "4ft 'F F' TD`1�1� 888 -MEO RIVERVIEW ALLIANCE" �E E— eE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 83605 A— PETEI I = - _ 9 - �A111'ON aw wn — w IIAA„,?ry - )'LOT 4T� cry s SI E ( ,: E PEO a _ r n + f ,� asorr rg i _ire „ ' ero`o rs � zmo mi l em°a` i'a L0�1_ r > LOT I _ en I - I iFA 3 Q Q I I A ❑, - 8 Ci�c�il QQ L� , �Q o?37e is s rb rs n r (I 1I — �s f 0 ? GRAPHIC SCALE �o fix rmml �� ,n_ % ALLIANCE an aaEanaEo ro": P INTEGRAL COMMI]N]TIEE `M?"?`�„ a npe ePnoa epos e c a wcweere�rvc wc. ry ioorvry a `-w, 2 o CITY OF SANTA CLARrrA 3 awERVIEw waaAIITIa TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 83605 3.a — ERAID — /( — � J= _ -- a nryry =o ry� - �a i I � fff - �Aw�re sne r>ttiacwlsrt raal (j / PA 4- � ryryww� z ZP ° so 1 III fill GRAPHIC SCALE �o tx rmml �� n_ % ALLIANCE an aaEanaEo ro": P INTRAL Cc..-T- EG `"`"T`11 a aPno epos e c a wcweere�ryc wc. ry iooryry npe °`°°"-s�" `-w, ,Oz 3Eo CITY OF SANTA CLARRA 3 RIVERVIEW a waA'ETEa TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 83605 3.a a 3.b December 30, 2021 Integral Communities c/o Peter Vanek 888 San Clemente, Suite 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Regarding: Riverview Project 22500 Soledad Canyon Road Santa Clarita, CA To Whom It May Concern: At the request of the property owner I visited the above referenced site December 20, 2021. I was asked to perform an inventory and evaluation of protected oak trees on the property and prepare a Protected Oak Tree Report. My inspection was visual only and performed from ground level. I did not employ and extensive or invasive diagnostics for this trees study. Trunk are measured at 54 inches above soil grade, height is visually estimated. Trees are rated using the condition rating system provided by the city of Santa Clarita. The trees included in this study are identified by number, where a tag is typically attached to the of the trunk. Tree location, and location of protective fencing are indicated on site plans as needed. Summary A total of (10) protected trees are included as part of this report and are identified as coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), valley oak (Quercus lobata), and scrub oak (Quercus bereridifolia). The site contains 1 heritage size tree, coast live oak #186. A heritage oak tree is defined as any oak tree measuring one hundred eight (108) inches in circumference or, in the case of a multiple trunk tree, two (2) or more trunks measuring seventy-two (72) inches each or greater in circumference, measured four and one-half (4 12) feet above the natural grade surrounding such tree. A total of 9 protected oaks are proposed for removal as part of this project, including Heritage tree. Photos are provided for all inventoried trees in this study. W 121 W. Lexington Dr., Suite 600-A Glendale, CA 91203. Phone 310-592-1104 Packet Pg. 134 Riverview Project December 30, 2021 3.b 22500 Soledad Cyn Rd. Santa Clarita, CA Page 2 Project Description The approximately 35.4-acre property is located at 22500 Soledad Canyon Road, Santa Clarita, 91350 (Assessor Parcel No. 2827-011-018). The project site is located within the MX-C zone. The project includes the redevelopment of the project site with mixed use development comprised of 196 single family attached units, 122 single family detached units on the east end of the project site. The west end will have approximately 66,000 sq. feet of studio stages with parking structure holding 300 autos along with surface parking and truck parking. Required parking for the residential units and the commercial site would be per the City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code and would include a combination of garages and surface spaces. Appraisal LO Appraised tree values are based on calculations using the "Trunk Formula" and or Q "Replacement Cost" method from the 9th edition of "Guide for Plant Appraisal". tU Several methods are utilized to determine the value of landscape plants. The two most common methods are the "Trunk Formula" and "Replacement Cost" methods. One of the most common practices is the "Trunk Formula Method" used when a tree is larger than what is commonly available in the industry. The "Replacement Cost" is based on the cost of replacing a plant of the same or comparable species and size in the same area, and "Cost of Repair" can be used when repairing a damaged plant in a timely and °Q satisfactory manner may help to return the plant to near its former condition. For this study the appropriate methods to be used are the "Trunk Formula" and "Replacement Cost" methods to determine the value of trees. Four primary factors are used to help determine the value of landscape plants; these include tree species, condition, size and location. Size is determined by measurement, while the other factors are subjective. Species rating often varies geographically; this rating is determined by the CTLA. Condition factors include health and structure of roots, trunk, scaffold branches, small branches and twigs, foliage and buds. Location involves the site of a property or landscape, a plants unique functional and aesthetic contribution, and the placement of the individual plant in a specific landscape. The location rating is the average of the site, contribution, and placement percentage ratings. A base value is established/extrapolated using current nursery and nursery grower costs, and then some depreciation is factored in based on species, and condition of the plant. Observations The property is a large primarily vacant site containing a few old structures. The site is mostly level terrain with hills at the southwest end of the site. 121 W Lexington Dr., Suite 600-A Glendale, CA 91203. Phone 310-592-1104 Packet Pg. 135 Riverview Project December 30, 2021 3.b 22500 Soledad Cyn Rd. Santa Clarita, CA Page 3 Most of the trees on this site are in average condition. Heritage tree #186 appears to be in stable health but has severe structural defects that have resulted in the loss of about 50% of its crown, the tree also contains notable cavities and areas of decay on large scaffold limbs. Tree Evaluations Refer to included spreadsheets for specific tree information, specifications, condition rating and relative comments. An appraisal value has been calculated for all protected trees, individual appraisal work sheets are provided for all proposed tree removals and encroachments. Proposed Construction and Potential Tree Impacts Proposed development includes major grading, and construction of studio buildings, residential homes and parking structure/lots. Proposed development will involve the removal of 9 of the 10 protected trees on site, including Heritage oak #186; valley oak #189 will be preserved in place with no encroachment, as the nearest development is approx.. 135 feet away from the tree. Trees #180-188 are located in footprint of grading or buildings. Conclusion/Justification statement I believe that proposed development is reasonable use of the property and will enhance the community. Heritage oak #186 although healthy, has suffered large stem failures and contains significant structural defects leaving it at risk for additional limb failures. Mitigation The owner is more than willing to mitigate the removal of oak trees by planting replacement trees on or off -site. Tree Condition Rating System A — Outstanding: A healthy, sound and vigorous tree characteristic of its species and reasonably free of any visible signs of stress, structural problems, disease or pest infestation B — Above average: A healthy, sound and vigorous tree with minor signs of stress, disease and or pest infestation C — Average: Although healthy in overall appearance there exists an abnormal amount of stress, pest infestation or visual signs of minor structural problems. D — Below Average/Poor: This tree is characterized by exhibiting a great degree of stress, pests or diseases, and appears to be in a rapid state of decline. The degree of decline can vary greatly and may include dieback or advanced stages of pests or diseases. There may also be visual signs of structural problems such as cavities, decay or damaged roots F — Dead: This tree exhibits no sign of life whatsoever 121 W Lexington Dr., Suite 600-A Glendale, CA 91203. Phone 310-592-1104 Packet Pg. 136 Riverview Project December 30, 2021 3.b 22500 Soledad Cyn Rd. Santa Clarita, CA Page 4 Actions and mitigation measures ➢ No changes in soil grade shall be made within the tree protection zone other than in the approved work area ➢ No heavy equipment shall be moved within the protected zone of any preserved tree ➢ Construction debris shall not be stored or disposed of within the protected zone of any tree. ➢ Any required pruning of trees shall be supervised and performed to meet