Santa Clarita City Council
October 22, 2024

Attachment C
Air Quality Study

1.i
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project)

CARLSBAD
CLOVIS
IRVINE

LOS ANGELES

PALM SPRINGS

POINT RICHMOND

RIVERSIDE

ROSEVILLE

SAN LUIS OBISPO
3210 El Camino Real, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92602     949.553.0666     www.lsa.net

MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 23, 2023
TO: Robert Neman, Harvard 826 Property LLC
FROM: Ronald Brugger, Senior Air Quality Specialist
SUBJECT: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis Memorandum for the proposed Promenade Flats Project in Santa Clarita, California

INTRODUCTION
This air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impact analysis for the proposed Promenade Flats Project at 26135 Bouquet Canyon Road in Santa Clarita, California (project) has been prepared using methods and assumptions recommended in the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD 1993). This analysis includes a description of existing regulatory framework, an assessment of project operational air quality emissions, and an assessment of GHG emissions. Measures to reduce or eliminate significant impacts are identified, where appropriate. All references cited in the memorandum are included in Attachment A.

Project Location
The project site is located along the west side of Bouquet Canyon Road, north of Magic Mountain Parkway and south of Cinema Drive at (Assessor’s Parcel Number 2811‐003‐018), 26135 Bouquet Canyon Road in the community of Valencia. The project site has a Mixed‐Use Corridor (MXC) zoning designation. Figure 1 shows the project location (all figures are in Attachment B).

Project Description
The proposed project would remove a portion of the existing parking lot to accommodate a new four‐story, mixed‐use building on 1.2 acres. The proposed project would include a total of 15,741.50 square feet (sf) of commercial use consisting of a 7,266.10 sf first‐floor retail space, a 3,027.40 sf rooftop yoga studio, and the existing 5,448 sf International House of Pancakes (IHOP) restaurant. In addition to the new commercial uses, the proposed building would include four live/work units and 26 one‐bedroom units on floors two through four. A new 14,359 sf (0.33 acre) parking lot would be constructed on an adjacent vacant parcel to offset the parking that would be removed as part of the project. Construction of the proposed project would start in January 2024 and would be completed in approximately 12 months. Figure 2 shows the site plan. Project traffic is described in the Transportation Memorandum (LSA 2022).

Land Uses in the Project Vicinity
Land uses surrounding the proposed building include the Las Flores Apartments and the Global Prep Academy to the west of the project site. The new parking lot would be just south of the Las Flores

1.i
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) 10/9/23 «P:\HAV2001\AQ‐GHG\Products\HAV2001 AQ‐GHG Memo_20231006.docx»   2 Apartments. Otherwise, there are commercial uses to the north, east, and south. Bouquet Canyon Road and the Metrolink rail are located east of the project.

Climate/Meteorology
Air quality in the planning area is affected not only by various emission sources (e.g., mobile and industry) but also by atmospheric conditions (e.g., wind speed, wind direction, temperature, and rainfall). The combination of topography, low mixing height, abundant sunshine, and emissions from the second‐largest urban area in the United States gives the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) some of the worst air pollution problems in the nation.

The Santa Clarita Valley is surrounded by the Santa Susana and San Gabriel mountain ranges on the south, east and west, and the Sierra Pelona Mountains on the north. The Valley lies in a transitional microclimatic zone of the Basin between the “valley marginal” and “high desert” climate types.

Situated far enough from the ocean to escape coastal influences, the Valley’s climate is generally mild with hot summers and sunny, warm winters. Average annual precipitation is about 13 inches, usually received between November and March, although some mountain areas south of the Valley may receive up to 24 inches of precipitation per year.

However, transport of the pollution that is emitted in the southern parts of the Basin and in the San Fernando Valley gets transported by onshore winds up through the Newhall Pass up toward the Santa Clarita Valley results in high levels of ground‐level ozone every summer. Though Santa Clarita sits between two of the largest pollution areas, Los Angeles and Bakersfield, most of the air quality readings for the Santa Clarita Valley range between 58 to 78 percent below the state average.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Air quality and GHG standards and the regulatory framework are discussed below.

Federal Regulations
Pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The NAAQS were established for six major pollutants, termed “criteria” pollutants. Criteria pollutants are defined as those pollutants for which the federal and State governments have established AAQS, or criteria, for outdoor concentrations to protect public health.

The EPA has designated the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) as the Metropolitan Planning Organization responsible for ensuring compliance with the requirements of the CAA for the Basin.

The United States has historically had a voluntary approach to reducing GHG emissions; however, on April 2, 2007, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the EPA has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions under the CAA. The Supreme Court ruled that GHGs fit within the CAA’s definition of a pollutant and that the EPA did not have a valid rationale for not regulating GHGs. In December 2009, the EPA issued an endangerment finding for GHGs under the CAA.

1.i
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) 10/9/23 «P:\HAV2001\AQ‐GHG\Products\HAV2001 AQ‐GHG Memo_20231006.docx»   3 On December 7, 2009, the EPA Administrator signed a final action under the CAA, finding that six GHGs (i.e., CO2, methane [CH4], nitrous oxide [N2O], hydrofluorocarbons [HFCs], perfluorocarbons [PFCs], and sulfur hexafluoride [SF6]) constitute a threat to public health and welfare and that the combined emissions from motor vehicles cause and contribute to global climate change (GCC).

Multistate
The Western Regional Climate Action Initiative
The Western Regional Climate Action Initiative is a partnership among seven states including California and four Canadian provinces to implement a regional, economy‐wide cap‐and‐trade system to reduce global warming pollution. The Western Regional Climate Action Initiative will cap GHG emissions from the region’s electricity, industrial, and transportation sectors with the goal to reduce the heat trapping emissions that cause global warming to 15% below 2005 levels by 2020.

When the Western Regional Climate Action Initiative adopted this goal in 2007, it estimated this would require 2007 levels to be reduced worldwide between 50% and 85% by 2050. California is working closely with the other states and provinces to design a regional GHG reduction program that includes a cap‐and‐trade approach.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has implemented a cap‐and‐trade program that is also intended to link California and the other member states and provinces. The cap‐and‐trade regulation, which is a key element of California’s climate plan, took effect in January 2012 and compliance obligation began in January 2013. The cap‐and‐trade program sets a statewide limit on sources responsible for 85% of California’s GHG emissions and establishes a price signal needed to drive long‐term investment in cleaner fuels and more efficient use of energy. As of January 1, 2014, California’s cap‐and‐trade program is linked to Quebec’s pursuant to the Agreement Between the CARB and the Gouvernement du Québec Concerning the Harmonization and Integration of Cap‐and‐ Trade Programs Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, in accordance with the direction in CARB Board Resolution 13‐7 (CARB 2013). As of January 1, 2018, California’s cap‐and‐trade program and Québec’s program linked with Ontario’s cap‐and‐trade program. However, on July 3, 2018, the Ontario government revoked its cap‐and‐trade regulation. With Ontario’s withdrawal from the linked program, California and Québec will work together to ensure that the environmental integrity and stringency of the cap‐and‐trade program/market is sustained (CARB n.d.‐a).

The program is designed to provide covered entities the flexibility to seek out and implement the lowest‐cost options to reduce emissions. The first phase of the cap‐and‐trade regulation included electricity generated in and imported into California, large combustion sources (i.e., generally those emitting more than 25,000 metric tons [MT] of carbon dioxide equivalent [CO2e] per year), and certain industrial sectors. The second phase added providers of transportation fuels and other combustion fuels (e.g., natural gas, propane) to the cap‐and‐trade program. The regulation requires that emissions generated by these facilities and combustion of fuels be reduced over time under a declining cap.

Pacific Coast Action Plan on Climate and Energy
On October 28, 2013, the Governors of California, Oregon, and Washington and the Premier of British Columbia signed a clean energy pact, known as the Pacific Coast Action Plan on Climate and Energy. Although the Pacific Coast Action Plan does not impose legally enforceable obligations and

1.i
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) 10/9/23 «P:\HAV2001\AQ‐GHG\Products\HAV2001 AQ‐GHG Memo_20231006.docx»   4 lacks a specific schedule for implementation, the pact sets out a number of goals and aspirational measures. The Pacific Coast Action Plan calls upon each of the parties to undertake a number of measures to address the use of carbon‐based fuels in the transportation sector, including the adoption or maintenance of low‐carbon fuel standards, the development of targets and action plans in order to encourage public and private investment in low‐carbon commercial fleets that use alternative fields, and the expansion of the sale of zero‐emissions vehicles to a goal of 10% of new vehicle purchases by 2016.

California Air Resources Board
In 1967, the State Legislature passed the Mulford‐Carrell Act, which combined two Department of Health bureaus (i.e., the Bureau of Air Sanitation and the Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board) to establish CARB. Since its formation, CARB has worked with the public, the business sector, and local governments to find solutions to the State’s air pollution problems. California adopted the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) in 1988. CARB administers the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for the 10 air pollutants designated in the CCAA. These 10 State air pollutants are the 6 criteria pollutants designated by the federal CAA as well as 4 others: visibility‐reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), sulfates, and vinyl chloride.

The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, widely known as Assembly Bill (AB) 32, requires CARB to develop and enforce regulations for the reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. CARB was directed to set a statewide GHG emissions limit and set a timeline for adopting a scoping plan for achieving GHG reductions in a technologically and economically feasible manner.

The heart of the bill is the requirement that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. The bill requires CARB to adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost‐effective GHG reductions.

In 2016, the Legislature passed and Governor Jerry Brown signed, Senate Bill (SB) 32 and AB 197.

SB 32 affirms the importance of addressing climate change by codifying into statute the GHG emissions reductions target of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 contained in Governor Brown’s April 2015 Executive Order (EO) B‐30‐15. SB 32 builds on AB 32 and keeps California on the path toward achieving the State’s 2050 objective of reducing emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels, consistent with an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) analysis of the emissions trajectory that would stabilize atmospheric GHG concentrations at 450 parts per million (ppm) CO2e and reduce the likelihood of catastrophic impacts from climate change (IPCC 2023). The companion bill to SB 32, AB 197, provides additional direction to CARB related to the adoption of strategies to reduce GHG emissions.

CARB adopted the 2022 Scoping Plan Update on December 15, 2022. The 2022 Scoping Plan Update assesses progress toward the statutory 2030 target, while laying out a path to achieving carbon neutrality no later than 2045. The 2022 Scoping Plan Update focuses on outcomes needed to achieve carbon neutrality by assessing paths for clean technology, energy deployment, natural and working lands, and others and is designed to meet the State’s long‐term climate objectives and support a range of economic, environmental, energy security, environmental justice, and public health priorities. Appendix D of the Scoping Plan includes information about project attributes that

1.i
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) 10/9/23 «P:\HAV2001\AQ‐GHG\Products\HAV2001 AQ‐GHG Memo_20231006.docx»   5 would reduce operational GHG emissions and accommodate growth in a manner consistent with State GHG reduction and equity prioritization goals.

Although the 2022 Scoping Plan does not impose any specific mandates or policies that specifically apply to individual development projects such as the proposed project, the Scoping Plan encourages local municipalities to update building codes and establish sustainable development practices for accommodating future growth. Key policies that involve the residential and commercial building sectors that are indirectly applicable to the proposed Project include the implementation of SB 275 (promoting infill development and high‐density housing in high quality transit areas), implementing green building practices (i.e., the California Green Building Standards Code), energy efficiency and water conservation policies, and waste diversion efforts.