ISA and ANSI 300 pruning standards ➢ No landscaping or irrigation shall be installed within the protected zone of any oak tree, or closer than 15 feet to the trunk ➢ Planting of mitigation trees shall be done in compliance with city mandate ➢ Landscaping near oaks shall be limited to drought tolerant or native plants only. No irrigation shall be installed closer than 15 feet to an oak tree and shall not wet trunks. No turf shall be planted within the dripline of any oak LO N It should be noted that the study of trees is not an exact science and arboriculture does not detect or predict with any certainty. The aborist therefore is not responsible for tree defects or soil conditions that cannot be identified by a prudent and reasonable inspection. a� •� If you have any questions or require other services please contact me at the number listed m below.. Respectfully, Arbor Essence Kerry Norman ASCA, Registered Consulting Arborist #471 ISA Board -Certified Master Arborist #WE-3643B ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualification, exp. 2020 Enclosed Oak tree report Spreadsheets/Tree Specs Tree appraisal works sheets Site plan/tree map Tree photos 121 W Lexington Dr., Suite 600-A Glendale, CA 91203. Phone 310-592-1104 Packet Pg. 137 3.b Date: December 30, 2021 Job name: Riverview Project 22500 Soledad Cyn Rd Santa Clarita, CA Arbor Essence Tree Survey Tree # Description Circumf. Ht Canopy Condition Comments/Impact Tree in stable condition with no 180 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 37.70" 1 8' 18' B apparent pest problems. Proposed for removal, located in building footprint Tree in stable condition with no 181 Coast live oak 34.557" 20' 20' B apparent pest problems. Proposed for removal, located in building footprint 182 Scrub oak (Quercus berberidifolia) 12.6"/ 12.6"/ 12' 1 5' C- 1 of 3 stems dead. Proposed for 12.6" removal, located in building footprint 1-9.42" Tree in stable condition with no 183 Scrub oak 9 stems 3-12.57" 1 5' 20' C apparent pest problems. Proposed for 5-1 5.7" removal, located in grading area Tree in stable condition wtih no 184 Scrub oak 15.7" 10' 8' N/W C apparent pest problems. Proposed for removal, located in building footprint Tree in stable condition wtih no 185 Scrub oak 1-1 2.57". 6' 8' W B apparent pest problems. Proposed for 1-9 42„ removal, located in grading area History of large stem failures and 186 Coast live oak, Heritage 3 stems 1-50.26" 1-78.54" 40' 30' C health contains defects in large limbs. 1-94.24" D structure Proposed for removal, located in grading area Tree in stable condition wtih no 187 Coast live oak 44" 30' 30' B apparent pest problems. Proposed for removal, located in grading area LO 0 N N U 3 a� W Packet Pg. 138 3.b Date: December 30, 2021 Job name: Riverview Project 22500 Soledad Cyn Rd Santa Clarita, CA Arbor Essence Tree Survey Tree # Description Circumf. Ht Canopy Condition Comments/Impact 2-25" Tree in stable condition wtih no 188 Coast live oak 4 stems 1-31.4" 30' 30' B apparent pest problems. Proposed for 1-34.55" removal, located in grading area Tree in stable condition with no 189 Valley oak (Quercus /obata) 18.85" 25' 81 B apparent pest problems. Preserve in place, no encroachment or develpoment within 1 35' Heritge tree W Packet Pg. 139 3.b Date: December 30, 2021 Job name: Riverview Project 22500 Soledad Cyn Rd. Santa Clarita, CA Arbor Essence Tree Appraisals Tree # Description Appraised Trunk area sq. in. Unit Cost Basic Tree Cost, incl replacment Species p Condition Location Appraised cost 180 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 89.25 $109 15,018 90% 80% 100% $10,800 181 Coast live oak 71.25 $109 13,038 90% 80% 100% $9,400 182 Coast live oak 15.25 $109 6,878 90% 60% 100% $3,700 183 Scrub oak (Quercus berberi0ifolia) 122.25 $109 18,525 90% 40% 100% $12,500 184 Scrub oak, Replacement cost 5" 5,200 90% 75% 100% $3,700, incl $200 clean up 185 Scrub oak, Replacement cost 6" 5,200 90% 75% 100% $3,700, incl $200 clean up 186 Coast live oak, Heritage tree 1375.3 $109 155,102 90% 50% 100% $69,800 187 Coast live oak 130.25 $109 19,397 90% 80% 100% $14,000 188 Coast live oak 250.25 $109 32,477 90% 80% 100% $23,400 189 Valley oak (Quercus lobata) Replacement cost 6" 5,200 90% 80% 100% $3,944, incl $200 clean up cost Heritage Tree W Packet Pg. 140 KEYMAP PROPOSED - BLDG. EXT WALL PROPOSED FINISH FLOOR SECTION C SECTION A TOP HVAC UNIT TOP HVAC UNIT FUTURE ROOF TOP FUTURE ROOF TOP PROPOSED PROPOSED BLDG. EXT WALL BLDG. EXT WALL PROPOSED PROPOSED FINISH FLOOR FINISH FLOOR SECTION B ,NDRAIL TAINING WALL REET 3.c Conceptual Colored Site Section 22500 SOLEDAD RD. INTEGRAL ;'ummunities Flilk:+I Packet Pg. 141 o� O oKRIDGE 6'-0" High T.S. Fence Section 1 - Through Railroad KEYMAP id Tracks Oakridge Landscape 1, L-1 RIVERVI EW - SANTA CLARITA PAc o� o� Soledad Canyon Road O oKRIDGE t7' High Tan Colored Slumpstone Wall (or equivalent), retaining per Civil Engineer's plans �2:1 Slope 6' High Tan Colored Slumpstone Wall 5.5' High vinyl fence at rear yard Single family home -Unit 3 RoadRIW 7' 1 8' 1 11 1 3' Area Area Section 2 - Soledad Canyon Road Oakridge Landscape I L-2 RIVERVI EW - SANTA CLARITA PAc o� Section 2 f (� jfn 4E �t f7�t Fr tii��� r tblI � KEYMAP o� t7' High Tan Colored Slumpstone Retaining Wall Road RM (or equal), retaining per Civil Engineer's plans 2:1 Slopej f5' High Tube Steel over Block Combo Wall T-6" High low patio wall Single family home - Bldg 13� 10, 11 1 5' 1' 12' Planting Area 3 5' 2 Mixed -Use Trail 5' Commuter Way Section 3 - Through Commuter Way Oakridge Landscape I L-3 OoKRpDGE RIVERVIEW - SANTA CLARITA PAD 3.d re3i bson transportation consulting, inc. MEMORANDUM TO: Joel Bareng Ian Pari FROM: Patrick Gibson Richard Gibson DATE: August 9, 2024 RE: Riverview Mixed -Use Development (MC 21-205) Discussion of Conditions of Approval Ref: J1977 LO 0 N N The City of Santa Clarita has issued proposed Conditions of Approval (COA) for the Riverview 2 Mixed -Use Project (Project). This memorandum provides responses and additional information on four of the proposed COAs. All other COAs are acceptable to the Project Applicant. Condition 1. Right -of -Way T 1. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall acquire and dedicate to the City the right-of-way required for all street improvements as identified in the traffic study, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. RESPONSE: There is sufficient ROW to provide the right turn lane into the westerly manufacturing driveway. All other needed ROW along Soledad Canyon Road already belongs to the Project Applicant and will be offered for dedication to the City prior to issuance of building permits. The only ROW in questions related to Condition 18 wherein the City requests a widening of Commuter Way as the street approaches Soledad Canyon Road. This is discussed under Condition 18 below. Condition 14. Access Limitations at the Westerly Non -Residential Driveway 14. Access at the western non-residential driveway shall be limited to right -in (one-way) only. Right turns out of the project site and left turns into or out of the project site at this location shall be prohibited. Soledad Canyon Road shall be widened and sufficient right-of-way dedicated along the project frontage to provide an exclusive right -turn pocket at this location. The right -turn pocket shall be designed with sufficient storage length and taper to accommodate larger vehicles to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This improvement shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. 