Senate Bill 97 and CEQA Guidelines
In August 2007, the Legislature adopted SB 97, requiring the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare and transmit new California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines for the mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions to the California Natural Resources Agency. OPR submitted its proposed guidelines to the Secretary for Natural Resources on April 13, 2009, and the CEQA Guidelines amendments were adopted on December 30, 2009 and became effective on March 18, 2010.

The CEQA Guidelines amendments do not specify a threshold of significance for GHG emissions or prescribe assessment methodologies or specific mitigation measures. Instead, the amendments encourage lead agencies to consider many factors in performing a CEQA analysis but rely on the lead agencies in making their own significance determinations based upon substantial evidence. The CEQA Guidelines amendments also encourage public agencies to make use of programmatic mitigation plans and programs from which to tier when they perform individual project analyses.

The CEQA Guidelines amendments require a lead agency to make a good‐faith effort based on the extent possible on scientific and factual data to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of GHG emissions resulting from a project. The CEQA Guidelines amendments give discretion to the lead agency whether to (1) use a model or methodology to quantify GHG emissions resulting from a project and which model or methodology to use and/or (2) rely on a qualitative analysis or performance‐based standards. The California Natural Resources Agency is required to periodically update the guidelines to incorporate new information or criteria established by CARB pursuant to AB 32.

California Green Building Standards
The California Green Building Standards Code, which is Part 11 of the California Code of Regulations, is commonly referred to as the CALGreen Code. The first edition of the CALGreen Code was released in 2008 and contained only voluntary standards. The 2022 CALGreen Code was updated in 2022, became effective on January 1, 2023, and applies to non‐residential and residential developments.

The CALGreen Code contains requirements for construction site selection, stormwater control during construction, construction waste reduction, indoor water use reduction, material selection, natural resource conservation, site irrigation conservation, and more. The CALGreen Code provides for design options allowing the designer to determine how best to achieve compliance for a given site or building condition. The CALGreen Code also requires building commissioning, which is a

1.i
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) 10/9/23 «P:\HAV2001\AQ‐GHG\Products\HAV2001 AQ‐GHG Memo_20231006.docx»   6 process for the verification that all building systems, such as heating and cooling equipment and lighting systems, function at their maximum efficiency. The proposed project would be subject to the 2022 CALGreen Code that became effective on January 1, 2023. Requirements of the 2022 CALGreen Code that are applicable to the proposed project include the following:

4.106.4 Electric Vehicle (EV) charging. New construction shall comply with Section 4.106.4.1 or 4.106.4.2 to facilitate future installation and use of EV chargers. Electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) shall be installed in accordance with the California Electrical Code, Article 625.

4.303.1 Water Conserving Plumbing Fixtures and Fittings. All water fixtures shall comply with the California Code of Regulations, Title 20, (Appliance Efficiency Regulations), Section 1605.1(h)(4) and Section 1605.3(h)(4)(A).

4.304.1 Outdoor Potable Water Use in Landscape Areas. Residential developments shall comply with a local water efficient landscape ordinance or the current California Department of Water Resources’ Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), whichever is more stringent.

4.408.1 Construction Waste Management. Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with Section 5.408.1.1, 5.408.1.2, or 5.408.1.3, or meet the City’s construction and demolition waste management ordinance, whichever is more stringent.

4.410.2 Recycling by Occupants. Where 5 or more multifamily units are constructed on a building site, provide readily accessible areas that serve all buildings on the site and are identified for the depositing, storage, and collection of non‐hazardous materials for recycling, including (at a minimum) paper, corrugated cardboard, glass, plastics, organic waste, and metals, or meet the City’s local recycling ordinance, whichever is more restrictive.

Regional Air Quality Planning Framework
SCAG is a council of governments for Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura Counties. SCAG is a regional planning agency and a forum for regional issues relating to transportation, the economy and community development, and the environment. Although SCAG is not an air quality management agency, it is responsible for developing transportation, land use, and energy conservation measures that affect air quality.

On September 3, 2020, the Regional Council of SCAG adopted Connect SoCal, also known as the 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy: A Plan for Mobility, Accessibility, Sustainability, and High Quality of Life (a.k.a., 2020–2045 RTP/SCS). The 2020–2045 RTP/SCS is a long‐range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental and public health goals. Connect SoCal embodies a collective vision for the region’s future and is developed with input from local governments, county transportation commissions (CTCs), tribal governments, non‐profit organizations, businesses and local stakeholders within the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura.

1.i
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) 10/9/23 «P:\HAV2001\AQ‐GHG\Products\HAV2001 AQ‐GHG Memo_20231006.docx»   7 South Coast Air Quality Management District
The SCAQMD is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the Basin. To that end, the SCAQMD, a regional agency, works directly with SCAG, county transportation commissions and local governments, and cooperates actively with State and federal government agencies. The SCAQMD develops air quality‐related rules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements, inspects emissions sources, and provides regulatory enforcement through such measures as educational programs or fines, when necessary.

Regional Air Quality Management Plan
SCAQMD and SCAG are responsible for formulating and implementing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the Basin. The main purpose of an AQMP is to bring the area into compliance with federal and State air quality standards. SCAQMD prepares a new AQMP every 3 years, updating the previous plan and a 20‐year horizon.

The latest plan is the 2022 AQMP (SCAQMD 2022), adopted December 2, 2022. On October 1, 2015, the EPA strengthened the NAAQS for ground‐level ozone, lowering the primary and secondary ozone standard levels to 70 parts per billion (ppb). The Basin is classified as an “extreme” nonattainment area. The 2022 AQMP was developed to address the requirements for meeting this standard. SCAQMD adopts rules and regulations to implement portions of the AQMP. Several of these rules may apply to project construction or operation. For example, SCAQMD Rule 403 requires the implementation of the best‐available fugitive dust control measure during active construction periods capable of generating fugitive dust emissions from on‐site earth‐moving activities, construction/demolition activities, and construction equipment travel on paved and unpaved roads.

Although SCAQMD is responsible for regional air quality planning efforts, it does not have the authority to directly regulate the air quality issues associated with new development projects within the Basin, such as the proposed project. Instead, SCAQMD published the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD 1993) to assist lead agencies, as well as consultants, project proponents, and other interested parties in evaluating potential air quality impacts of projects proposed in the Basin. The CEQA Air Quality Handbook provides standards, methodologies, and procedures for conducting air quality analyses in Environmental Impact Reports and was used extensively in the preparation of this analysis. SCAQMD is currently in the process of replacing the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) with the Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook (SCAQMD n.d.).

To assist the CEQA practitioner in conducting an air quality analysis in the interim while the replacement Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook is being prepared, supplemental guidance/ information is provided on the SCAQMD website and includes (1) on‐road vehicle emission factors, (2) background carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations, (3) localized significance thresholds (LSTs), (4) mitigation measures and control efficiencies, (5) mobile‐source toxics analysis, (6) off‐road mobile‐ source emission factors, (7) particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size [PM2.5] significance thresholds and calculation methodology, and (8) updated SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. SCAQMD also recommends using approved models to calculate emissions from land use projects, such as the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). These recommendations were followed in the preparation of this analysis.

The following SCAQMD rules and regulations would apply to the proposed project:

1.i
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) 10/9/23 «P:\HAV2001\AQ‐GHG\Products\HAV2001 AQ‐GHG Memo_20231006.docx»   8  SCAQMD Rule 403 (SCAQMD 2005) requires projects to incorporate fugitive dust control measures.
 SCAQMD Rule 1113 (SCAQMD 2016) limits the volatile organic compound (VOC) content of architectural coatings.

Local Regulations
City of Santa Clarita General Plan
Local jurisdictions, such as the City of Santa Clarita, have the authority and responsibility to reduce air pollution through their police power and decision‐making authority. Specifically, the City is responsible for the assessment and mitigation of air emissions resulting from its land use decisions.

The City is also responsible for implementation of the transportation control measures in the AQMP, such as bus turnouts, energy‐efficient streetlights, and synchronized traffic signals.

The Conservation and Open Space Element of the City of Santa Clarita General Plan has identified goals, objectives, and policies aimed at greenhouse gas reduction at the citywide level (City of Santa Clarita 2011).

City of Santa Clarita Climate Action Plan
The City developed and published its Final Climate Action Plan (CAP) in August 2012. The CAP, part of the General Plan, serves as a component of the general plan document for the City to address GHG emissions. Using the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan as a starting point, the CAP identifies mitigation measures that can be quantified and translated into significant reductions in the GHG emissions by the year 2020. Measures identified in the City’s CAP will not only meet but exceed the State’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) GHG emission reduction mandate (City of Santa Clarita 2012).

The CAP defines a local threshold of significance for GHG emissions for project level submittals that trigger review by CEQA. Because goals, objectives, and policies approved under the General Plan are forecast to meet the GHG emission reduction targets mandated by AB 32, development projects that are able to demonstrate consistency with the General Plan and zoning ordinance will by association demonstrate consistency with the CAP. However, because the CAP is only certified through 2020 it is not utilized for CEQA streamlining in this analysis.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Certain air districts (e.g., SCAQMD) have created guidelines and requirements to conduct air quality analyses. SCAQMD’s current guidelines, the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD 1993) with associated updates, were followed in this assessment of air quality and climate impacts for the proposed project.

Based on the State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G (Public Resources Code Sections 15000–15387), a project would normally be considered to have a significant effect on air quality if the project would violate any CAAQS, contribute substantially to an existing air quality violation, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutants concentrations, or conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community in which it is located.

1.i
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) 10/9/23 «P:\HAV2001\AQ‐GHG\Products\HAV2001 AQ‐GHG Memo_20231006.docx»   9 Pollutants with Regional Effects
SCAQMD has established daily emissions thresholds for construction and operation of a proposed project in the Basin. The emissions thresholds were established based on the attainment status of the Basin with regard to air quality standards for specific criteria pollutants. Because the concentration standards were set at a level that protects public health with an adequate margin of safety (SCAQMD 2022), these emissions thresholds are regarded as conservative and would overstate an individual project’s contribution to health risks. Table 1 lists the CEQA significance thresholds for construction and operational emissions established for the Basin.

Table 1: Regional Thresholds for Construction and Operational Emissions Emissions Source Pollutant Emissions Thresholds (lbs/day) VOCs NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 SOX
Construction 75 100 550 150 55 150
Operations 55 55 550 150 55 150
Source: South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds (SCAQMD 2019).

CO = carbon monoxide
lbs/day = pounds per day
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
SOX = sulfur oxides
VOCs = volatile organic compounds
Projects in the Basin with construction‐ or operation‐related emissions that exceed any of their respective emission thresholds would be considered significant under SCAQMD guidelines. These thresholds, which SCAQMD developed and which apply throughout the Basin, apply as both project and cumulative thresholds. If a project exceeds these standards, it is considered to have a project‐ specific and cumulative impact.

Localized Impacts Analysis
SCAQMD published its Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology in June 2003 and updated it in July 2008 (SCAQMD 2008), recommending that all air quality analyses include an assessment of both construction and operational impacts on the air quality of nearby sensitive receptors. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project site that are not expected to result in an exceedance of the NAAQS or the CAAQS for CO, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter less than 10 microns in size (PM10), and PM2.5. LSTs are based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant within the project’s Source Receptor Area (SRA) and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor.

For this project, the appropriate SRA is the Santa Clarita Valley area (SRA 13). Sensitive receptors include residences, schools, hospitals, and similar uses that are sensitive to adverse air quality. As described above, the closest sensitive receptors are the Las Flores Apartments, which are approximately 80 feet (ft) from the west boundary of the building construction and approximately 45 ft from the north boundary of the parking lot construction.