655 N. Central Avenue, Suite 920 Glendale, CA 91203 p. 213.683.0088 f. 213.6 Packet Pg. 145 3.d RESPONSE: The traffic study always assumed right-in/right-out movements would be allowed at this driveway. The City is concerned that there is insufficient length for trucks to get up to a safe speed as they turn onto Soledad Canyon Road and therefore, the COA recommends that the westerly commercial driveway be designed as a one-way right turn inbound only driveway. No vehicles would be allowed to leave the site via the westerly driveway. The Applicant is concerned with the proposed one-way inbound restriction. A compromise solution exists that would address the City's concerns by prohibiting all truck exits from this driveway. There is already a security control gate planned for the south end of the westerly commercial driveway that will require all inbound trucks to check -in with a security person. Upon entry, every truck will be told that they must exit the site via the signalized driveway on the east side of the commercial site. The security person would not open the gate for any trucks wanting to exit the site and therefore the only northbound vehicles on the westerly commercial driveway would be automobiles. The project will provide an extra lane along the entire project frontage along eastbound Soledad Canyon Road. This additional lane can be used for acceleration and deceleration for autos leaving the westerly commercial driveway and all vehicles entering the easterly commercial driveway. In addition, if trucks are prohibited from exiting this driveway onto Soledad Canyon Road, the corner radius on the southeast corner of the westerly T- intersection driveway can be reduced. This addresses the concern about trucks entering Soledad Canyon Road from a STOP sign control and not being able to reach merging speed in time. All exiting trucks would use the easterly signalized commercial driveway, and there is a simple and effective way to enforce that restriction. The Project Applicant would request a modification to Condition 14 to allow right turns into the site and right turns for automobiles out of the site at the westerly non-residential driveway. Condition 16. Westerly Residential Driveway Access Limitations 16. Access at the western residential driveway shall be limited to right-in/right-out only. Left turns into or out of the project site at this location shall be prohibited. Soledad Canyon Road shall be widened and sufficient right-of-way dedicated along the project frontage to provide an exclusive right -turn pocket at this location. This improvement shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. RESPONSE: The traffic study assumed left turns into the residential site at this location. The City believes that by eliminating the left turn into the westerly residential driveway, the westbound left turn lane into the commercial site could be lengthened. 2 Packet Pg. 146 3.d This Condition would be acceptable to the Project Applicant as long as a westbound to eastbound U-turn movement (operating on the green arrow) would be permitted at the signalized easterly commercial driveway. With this U-turn movement allowed, WB residents headed for the westerly residential driveway could make a U-turn at the signalized commercial driveway and then turn right into the residential driveway. The residents that would use the U- turn movement would primarily be returning home from work in the afternoon hours when the inbound traffic flow to the manufacturing site would be light. Condition 18. Design of the Soledad Canyon Road/Commuter Way Intersection 18. The intersection at Soledad Canyon Road and Commuter Way shall be widened to provide three northbound lanes on Commuter Way (one right -turn lane, two left -turn lanes). Soledad Canyon Road shall be widened and sufficient right-of-way dedicated along the project frontage to provide an exclusive right -turn pocket at this location. This improvement LO shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. N U RESPONSE: The Project is already planning to widen Commuter Way to add an additional southbound lane 3i along the west side of Commuter Way. This additional lane would extend along the entire frontage of the Project. Discussions with City staff have led to the development and evaluation of three alternate M designs for this intersection, as described below. Alternates 1A and 1 B — Five -Lane Commuter Way Cross Section The site traffic study showed that the intersection would provide an acceptable level of service with two NB exit lanes on Commuter Way. Rather than widening this minor street to a six -lane facility, Alternate 1A would stripe the five lanes proposed for Commuter Way as two southbound lanes, two NB left turn lanes and one NB right turn lane at its intersection with Soledad Canyon Road. The center lane would be converted to a SIB left turn lane at the commuter parking lot entrance to the south. This would give the two northbound left turn lanes a storage length of approximately 105 feet for the westerly left turn lane and 215 feet for the easterly of the two left turn lanes for a total of 320 feet of left turn storage. The remaining northbound right turn exit lane would also provide a storage length of 215 feet. If the City is concerned about the striping of the two northbound left turn lanes, Alternate 1 B proposes the south portion of the westerly left turn lane could be striped at a two -way -center - left -turn -lane (TWLTL) to give the NB to WB left turns at Soledad Canyon Road some more flexibility in the use of the left turn lanes. If the five -lane cross section is acceptable to the City, no additional ROW would be required above what is already proposed in the Project Application. Figures 1 and 2 show the two alternates described above. 3 Packet Pg. 147 3.d Alternate 2 — COA Proposal This Alternate would widen Commuter Way by approximately 10-12 feet along the east side adjacent to the train station to provide a northbound right turn lane from Soledad Canyon Road southerly to the first driveway serving the train station parking lot. This would provide a storage length of approximately 215 feet. The widening would require the relocation of the existing sidewalk, two light poles, one traffic signal pole and a pedestrian signal pole. It would also require the removal of three existing trees. If the land east of the existing sidewalk belongs to Metrolink, a sidewalk easement may also be needed. The resulting cross section for Commuter Way would provide three southbound lanes, two northbound left turn lanes (each with 215 feet of storage) and one 215-foot-long northbound right turn lane. Alternate 3 — Shifted Five -Lane Commuter Wav Cross Section This Alternate, shown in Figure 3, would provide the City's desired three -lane northbound cross section by widening into the train station site as proposed in Alternate 2. However, since Commuter Way does not require six travel lanes to serve the future traffic volumes, the widening of Commuter Way has been shifted from the west side to the east side of the street between Soledad Canyon Road and the first driveway to the parking lot. Commuter Way would provide two southbound lanes and they would function just as they do now. Commuter Way would be widened on the west side of the street south of the first train station driveway in order to provide a right turn lane into the Project Site. EVALUATION OF COMMUTER WAY ALTERNATES The Existing and Future travel volumes through the Commuter Way corridor are shown in Figures 4 and 5. Figure 5 shows Future Year 2026 volumes with and without the Project traffic and it shows the 2026 volumes with the Project assuming that the train service to the station is increased and the automobile traffic to/from the train station approximately doubles. Level of Service Tables 1 and 2 show the intersection capacity calculations for the Soledad Canyon Road/Commuter Way intersection using the Synchro signal timings obtained from City staff. The Attachment to this memo contains the Synchro worksheets. M Packet Pg. 148 3.d Since the future cross sections of all three Alternates under consideration have two northbound left turn lanes and one northbound right turn lane, they all have the same Level of Service LOS results. Table 1 shows that the existing cross section operates at LOS A before the addition of Project traffic. With Project traffic and the widening of Commuter Way to provide three northbound lanes, the intersection would continue to operate at LOS A with only a slight increase in intersection delay. Table 2 shows that the future traffic levels could be supported by any of the three Commuter Way Alternates with resulting operations at LOS A before the train service activity increase and LOS A or B even with the increased train service. Queuing Table 3 evaluates the queuing at the signalized intersection under the conditions tested above. The first four sets of AM and PM peak hour results show the queues that would form if the intersection remained in its current configuration. As shown, the current intersection (with only two northbound exit lanes) could satisfactorily accommodate the future traffic volumes, even with the increased train service in place. The analysis of the Alternates shows that when three northbound lanes are provided along Commuter Way, the queues decrease and can easily be accommodated by any of the three Alternate designs. Again, any adjustment of the traffic signal timing to give more green time to the Commuter Way phases would reduce these queues even more. REQUEST The Project Applicant respectfully requests that serious consideration be given to Alternate 3 which provides a five -lane cross section for Commuter Way at Soledad Canyon Road. The Alternate provides three full-length lanes to accommodate the anticipated peak queues for the two northbound left turn lanes and one northbound right turn lane and still provides two inbound lanes for vehicles entering the Project Site and the transit station. 5 Packet Pg. 149 RIVERVIEW RESIDENTIAL COMMUTER WAY LANE ADJUSTMENT ALT-1 A 7/15/24 —Jfl_ --_——--- --- -- ----- — rt ------ — ---- SD AD CANYON- --- ------------------- --------- I --- h 8 12 1 I1 11 it it A it it ui ,—� z3oP —, — e 9DC 15 , 3ro if I rl.Io rP.ro ff 1 <0 4 \ P I \ DRIVE ALLIANCE ,wo PL-ING a ENCw�ERING INC CIVIL ENGIKEIII—A� v�y , z o.�lo,vILEEvv3Cy13o—IIIIu,Ea— FIGURE 1 GRAPHIC SCALE ( ,N FEET I ��an ao n i RIVERVIEW RESIDENTIAL COMMUTER WAY LANE ADJUSTMENT ALT-1 B 7/15/24 �- - , • ROAD -- NYON___ L� SOLEDAD CA C I' -� � 7 I� pz s ' o .I I I li9i ■�� SPA LOT a I a Iu z ALLIANCES; 1031 I I I I I I • �I I JI 0 DRIVE s sill i 4° I � I I — 1=— FIGURE 2 GRAPHIC SCALE IIN 30 F 30 it RIVERVIEW RESIDENTIAL COMMUTER WAY LANE ADJUSTMENT ALT-3 8/8/24 SOLEDAD CANY DRIVE ATE ♦Q� 1 I ALLIANCE FIGURE 3 GRAPHIC SCALE ,F , m,h 30 ft. 19ibson Existing Conditions Existing Plus Residential Project 0 o r.- 0(0) 28(29) ON o(0 N Nia �- 10(24) <- 10(10) 28(29) T � N N N � rn F 38(39) ,r 28(29) 20(96) — R i' p(p) y o o� F 48(63) �r 28(29) 62(126) — q O � � (i i i�� o VV VV VV VV Vv vu TJ`� i \#(#) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volume s f9 Traffic Signal a / I 44(126) a q T 30(95) N O W A T 3.d COMMUTER WAY VOLUMES FIGURE EXISTING CONDITIONS 4 Packet Pg. 153 vibson 3.d W W 0 A N O O - 0(0) A A O 0 o F 10(10) F 38(39) Future Base y L r 28(29) r 28(29) d y Conditions T 20(96) 18(108) a q T O No 0(0) -4 O o 12(83) -4 No N O Cn A J m O N A A N A !� w 10(24) in m w r10(10) r48(63) Future Plus y L r 28(29) r 28(29) a! y Residentia/Project 62(126) — R I' 44(126) a R T N N 0(0) y 0 8 30(95) y N N N O W O Cn A N O N N � J_ W O W J � V A (n NA J !� w v-- 10(24) o �wib <- 20(20) F 86(102) Future with Increased Train y L r 56(58) r 28(58) d y Frequency Plus Residentia/Project ? ' 82(122)— 59(192)a 50 r)T N o 0(0) O A 47(120) -4 w N WM J_ W L1 *77 o�J o�li I COMMUTER WAY VOLUMES FIGURE FUTURE CONDITIONS 5 Packet Pg. 154 3.d LOS TABLE 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS (YEAR 2023) INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Existing Existing with No. Intersection Peak Hour Conditions Project Conditions Delay LOS Delay LOS 0 Delay Impact 1. Commuter Way & Soledad Canyon Road A. M. P.M. 2.8 8.1 A A 4.2 9.1 A A 1.4 1.0 No No Notes: Intersection is signalized. 0 CV CV U 3 m m T) y M c a U_ M LL r O Ch V Q� I_ M U fC a� a� a Packet Pg. 155 3.d LOS TABLE 2 FUTURE CONDITIONS (YEAR 2026) INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Future without Future with Future with Project with No. Intersection Peak Hour Project Conditions Project Conditions Increased Transit Delay LOS Delay LOS A Delay Impact Delay LOS I A Delay Impact 1. Commuter Way & Soledad Canyon Road A.M. P.M. 2.9 9.0 A A 4.2 9.5 A A 1.3 0.5 NoIL No 5.3 11.8 A B 2.4 2.8 No No Notes: Intersection is signalized. LO 0 N N U 3 .y M r- Q c2 M LL r r- O V <.i Q Packet Pg. 156 TABLE 3 FUTURE CONDITIONS (YEAR 2026) INTERSECTION QUEUES Queue Length Intersection Peak Hour Turn Turn Turn Increased Transit with Project Pocket Future without Project Conditions Pocket Future with Project Conditions Pocket Length Length Length Conditions Intersection #1, Commuter Way &Soledad Canyon Road Vehicles Storage Required Vehicles Storage Required Vehicles Storage Required (feet) (feet) (feet) Eastbound U-Turn[a] A.M. 150 N/A N/A 150 2 50 150 2 50 from Soledad Canyon Road to Soledad Canyon Road p M. N/A N/A 1 25 1 25 Eastbound Right -Turn A.M. 150 1 25 150 1 25 150 1 25 from Soledad Canyon Road to Commuter Way P. M. 1 25 1 25 2 50 Westbound Left -Turn A.M. 285 2 50 285 3 75 285 3 75 from Soledad Canyon Road to Commuter Way P.M. 3 75 4 100 4 100 Northbound Left -Turn plus Right -Turn A.M. 430 3 75 430 5 125 430 6 150 from Commuter Way to Soledad Canyon Road P.M. 14 350 11 275 14 350 ALTERNATE 1 Northbound Left -Turn A.M. 320 4 100 320 4 100 from Commuter Way to Soledad Canyon Road P.M. 8 200 12 300 Northbound Right -Turn [a] A.M. 215 3 75 215 4 100 from Commuter Way to Soledad Canyon Road P.M. 7 175 8 200 ALTERNATE 2 Northbound Left -Turn A.M. 430 4 100 430 4 100 from Commuter Way to Soledad Canyon Road P.M. 8 200 12 300 Northbound Right -Turn [a] A.M. 215 3 75 215 4 100 from Commuter Way to Soledad Canyon Road P. M. 7 175 8 200 ALTERNATE 3 Northbound Left -Turn A.M. 430 4 100 430 4 100 from Commuter Way to Soledad Canyon Road P.M. 8 200 12 300 Northbound Right -Turn [a] A.M. 215 3 75 215 4 100 from Commuter Way to Soledad Canyon Road P. M. 7 175 8 200 Notes: Queues based on 95th percentile queue calculated by the HCM methodology. [a] Estimated distance as turn lane has not yet been constructed L0 O CV CV U d d N .y CCi C a U M H C O fn .Q C d E L U M a Packet Pg. 157 3.d O�ibson transportation consulting, inc. ATTACHMENT CA PA CITY CAL COLA TION WORKSHEETS Q Packet Pg. 158 3.d HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1. Existing without Project AM 1: Commuter Way & Soledad Cyn 08/02/2024 4- Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1079 46 20 2026 18 11 Future Volume (veh/h) 1079 46 20 2026 18 11 Initial Q (Qb), veh Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) Parking Bus, Adj Work Zone On Approach Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In Adj Flow Rate, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Percent Heavy Veh, % Cap, veh/h Arrive On Green Sat Flow, veh/h 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 No 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 No No 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1173 50 22 2202 16 16 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 2 2 2 2 2 2 4391 1363 23 4612 64 33 0.86 0.86 0.01 0.90 0.04 0.02 5274 1585 1781 5274 1781 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1173 50 22 2202 16 16 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1702 1585 1781 1702 1781 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.5 0.6 1.6 9.7 1.2 1.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.5 0.6 1.6 9.7 1.2 1.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 4391 1363 23 4612 64 33 V/C Ratio(X) 0.27 0.04 0.95 0.48 0.25 0.48 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 4391 1363 216 4612 445 372 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 1.7 1.3 65.1 1.1 61.9 63.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.1 41.7 0.4 0.7 4.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 1.3 0.2 1.8 0.3 1.0 1.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 1.8 1.4 106.8 1.4 62.6 67.9 LnGrp LOS A A F A E E Approach Vol, veh/h 1223 2224 32 Approach Delay, s/veh 1.8 2.5 65.3 Approach LOS A A E Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.7 117.5 123.2 8.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.5 69.0 89.0 31.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 3.6 7.5 11.7 3.3 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0 17.4 51.5 0.0 Intersection Summary H HCM 6th LOS A Notes 1. Existing without Project AM Synchro 11 Report Page 1 W Packet Pg. 159 3.d HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2. Existing without Project PM Peak 1: Commuter Way & Soledad Cyn 08/02/2024 --p- 4--- Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations +tt r ) ttt ) Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2270 44 24 1311 107 81 Future Volume (veh/h) 2270 44 24 1311 107 81 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2467 48 26 1425 102 103 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 4069 1263 26 4299 173 130 Arrive On Green 0.80 0.80 0.01 0.84 0.10 0.08 Sat Flow, veh/h 5274 1585 1781 5274 1781 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 2467 48 26 1425 102 103 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1702 1585 1781 1702 1781 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 25.1 0.8 1.9 8.1 7.2 8.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 25.1 0.8 1.9 8.1 7.2 8.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 4069 1263 26 4299 173 130 V/C Ratio(X) 0.61 0.04 0.98 0.33 0.59 0.79 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 4069 1263 216 4299 445 372 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 5.3 2.8 65.0 2.3 57.0 59.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.1 45.6 0.2 1.2 4.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 10.2 0.4 2.1 2.5 6.0 6.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 5.9 2.9 110.6 2.5 58.2 63.5 LnGrp LOS A A F A E E Approach Vol, veh/h 2515 1451 205 Approach Delay, s/veh 5.9 4.4 60.9 Approach LOS A A E Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.0 109.2 115.1 16.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.5 69.0 89.0 31.