If the total acreage disturbed is less than or equal to 5 acres (ac) per day, then the SCAQMD’s screening look‐up tables can be used to determine if a project has the potential to result in a significant impact. The project site is approximately 1.2 ac and the parking lot is 0.43 ac. The emissions from the larger site would be greater than the smaller and the minimum distance the LST

1.i
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) 10/9/23 «P:\HAV2001\AQ‐GHG\Products\HAV2001 AQ‐GHG Memo_20231006.docx»   10 methodology is designed to assess is 25 meters (or 80 ft). Therefore, 1.2 ac LSTs at 80 ft distance (derived by interpolation) were used for construction emissions from both sites.

Table 2 lists the emissions thresholds that apply during project construction.

Table 2: SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds
Emissions Source Category Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day) NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Construction (1.2 ac, 80 ft distance) 124 647 4 3
Source: Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (SCAQMD 2008). ac = acre
CO = carbon monoxide
ft = feet
lbs/day = pounds per day
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b) provides that the “determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data”, and further states that an “ironclad definition of significant effect is not always possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting.”
Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines includes significance thresholds for GHG emissions. A project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if it would do either of the following:
 Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or
 Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

Currently, there is no statewide GHG emissions threshold that has been used to determine the potential GHG emissions impacts of a project. Threshold methodology and thresholds are still being developed and revised by air districts in California.

As described above, the City published its Final CAP in August 2012. The CAP identified measures to support meeting the 2020 GHG emissions goals. However, since the CAP hasn’t been updated to be consistent with State goals detailed in SB 32, EO B‐30‐15, and EO S 3‐05 to reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, the SCAQMD threshold described below was used.

To provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents, SCAQMD convened a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group (Working Group) in 2008. This Working Group proposed a tiered approach for evaluating GHG emissions for development projects where SCAQMD is not the lead agency. The applicable tier for this project is Tier 3, which states that if GHG emissions are less than 3,000 MT CO2e per year, project‐level and cumulative GHG emissions would be less than significant.

1.i
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) 10/9/23 «P:\HAV2001\AQ‐GHG\Products\HAV2001 AQ‐GHG Memo_20231006.docx»   11

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Emissions would include criteria air pollutants and GHG emissions. The sections below describe the proposed project’s consistency with applicable air quality plans, estimated project emissions, and the significance of impacts with respect to SCAQMD thresholds.

Air Quality Impacts
Consistency with Applicable Air Quality Plans
A consistency determination plays an essential role in local‐agency project review by linking local planning and unique individual projects to the air quality plans. A consistency determination fulfills the CEQA goal of fully informing local‐agency decision‐makers of the environmental costs of the project under consideration at a stage early enough to ensure that air quality concerns are addressed. Only new or amended General Plan elements, Specific Plans, and significantly unique projects need to undergo a consistency review due to the air quality plan strategy being based on projections from local General Plans.

The AQMP is based on regional growth projections developed by SCAG. The proposed project is a mixed‐use development that would not house more than 1,000 persons, occupy more than 40 ac of land, or encompass more than 650,000 sf of floor area. Thus, the proposed project would not be defined as a regionally significant project under CEQA; therefore, it does not meet SCAG’s Intergovernmental Review criteria.

The proposed land use is consistent with the General Plan zoning. Thus, the proposed project, as analyzed, would result in air emissions that are consistent with the City’s plans. The City’s General Plan is consistent with the SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan Guidelines and the SCAQMD AQMP.

Pursuant to the methodology provided in Chapter 12 of the 1993 SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, consistency with the Basin 2016 AQMP is affirmed when a project would not increase the frequency or severity of an air quality standards violation or cause a new violation, and is consistent with the growth assumptions in the AQMP. Consistency review is presented as follows:

1. The project would result in short‐term construction and long‐term operational pollutant emissions that are all less than the CEQA significance emissions thresholds established by SCAQMD, as demonstrated above. Therefore, the project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of an air quality standard violation or cause a new air quality standard violation.

2. The CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD 1993) indicates that consistency with AQMP growth assumptions must be analyzed for new or amended General Plan elements, Specific Plans, and significant projects. Significant projects include airports, electricity‐generating facilities, petroleum and gas refineries, designation of oil‐drilling districts, water ports, solid‐waste disposal sites, and offshore‐drilling facilities; therefore, as a small coffee shop, the proposed project is not defined as significant.

Based on the consistency analysis presented above, the proposed project would be consistent with the regional AQMP.

1.i
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) 10/9/23 «P:\HAV2001\AQ‐GHG\Products\HAV2001 AQ‐GHG Memo_20231006.docx»   12 Criteria Pollutant Analysis
The Basin is designated as non‐attainment for ozone (O3) and PM2.5 for federal standards and non‐ attainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 for State standards. The SCAQMD’s nonattainment status is attributed to the region’s development history. Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant.

In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, the SCAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions.

Construction Emissions. Construction activities produce combustion emissions from various sources (utility engines, tenant improvements, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew). Exhaust emissions from construction activities envisioned on site would vary daily as construction activity levels change.

The construction analysis includes estimating the construction equipment that would be used during each construction activity, the hours of use for that construction equipment, the quantities of earth and debris to be moved, and the on‐road vehicle trips (e.g., worker, soil‐hauling, and vendor trips).

The proposed demolition of the existing 10,645 sf parking lot was estimated by assuming the pavement is 145 pounds per sf, resulting in 772 tons of material to haul. The proposed earthwork for the project assumes the site would be balanced (no import or export needed). CalEEMod defaults are assumed for the construction activities, off‐road equipment, and on‐road construction fleet mix and trip lengths. It is expected that construction would start in January 2024 and finish in approximately 16 months. Table 3 lists the tentative project construction schedule.