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 3.9 27.1 10.1 10.4 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0 36.5 24.0 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 8.1 HCM 6th LOS A Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. 2. Existing without Project PM Peak Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Packet Pg. 160 3.d HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 3. Existing with Project with Mitigation AM 1: Commuter Way & Soledad Cyn 08/05/2024 � � t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) ttt r ) ttt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 47 1111 48 28 2064 0 44 0 30 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 47 1111 48 28 2064 0 44 0 30 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 0 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 51 1208 52 30 2243 0 48 0 33 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 2 Cap, veh/h 188 4296 1333 31 4540 0 174 0 56 Arrive On Green 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.02 0.89 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.04 Sat Flow, veh/h 169 5106 1585 1781 5274 0 3456 0 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 51 1208 52 30 2243 0 48 0 33 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 169 1702 1585 1781 1702 0 1728 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.1 6.5 0.7 2.2 11.5 0.0 1.8 0.0 2.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.2 6.5 0.7 2.2 11.5 0.0 1.8 0.0 2.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 188 4296 1333 31 4540 0 174 0 56 V/C Ratio(X) 0.27 0.28 0.04 0.96 0.49 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.59 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 188 4296 1333 216 4540 0 864 0 372 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 4.3 2.2 1.7 64.8 1.4 0.0 60.4 0.0 62.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.5 0.2 0.1 35.7 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 3.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 0.9 2.0 0.2 2.3 1.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 2.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 7.8 2.3 1.8 100.5 1.8 0.0 60.7 0.0 66.5 LnGrp LOS A A A F A A E A E Approach Vol, veh/h 1311 2273 81 Approach Delay, s/veh 2.5 3.1 63.0 Approach LOS A A E Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.3 115.0 121.4 10.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.5 69.0 89.0 31.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 4.2 19.2 13.5 4.7 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0 22.4 52.1 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 4.2 HCM 6th LOS A Notes User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. 3. Existing with Project with Mitigation AM Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Packet Pg. 161 3.d HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 4. Existing plus Project with Mitigation PM 1: Commuter Way & Soledad Cyn 08/05/2024 � � t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) ttt r ) ttt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 33 2314 50 42 1346 0 126 0 95 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 33 2314 50 42 1346 0 126 0 95 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 0 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 36 2515 54 46 1463 0 137 0 103 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 2 Cap, veh/h 331 3988 1238 53 4294 0 340 0 132 Arrive On Green 0.77 0.78 0.78 0.03 0.84 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.08 Sat Flow, veh/h 363 5106 1585 1781 5274 0 3456 0 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 36 2515 54 46 1463 0 137 0 103 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 363 1702 1585 1781 1702 0 1728 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.5 28.1 1.0 3.4 8.4 0.0 4.9 0.0 8.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.0 28.1 1.0 3.4 8.4 0.0 4.9 0.0 8.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 331 3988 1238 53 4294 0 340 0 132 V/C Ratio(X) 0.11 0.63 0.04 0.87 0.34 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.78 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 331 3988 1238 216 4294 0 864 0 372 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 4.2 6.2 3.3 63.8 2.3 0.0 55.9 0.0 59.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.8 0.1 14.7 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 3.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 0.5 11.8 0.5 3.1 2.6 0.0 3.9 0.0 6.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 4.8 7.0 3.3 78.5 2.6 0.0 56.1 0.0 63.1 LnGrp LOS A A A E A A E A E Approach Vol, veh/h 2605 1509 240 Approach Delay, s/veh 6.9 4.9 59.1 Approach LOS A A E Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.9 107.1 115.0 17.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.5 69.0 89.0 31.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 5.4 30.1 10.4 10.4 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0 35.1 25.1 0.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.1 HCM 6th LOS A Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. 4. Existing plus Project with Mitigation PM Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Packet Pg. 162 3.d HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 5. Future without Project AM 1: Commuter Way & Soledad Cyn 08/05/2024 --p- 4--- Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations +tt r ) ttt ) Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1330 46 20 2287 18 12 Future Volume (veh/h) 1330 46 20 2287 18 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1446 50 22 2486 16 17 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 4390 1363 23 4611 65 34 Arrive On Green 0.86 0.86 0.01 0.90 0.04 0.02 Sat Flow, veh/h 5274 1585 1781 5274 1781 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1446 50 22 2486 16 17 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1702 1585 1781 1702 1781 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.3 0.6 1.6 12.2 1.2 1.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.3 0.6 1.6 12.2 1.2 1.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 4390 1363 23 4611 65 34 V/C Ratio(X) 0.33 0.04 0.95 0.54 0.25 0.50 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 4390 1363 216 4611 445 372 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 1.8 1.3 65.1 1.2 61.8 63.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.1 41.7 0.5 0.7 4.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 1.8 0.2 1.8 0.4 1.0 1.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 2.0 1.4 106.8 1.7 62.6 68.2 LnGrp LOS A A F A E E Approach Vol, veh/h 1496 2508 33 Approach Delay, s/veh 2.0 2.6 65.5 Approach LOS A A E Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.7 117.5 123.2 8.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.5 69.0 89.0 31.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.6 9.3 14.2 3.4 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0 23.9 59.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 2.9 HCM 6th LOS A Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. 5. Future without Project AM Synchro 11 Report Page 1 W Packet Pg. 163 3.d HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 6. Future without Project PM 1: Commuter Way & Soledad Cyn 08/02/2024 --p- 4--- Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations +tt r ) ttt ) Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2641 44 24 1163 108 83 Future Volume (veh/h) 2641 44 24 1163 108 83 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2871 48 26 1264 104 104 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 4066 1262 26 4296 175 131 Arrive On Green 0.80 0.80 0.01 0.84 0.10 0.08 Sat Flow, veh/h 5274 1585 1781 5274 1781 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 2871 48 26 1264 104 104 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1702 1585 1781 1702 1781 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 34.6 0.8 1.9 6.9 7.4 8.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 34.6 0.8 1.9 6.9 7.4 8.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 4066 1262 26 4296 175 131 V/C Ratio(X) 0.71 0.04 0.98 0.29 0.60 0.79 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 4066 1262 216 4296 445 372 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.3 2.8 65.0 2.2 57.0 59.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 0.1 45.6 0.2 1.2 4.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 13.2 0.4 2.1 2.2 6.1 6.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 7.3 2.9 110.6 2.4 58.2 63.4 LnGrp LOS A A F A E E Approach Vol, veh/h 2919 1290 208 Approach Delay, s/veh 7.2 4.6 60.8 Approach LOS A A E Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.0 109.1 115.1 16.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.5 69.0 89.0 31.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.9 36.6 8.9 10.5 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0 31.0 19.4 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.0 HCM 6th LOS A Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. 6. Future without Project PM Synchro 11 Report Page 1 W Packet Pg. 164 3.d HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7. Future with Project with MitigatAM 1: Commuter Way & Soledad Cyn 08/05/2024 � � t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) ttt r ) ttt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 47 1362 48 28 2325 0 44 0 30 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 47 1362 48 28 2325 0 44 0 30 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 0 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 51 1480 52 30 2527 0 48 0 33 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 2 Cap, veh/h 152 4296 1333 31 4540 0 174 0 56 Arrive On Green 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.02 0.89 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.04 Sat Flow, veh/h 128 5106 1585 1781 5274 0 3456 0 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 51 1480 52 30 2527 0 48 0 33 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 128 1702 1585 1781 1702 0 1728 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 20.6 8.6 0.7 2.2 14.3 0.0 1.8 0.0 2.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 28.6 8.6 0.7 2.2 14.3 0.0 1.8 0.0 2.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 152 4296 1333 31 4540 0 174 0 56 V/C Ratio(X) 0.33 0.34 0.04 0.96 0.56 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.59 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 152 4296 1333 216 4540 0 864 0 372 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.0 2.3 1.7 64.8 1.6 0.0 60.4 0.0 62.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.8 0.2 0.1 35.7 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 3.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 1.2 2.7 0.2 2.3 1.2 0.0 1.4 0.0 2.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 11.9 2.6 1.8 100.5 2.1 0.0 60.7 0.0 66.5 LnGrp LOS B A A F A A E A E Approach Vol, veh/h 1583 2557 81 Approach Delay, s/veh 2.8 3.3 63.0 Approach LOS A A E Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.3 115.0 121.4 10.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.5 69.0 89.0 31.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 4.2 30.6 16.3 4.7 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0 25.1 58.6 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 4.2 HCM 6th LOS A Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. 7. Future with Project with Mitigations AM Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Packet Pg. 165 3.d HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 8. Future with Project with Mitigation PM 1: Commuter Way & Soledad Cyn 08/05/2024 � � t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) ttt r ) ttt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 33 2685 50 42 1718 0 126 0 95 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 33 2685 50 42 1718 0 126 0 95 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 0 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 36 2918 54 46 1867 0 137 0 103 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 2 Cap, veh/h 235 3988 1238 53 4294 0 340 0 132 Arrive On Green 0.77 0.78 0.78 0.03 0.84 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.08 Sat Flow, veh/h 245 5106 1585 1781 5274 0 3456 0 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 36 2918 54 46 1867 0 137 0 103 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 245 1702 1585 1781 1702 0 1728 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.0 38.6 1.0 3.4 12.1 0.0 4.9 0.0 8.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.2 38.6 1.0 3.4 12.1 0.0 4.9 0.0 8.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 235 3988 1238 53 4294 0 340 0 132 V/C Ratio(X) 0.15 0.73 0.04 0.87 0.43 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.78 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 235 3988 1238 216 4294 0 864 0 372 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 5.5 7.4 3.3 63.8 2.6 0.0 55.9 0.0 59.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.4 1.2 0.1 14.7 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 3.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 0.6 15.3 0.5 3.1 3.8 0.0 3.9 0.0 6.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 6.9 8.6 3.3 78.5 3.0 0.0 56.1 0.0 63.1 LnGrp LOS A A A E A A E A E Approach Vol, veh/h 3008 1913 240 Approach Delay, s/veh 8.5 4.8 59.1 Approach LOS A A E Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.9 107.1 115.0 17.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.5 69.0 89.0 31.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 5.4 40.6 14.1 10.4 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0 27.6 38.6 0.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.5 HCM 6th LOS A Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. 8. Future with Project with Mitigation PM Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Packet Pg. 166 3.d HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 9. Future with Project with Mitigation with Increased Transit AM 1: Commuter Way & Soledad Cyn 08/05/2024 � � t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) ttt r ) ttt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 47 1362 75 39 2325 0 59 0 47 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 47 1362 75 39 2325 0 59 0 47 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 0 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 51 1480 82 42 2527 0 64 0 51 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 2 Cap, veh/h 149 4183 1298 48 4474 0 218 0 76 Arrive On Green 0.80 0.82 0.82 0.03 0.88 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.05 Sat Flow, veh/h 128 5106 1585 1781 5274 0 3456 0 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 51 1480 82 42 2527 0 64 0 51 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 128 1702 1585 1781 1702 0 1728 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 22.8 9.7 1.3 3.1 16.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 4.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 31.3 9.7 1.3 3.1 16.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 4.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 149 4183 1298 48 4474 0 218 0 76 V/C Ratio(X) 0.34 0.35 0.06 0.88 0.56 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.67 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 149 4183 1298 216 4474 0 864 0 372 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 7.4 3.0 2.3 64.0 2.0 0.0 59.0 0.0 61.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.2 0.2 0.1 17.3 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 3.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 1.3 3.7 0.5 2.9 2.7 0.0 1.9 0.0 3.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 13.6 3.3 2.4 81.3 2.5 0.0 59.3 0.0 65.5 LnGrp LOS B A A F A A E A E Approach Vol, veh/h 1613 2569 115 Approach Delay, s/veh 3.6 3.8 62.1 Approach LOS A A E Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.5 112.1 119.7 12.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.5 69.0 89.0 31.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 5.1 33.3 18.0 6.2 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0 24.2 57.5 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 5.3 HCM 6th LOS A Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. 9. Future with Project with Mitigation with Increased Transit AM Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Packet Pg. 167 3.d HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 10. Future with Project with Mitigation with Increased Transit PM 1: Commuter Way & Soledad Cyn 08/05/2024 � � t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) ttt r ) ttt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 33 2685 106 54 1718 0 192 0 120 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 33 2685 106 54 1718 0 192 0 120 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 0 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 36 2918 115 59 1867 0 209 0 130 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 2 Cap, veh/h 227 3846 1194 69 4199 0 404 0 161 Arrive On Green 0.74 0.75 0.75 0.04 0.82 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.10 Sat Flow, veh/h 245 5106 1585 1781 5274 0 3456 0 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 36 2918 115 59 1867 0 209 0 130 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 245 1702 1585 1781 1702 0 1728 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.7 43.4 2.5 4.3 13.5 0.0 7.5 0.0 10.