Table 3: Tentative Project Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Start
Date
Phase End
Date Number of Days
Demolition 1/2/2024 1/8/2024 5
Site Preparation 1/9/2024 1/10/2024 2
Grading 1/11/2024 1/16/2024 4
Building Construction 1/17/2024 11/19/2026 220
Paving   11/20/2024 1/2/2025 32
Architectural Coating 7/9/2024 12/10/2024 110
Source: Estimated by LSA Associates, Inc. from the project information provided (August 2023).

1.i
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) 10/9/23 «P:\HAV2001\AQ‐GHG\Products\HAV2001 AQ‐GHG Memo_20231006.docx»   13 CalEEMod Version 2022.1 was used to develop the construction equipment inventory and calculate the construction emissions. Table 4 lists the estimated construction equipment that would be used during project construction as estimated by CalEEMod default values. The CalEEMod output is included as Attachment C.

Table 4: Diesel Construction Equipment Used by Construction Phase Construction Phase Off‐Road Equipment Type
Off‐Road
Equipment
Unit Amount
Hours Used
per Day Horsepower LoadFactor
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8 33 0.73
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 0.40
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 84 0.37
Site Preparation
Graders 1 8 148 0.41
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 7 367 0.40
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 84 0.37
Grading
Graders 1 8 148 0.41
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 0.40
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7 84 0.37
Building Construction
Cranes 1 6 367 0.29
Forklifts 1 6 82 0.20
Generator Sets 1 8 14 0.74
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6 84 0.37
Welders 3 8 46 0.45
Paving
Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 6 10 0.56
Pavers 1 6 81 0.42
Paving Equipment 1 8 89 0.36
Rollers 1 7 36 0.38
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 84 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6 37 0.48
Source: Compiled by LSA Associates, Inc. using CalEEMod defaults (August 2023).

CalEEMod = California Emissions Estimator Model
The emissions rates shown in Table 5 are from the CalEEMod output tables listed as “Mitigated Construction,” even though the only measures that have been applied to the analysis are the required construction emissions control measures, or standard conditions. They are also the combination of the on‐ and off‐site emissions and the greater of summer and winter emissions. No exceedances of any criteria pollutants are expected. Standard measures are documented in the CalEEMod output in Attachment C.

Fugitive Dust. Fugitive dust emissions are generally associated with land clearing and exposure of soils to the air and wind, as well as cut‐and‐fill grading operations. Dust generated during construction varies substantially on a project‐by‐project basis, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and weather conditions at the time of construction.

1.i
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) 10/9/23 «P:\HAV2001\AQ‐GHG\Products\HAV2001 AQ‐GHG Memo_20231006.docx»   14 Table 5: Short‐Term Regional Construction Emissions
Construction Phase
Total Regional Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)
VOCs NOX CO SOX
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
Demolition 2 19 18 <1 3 1 1 1
Site Preparation 1 14 13 <1 3 1 1 1
Grading 2 16 16 <1 3 1 1 1
Building Construction 1 10 12 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Paving   1 5 7 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Architectural Coating 2 1 2 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Peak Daily 3 19 18 <1 4 2
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: Compiled by LSA Associates, Inc. (August 2023).

Note: The application of architectural coatings was assumed to occur during both the Building Construction and Paving phases. All values shown are rounded to the nearest integer to correspond with the accuracy of the analysis.

CO = carbon monoxide
lbs/day = pounds per day
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
SOX = sulfur oxides
VOCs = volatile organic compounds
The construction calculations prepared for this project assumed that dust control measures (watering a minimum of two times daily consistent with SCAQMD Rule 403) would be employed to reduce emissions of fugitive dust during site grading. Furthermore, all construction would need to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 regarding the emission of fugitive dust. Table 5 lists total construction emissions (i.e., fugitive dust emissions and construction equipment exhausts) that have incorporated the following Rule 403 measures that would be implemented to significantly reduce PM10 emissions from construction:
 Water active sites at least twice daily (locations where grading is to occur shall be thoroughly watered prior to earthmoving).
 Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, or maintain at least 2 ft (0.6 meter) of freeboard (vertical space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer) in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code Section 23114.  Reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour (mph) or less.

These Rule 403 measures were incorporated in the CalEEMod analysis.

Architectural Coatings. Architectural coatings contain VOCs that are part of the O3 precursors.

Based on the proposed project, it is estimated that application of the architectural coatings for the proposed peak construction day would result in a peak of 4 pounds per day (lbs/day) of VOCs. Therefore, VOC emissions from architectural‐coating application would not exceed the SCAQMD VOC threshold of 75 lbs/day.

Localized Impacts Analysis. Table 6 shows the portion of the construction emissions that would be produced on the project sites compared to the LSTs. Table 6 shows that the localized construction emissions would not result in a locally significant air quality impact.

1.i
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) 10/9/23 «P:\HAV2001\AQ‐GHG\Products\HAV2001 AQ‐GHG Memo_20231006.docx»   15 Table 6: Construction Localized Impacts Analysis
Emissions Sources Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
On‐Site Emissions 16 16 1 1
LST 124 647 4 3
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Source: Compiled by LSA Associates, Inc. (August 2023).

Note: The SRA is Santa Clarita Valley, 1.2 ac, receptors at 80 feet. ac = acre
CO = carbon monoxide
lbs/day = pounds per day
LST = localized significance threshold
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
SRA = Source Receptor Area
Odors from Construction Activities. Heavy‐duty equipment in the project area during construction would emit odors, primarily from the equipment exhaust. However, the construction‐produced odors would cease to occur after individual construction is completed.

No other sources of objectionable odors have been identified for the proposed project, and no mitigation measures are required.