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.1 43.4 2.5 4.3 13.5 0.0 7.5 0.0 10.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 227 3846 1194 69 4199 0 404 0 161 V/C Ratio(X) 0.16 0.76 0.10 0.85 0.44 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.81 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 227 3846 1194 216 4199 0 864 0 372 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.7 9.4 4.3 63.0 3.3 0.0 54.8 0.0 58.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.5 1.5 0.2 10.2 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 3.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 0.7 18.2 1.3 3.8 5.1 0.0 5.9 0.0 7.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 8.2 10.8 4.5 73.3 3.6 0.0 55.2 0.0 61.6 LnGrp LOS A B A E A A E A E Approach Vol, veh/h 3069 1926 339 Approach Delay, s/veh 10.6 5.8 57.6 Approach LOS B A E Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.1 103.4 112.6 19.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.5 69.0 89.0 31.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 6.3 45.4 15.5 12.6 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0 23.0 38.3 0.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.8 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. 10. Future with Project with Mitigation with Increased Transit PM Synchro 11 Report Page 1 Packet Pg. 168 3.e REVISED RIVERVIEW MIXED -USE RESIDENTIAL AND MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL PROJECT PRELIMINARY TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) PROGRAM May 30, 2024 Revised June 14, 2024 Riverview Mixed -Use Project (Project) is mixed -use development consisting of manufacturing/industrial and residential uses located adjacent to the Santa Clarita Metrolink Station. This development would promote non -auto travel through design and orientation that is pedestrian -friendly and facilitates transit use. The TDM Program outlined below represents a set of strategies for the Project that encourage Project residents, employees, and visitors to reduce vehicular traffic on the street and freeway system, particularly during the most congested time periods of the day, by promoting non -auto travel. The TDM Program includes TDM strategies to be implemented with occupation of the Project. As per the City of Santa Clarita standards, this Preliminary TDM Program is submitted as part of the City's Application Process. If the Project is approved, a more detailed TDM Program tailored to the approved Project will be prepared for City approval. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project Site is located on the south side of Soledad Canyon Road on the site of the former Saugus Raceway. Original Project The Original Project consisted of 318 dwelling units, including several configurations of both attached and detached single family units, and a commercial movie and television studio with six sound stages totaling approximately 66,000 square feet (sf) of stages and supporting production offices on the western portion of the Project Site. Packet Pg. 169 3.e The residential portion of the Project would provide a total of 839 parking spaces, while the studio component would provide 370 automobile spaces plus 60 spaces for production and delivery trucks, approximately 50 of which would be provided in marked spaces within the parking lots and 10 spaces of which would be provided in base camps immediately adjacent to the stages. Revised Project The Revised Project retains all the residential components of the Original Project and changes the studio component to a manufacturing/industrial building located on the western portion of the Project Site (the site of the previously proposed studio). The manufacturing building will be a single building containing 106,790 sf of manufacturing/industrial space and 10,000 sf of ancillary office space and will provide 203 employee and visitor automobile parking spaces (including electric vehicle spaces) and parking spaces for truck trailers. PROJECT ACCESS Residential access remains as proposed in the Original Project. The manufacturing building would be accessed via a main driveway (Main Manufacturing Driveway) at the northeast corner of the manufacturing site and a minor right -turn in -and -out driveway at the northwest corner of the site. The developer has requested that the Main Manufacturing Driveway be controlled by a traffic signal. All Project driveways would be served by Soledad Canyon Road. TDM STRATEGIES FOR RIVERVIEW MIXED -USE PROJECT The following TDM strategies will be implemented under the TDM Program: Packet Pg. 170 3.e • Flexible Work Schedules and Telecommuting Programs • Bicycle Amenities (Bicycle Racks, Lockers, Showers, etc.) • Rideshare Services • Bikeshare Services • Carpool/Vanpool Programs and Support • Transportation Information Center (TIC) • Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) program • Tax Benefits for Transit Users • Preferential Parking Locations for high occupancy vehicles (HOV) • Join an Existing Transportation Management Association Details on each of these strategies are presented in the following pages. Flexible Work Schedules and Telecommutina Proarams LO 0 The Riverview Mixed -Use Project will offer residents and employees flexible work arrangements N N including telecommuting (work from home), flextime hours (variable shift start and end times), and flexible work schedules (varying the days worked each week). a� a� Telecommuting and flexible/alternative work schedules can help reduce peak hour traffic generation and can consist of any combination of the following work schedules: 0 c • Flextime. This means that employees are allowed some flexibility in their daily work schedules. Flextime employees can select one start time and end time and keep it the same every day, change their schedule at some logical interval depending on business needs and management approval, or vary their schedule daily if the job requires/allows. Q • Telecommuting. Support and utilize telecommuting for any employees that can adequately perform their jobs while working away from the office. Telecommuting is a work arrangement where employees, for a portion of their arranged work hours, perform their regular responsibilities away from their primary business location. The remote location is either the employee's residence or an approved remote office location. Remote Work. Support and utilize remote work arrangements for any employees that can adequately perform their jobs in a remote setting. Remote work employees will perform their full-time work responsibilities exclusively from a location outside of their primary work site — usually their home or a satellite office. This arrangement differs from telecommuting in that it requires the creation of infrastructure supports that are independent from an on - site office. Packet Pg. 171 3.e Bicycle Amenities (Bike Racks, Lockers, Showers, etc.) Non -motorized transportation includes walking and bicycling. These modes provide both recreation and transportation, although users may consider a particular trip to serve both objectives. For example, some people will choose to walk or bicycle rather than drive because they enjoy the activity, although it takes longer. Support bicycling through the provision of bike storage facilities throughout the Project. In addition, employees who walk or bike to work may use shower facilities available on the lot. Shower facilities and locker rooms must be provided for employees. Rideshare Services Offer an online ride matching service for all of its employees through RideLinks, Inc or similar service. Bikeshare Services Offer a location or multiple locations to install a third -party bike -share docking station that can provide short-term rental bikes to residents or employees of the Project. Carpool/Vanpool Programs and Support Offer priority carpool/vanpool parking locations for registered carpools as an incentive to form and continue to participate in carpools. Packet Pg. 172 3.e Transportation Information Center (TIC) A TIC is a centrally -located commuter information center where the Project employees and residents can obtain information regarding commute programs, and individuals can obtain real-time information for planning travel without using an automobile. A TIC provides orientation for new employees and residents as well as providing information about transit schedules, commute planning, rideshare, telecommuting, bicycle and pedestrian plans, and the flex car program. A virtual TIC, providing every employee and resident access to commuter information through an online portal is acceptable. Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) Program GRH is typically a Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) service managed by a Transportation Management Association. A typical policy would include the following: • Eligibility: The program covers all employees participating in the carpool/vanpool program or using transit to/from the Project. • Trips eligible for the program: The program is available for employees who have an emergency situation that requires them to leave work early. It also covers employees who have to work unexpected overtime, thus leaving them without transportation home. Maximum Allotment: The program typically limits each employee to 2-3 GRH per year. Tax Benefits for Transit Users Employees who use mass transit to commute to work are able to take advantage of a program that allows them to pay for transit services with pre-tax dollars. Packet Pg. 173 3.e Preferential Parking Locations for HOV Preferential parking location involves designation of the most convenient locations in employee parking areas for HOV such as carpools and vanpools. Having preferential facilities can encourage employees to use higher -occupancy modes of travel, such as transit, carpools, and vanpools. Transportation Management Association (TMA) Join a TMA. The goal of the TMA is to promote awareness of the available TDM strategies and create Transportation Management Plans (TMPs) for the residents, employees, and visitors of both the Project and a broader area. Specific components of the TMA would include: • Rideshare matching • Administrative support for formation of vanpools and/or carpools • Bike and walk to work promotions • Emergency ride home program • TIC support Riverview Residential would participate in the TMA by paying dues to the organization and committing annual dues for 10 years to get the TMA started on a strong financial footing. Preliminary Riverview Mixed -Use Development TDM Program Accepted by: City of Santa Clarita Date Packet Pg. 174 3.e TDM PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS The City of Santa Clarita has requested an estimate of the overall effectiveness of the Transportation Demand Management Program as a means to justify the 20% parking reduction associated with the Jobs Creation Overlay Zone (JCOZ). While most of the research into TDM Program effectiveness is aimed at documenting the potential reduction in Project automobile trips, it is possible to relate that trip reduction to the resulting reduction in parking demand for the Project Site. The primary research into TDM effectiveness was conducted in 2010 by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) and this research has been updated and expanded as the importance of the measurement of vehicle miles travelled (VMT) has increased as a result of its adoption into the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) through Senate Bill 325. CAPCOA and the more recent VMT research have estimated the potential effectiveness of various TDM and VMT strategies and have suggested ways to calculate the likely effectiveness of each of these strategies for a particular development project Table 1 summarizes the effectiveness of the TDM Programs included in the Riverview Mixed -Use Project. CAPCOA research suggests that the TDM strategies included in the Riverview TDM Program could reduce the inbound daily trips by up to approximately 44%. To be conservative, estimates less than the maximum levels were applied to the Riverview Project in the strategy areas of Parking Reduction, Carpool, Increased Transit, and Education/Support. These reductions resulted in an estimated TDM effectiveness for the Riverview TDM Program that would yield a 31.5% reduction in inbound daily trips to the manufacturing/industrial portion of the Project Site. The effect of this TDM Program would mean that the parking demand at the manufacturing/industrial portion of the site could be approximately 30% less than a similar project without a TDM Program in a location not near a rail transit station. The national and state research shows that the 20% reduction in parking supply allowed by the JCOZ is supportable by the Project's location and the TDM Program associated with the Riverview Mixed -Use Project. June 14, 2024 Packet Pg. 175 3.e Table 1 Transportation Demand Management Program Effectiveness TDM Program Category CAPCOA Maximum Effectiveness (1) Parking Programs Riverview Program Effectiveness Daily Inbound Parking Trip Reduction (1) Demand Reduction • 20% Parking Reduction 12.5% 10% 10% • Preferential Parking Locations for HOVs (High Occupancy Vehicles) ^ LO 0 N Mode Shift and Rideshare Programs N U • Rideshare Services 0.7% 0.5% 0% 3 • Bikeshare Services 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% • Carpool/Vanpool Programs and Support 15% 10% 8.4% • Increased Transit Usage (Travel Behavior Change) 8% 5% 5% 2 • Bicycle Amenities (Bicycle Racks, Lockers, Showers, etc.) 1.25% 1.25% 1.25% �- • Pedestrian Connection to Transit Station 2% 2% 2% o • Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) program • Tax Benefits for Transit Users a� E Education and Support Programs? Q • Flexible Work Schedules and Telecommuting Programs 4% 2.5% 2% • Transportation Information Center (TIC) • Join an Existing Transportation Management Association TOTAL 43.7% 31.5% 28.9% (1) SOURCE: A. "Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures", California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), 2010 B. "TDM Strategies in the City of Los Angeles Vehicle Miles Travel Calculator, Los Angeles Department of Transportation", Fehr & Peers, 2019 Packet Pg. 176 3.f From: Emily Rubalcava To: Justin Sauder Subject: FW: RIVERVIEW (MASTER CASE 21-205) Date: Tuesday, August 13, 2024 2:08:29 PM Attachments: imaae001.ona See below from Planning inbox From: Andrea Mason <Andrea.Mason @constructconnect.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2024 12:45 PM To: PLANNING <PLANNING@santa-clarita.com> Subject: RIVERVIEW (MASTER CASE 21-205) CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Hello, Looking for additional details for a planning and zoning project: RIVERVIEW (MASTER CASE 21-205) What is the outcome/status of the municipal approvals? What is the next step for this applicant. Any information would be greatly appreciated. Please feel free to either call or email me at your earliest convenience. 11 1/APSAM Andrea Mason Sr. Content Specialist p: 770-209-3811 Oconstructconnect. Packet Pg. 177 3.f From: Emily Rubalcava To: Justin Saucer Subject: FW: Spectrum News reported that the Saugus Speedway Property and Swap Meet property, might soon be developed Date: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 9:46:26 AM Forward from our Planning inbox. Thanks! From: Lance Johannsen <smileyjoh@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2024 1:09 PM To: PLANNING <PLANNING@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Spectrum News reported that the Saugus Speedway Property and Swap Meet property, might soon be developed CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Why doesn't CA and in this case, Santa Clarita, get serious about our housing shortage? 28 acres of vacant land, could easily support between 500 and 700 multi units of apartments or condos. The units could be considerably more affordable price than what is being suggested Less than 200 units (both detached and attached). The proposal suggested, will make these units pricees, well beyond the reach of most entry-level home buyers. Gerald Lance Johannsen, Carlsbad, CA Packet Pg. 178 3.f From: Emily Rubalcava To: Justin Sauder Subject: FW: Riverview (Saugus Speedway) Date: Tuesday, September 10, 2024 10:25:14 AM See below. Could you respond? From: Jim Thurman <jimkthurman@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2024 10:05 AM To: PLANNING <PLANNING@santa-clarita.com> Subject: Riverview (Saugus Speedway) CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Hi, o N N It's a bit late in the process, but has the city considered buying this property to make it a park, open v space and heritage site? The swap meet, and other activities could continue. While it isn't likely to be viable as a race track any longer, with the impending closure of Irwindale Speedway, that is a °' possibility as well (sound walls and foliage buffers could be constructed). It is a community resource and asset that once gone, isn't coming back. It is something unique, and historic. W While auto racing isn't as popular as it once was, the only reason racing ended at the speedway was because the Bonelli family decided to end it. Another plan for keeping the track. Asheville Speedway in Asheville, North Carolina was closed, and converted into a park with the race track used for cycling, roller skating and running/jogging. The same could be done with the Saugus Speedway. Sincerely, Jim Thurman Packet Pg. 179