SCAQMD Rule 402 regarding nuisances states,
“A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.”
The proposed uses are not anticipated to emit any objectionable odors. Therefore, objectionable odors posing a health risk to potential on‐site and existing off‐site uses would not occur as a result of the proposed project.

Naturally Occurring Asbestos. The proposed project site is in Los Angeles County, which is among the counties found to have serpentine and ultramafic rock in their soils (California Department of Conservation 2023). However, according to the California Geological Survey, no such rock has been identified in the project vicinity. Therefore, the potential risk for naturally occurring asbestos during project construction is small and less than significant.

Construction Emissions Conclusions. Tables 5 and 6 show that daily regional construction emissions would not exceed the daily thresholds of any criteria pollutant emission thresholds established by SCAQMD; thus, during construction, there would be no air quality impacts.

Operational Emissions
Long‐term air pollutant emission impacts are those associated with mobile sources (e.g., vehicle trips), energy sources (e.g., electricity and natural gas) and area sources (e.g., architectural coatings and the use of landscape maintenance equipment) related to the proposed project.

1.i
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) 10/9/23 «P:\HAV2001\AQ‐GHG\Products\HAV2001 AQ‐GHG Memo_20231006.docx»   16 PM10 emissions result from running exhaust, tire and brake wear, and the entrainment of dust into the atmosphere from vehicles traveling on paved roadways. Entrainment of PM10 occurs when vehicle tires pulverize small rocks and pavement and the vehicle wakes generate airborne dust. The contribution of tire and brake wear is small compared to the other PM emission processes.

Gasoline‐powered engines have small rates of particulate matter emissions compared with diesel‐ powered vehicles. Project traffic is described in the Transportation Memorandum (LSA 2022).

Energy source emissions result from activities in buildings for which electricity and natural gas are used. The quantity of emissions is the product of usage intensity (i.e., the amount of electricity or natural gas) and the emission factor of the fuel source. Major sources of energy demand include building mechanical systems, such as heating and air conditioning, lighting, and plug‐in electronics, such as refrigerators or computers. Greater building or appliance efficiency reduces the amount of energy for a given activity and thus lowers the resultant emissions. The emission factor is determined by the fuel source, with cleaner energy sources, like renewable energy, producing fewer emissions than conventional sources.

Typically, area source emissions consist of direct sources of air emissions located at the project site, including architectural coatings and the use of landscape maintenance equipment. Area source emissions associated with the project would include emissions from the use of landscaping equipment and the use of consumer products.

Emission estimates for operation of the project were calculated using CalEEMod and are shown in Table 7, below. The primary emissions associated with the project are regional in nature, meaning that air pollutants are rapidly dispersed on release. The peak daily emissions associated with project operations are identified in Table 7 for reactive organic gas (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), CO, sulfur oxides (SOx), PM10, and PM2.5.

Table 7: Project Operation Emissions (Pounds per Day)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Area Source Emissions 1 <1 2 <1 <1 <1
Energy Source Emissions <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Mobile Source Emissions 2 1 15 <1 3 <1
Total Project Emissions 3 2 15 <1 3 <1
SCAQMD Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 55 150
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: Compiled by LSA Associates, Inc. (August 2023).

CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
ROG = reactive organic gas
SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
SOX = sulfur oxides
The results shown in Table 7 indicate the project would not exceed the significance criteria for annual ROG, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions; therefore, operation of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State AAQS. The CalEEMod emission calculations sheets are included in Attachment C.

1.i
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) 10/9/23 «P:\HAV2001\AQ‐GHG\Products\HAV2001 AQ‐GHG Memo_20231006.docx»   17 Objectionable Odors. The SCAQMD addresses odor criteria within the CEQA Handbook. The district has not established a rule or standard regarding odor emissions, rather, the district has a nuisance rule: “Any project with the potential to frequently expose members of the public to objectionable odors should be deemed to have a significant impact.”
The proposed project would not include any activities or operations that would generate objectionable odors. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

Greenhouse Gas Impacts
Generate Greenhouse Gas Emissions
This section discusses the project’s impacts related to the release of GHG emissions for the construction and operational phases of the project.

Construction Activities. Construction activities associated with maximum buildout 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 CO2, CH4, and N2O. 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.

The SCAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction‐related GHG emissions. Based on SCAQMD guidance, construction emissions were amortized over 30 years (a typical project lifetime) to be added to the total project operational emissions. Using CalEEMod, it is estimated that construction activities would generate approximately 278 metric tons of CO2e. Thus, the amortized annual construction emissions would be approximately 9 MT of CO2e per year.

Operational GHG Emissions. Long‐term GHG emissions are typically generated from mobile sources (e.g., cars, trucks and buses), area sources (e.g., maintenance activities and landscaping), 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 and truck 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 as a result 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.

As described above, this analysis evaluates potential operational emissions associated with the proposed project. Operational GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod and the results are presented in Table 8.

1.i
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) 10/9/23 «P:\HAV2001\AQ‐GHG\Products\HAV2001 AQ‐GHG Memo_20231006.docx»   18 Table 8: Operational GHG Emissions
Emissions Source Category Operational Emissions (Metric Tons per Year) CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Area 1 <1 0 1
Energy 110 <1 <1 110
Mobile 520 <1 <1 529
Waste 4 <1 0 15
Water 4 <1 <1 6
Total Annual Operational Emissions 661
30‐Year Amortized Construction Emissions 9
Total Annual Effective Project Emissions 670
SCAQMD Tier 3 Threshold 3,000
Would the Project Exceed the Threshold? No
Source: Compiled by LSA Associates, Inc. (August 2023).

CH4 = methane
CO2 = carbon dioxide
CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
N2O = nitrous oxide
SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
As shown in Table 8, the project would generate 670 metric tons of CO2e per year. This is less than SCAQMD’s Tier 3 threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/yr.

Consistency with Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans
The following discussion evaluates the proposed project according to the goals of the 2022 Scoping Plan, EO B‐30‐15, SB 32, and AB 197.

EO B‐30‐15 added the immediate target of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. CARB released a second update to the Scoping Plan, the 2017 Scoping Plan, to reflect the 2030 target set by EO B‐30‐15 and codified by SB 32. SB 32 affirms the importance of addressing climate change by codifying into statute the GHG emissions reductions target of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 contained in EO B‐30‐15. SB 32 builds on AB 32 and keeps us on the path toward achieving the State’s 2050 objective of reducing emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

The companion bill to SB 32, AB 197, provides additional direction to the CARB related to the adoption of strategies to reduce GHG emissions. Additional direction in AB 197 intended to provide easier public access to air emissions data that are collected by CARB was posted in December 2016.

In addition, the 2022 Scoping Plan assesses progress toward the statutory 2030 target, while laying out a path to achieving carbon neutrality no later than 2045. The 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on outcomes needed to achieve carbon neutrality by assessing paths for clean technology, energy deployment, natural and working lands, and others, and is designed to meet the State’s long‐term climate objectives and support a range of economic, environmental, energy security, environmental justice, and public health priorities.

The 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on building clean energy production and distribution infrastructure for a carbon‐neutral future, including transitioning existing energy production and transmission infrastructure to produce zero‐carbon electricity and hydrogen, and utilizing biogas resulting from wildfire management or landfill and dairy operations, among other substitutes. The 2022 Scoping Plan states that in almost all sectors, electrification will play an important role. The 2022 Scoping

1.i
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) 10/9/23 «P:\HAV2001\AQ‐GHG\Products\HAV2001 AQ‐GHG Memo_20231006.docx»   19 Plan evaluates clean energy and technology options and the transition away from fossil fuels, including adding four times the solar and wind capacity by 2045 and about 1,700 times the amount of current hydrogen supply. As discussed in the 2022 Scoping Plan, EO N‐79‐20 requires that all new passenger vehicles sold in California will be zero‐emission by 2035, and all other fleets will have transitioned to zero‐emission as fully possible by 2045, which will reduce the percentage of fossil fuel combustion vehicles.

Energy efficient measures are intended to maximize energy efficiency building and appliance standards, pursue additional efficiency efforts including new technologies and new policy and implementation mechanisms, and pursue comparable investment in energy efficiency from all retail providers of electricity in California. In addition, these measures are designed to expand the use of green building practices to reduce the carbon footprint of California’s new and existing inventory of buildings. As discussed above, the proposed project would comply with the CALGreen Code, regarding energy conservation and green building standards. Therefore, the proposed project would comply with applicable energy measures.

Water conservation and efficiency measures are intended to continue efficiency programs and use cleaner energy sources to move and treat water. Increasing the efficiency of water transport and reducing water use would reduce GHG emissions. As noted above, the project would comply with the CALGreen Code, which includes a variety of different measures, including reduction of wastewater and water use. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any of the water conservation and efficiency measures.

The goal of transportation and motor vehicle measures is to develop regional GHG emissions reduction targets for passenger vehicles. Specific regional emission targets for transportation emissions would not directly apply to the proposed project. The second phase of Pavley standards will reduce GHG emissions from new cars by 34 percent from 2016 levels by 2025, resulting in a 3 percent decrease in average vehicle emissions for all vehicles by 2020. Vehicles traveling to the project site would comply with the Pavley II (LEV III) Advanced Clean Cars Program (CARB n.d.‐b).

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the identified transportation and motor vehicle measures.

The CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan provides Table 3 “Key Residential and Mixed‐Use Project Attributes that Reduce GHGs” in Appendix D. The table is provided by CARB for use in determining whether a proposed residential or mixed‐use residential development would align with the State’s climate goals, absent a locally or regionally adopted CEQA‐qualified CAP. Table 9 shows the project’s consistency with these attributes.

As described in CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan, residential and mixed‐use development projects that incorporate all of the applicable key project attributes are aligned with the State’s priority GHG reduction strategies for local climate action and with the State’s climate and housing goals. As shown in Table 9, the project would be considered to be consistent with the Scoping Plan.

1.i
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) 10/9/23 «P:\HAV2001\AQ‐GHG\Products\HAV2001 AQ‐GHG Memo_20231006.docx»   20 Table 9: Key Residential and Mixed‐Use Project Attributes that Reduce GHGs Priority Areas   Key Project Attribute Project Consistency Transportation
Electrification
Provides EV charging infrastructure that, at
minimum, meets the most ambitious voluntary
standard in the California Green Building
Standards Code at the time of project approval.

Consistent: Project provides charging
infrastructure for 49 electrical vehicles.

VMT Reduction
Is located on infill sites that are surrounded by
existing urban uses and reuses or redevelops
previously undeveloped or underutilized land
that is presently served by existing utilities and
essential public services (e.g., transit, streets,
water, sewer).

Consistent: Project development is
surrounded by existing urban uses and
reuses and presently served by existing
utilities and essential public services. It is
adjacent to a major City arterial.

Does not result in the loss or conversion of
natural and working lands.

Consistent: Project site is an existing parking
lot, thus not affecting natural and working
land.

Consists of transit‐supportive densities (minimum
of 20 residential dwelling units per acre), or is in
proximity to existing transit stops (within a half
mile), or satisfies more detailed and stringent
criteria specified in the region’s SCS.

Consistent: The zoning allows the project to
comply, the project provides 30 units in 1.53
acres for mix‐used development. The project
is within 250 feet of a bus stop.

Reduces parking requirements by: eliminating
parking requirements or including maximum
allowable parking ratios (i.e., the ratio of parking
spaces to residential units or square feet); or
providing residential parking supply at a ratio of
less than one parking space per dwelling unit; or
for multifamily residential development,
requiring parking costs to be unbundled from
costs to rent or own a residential unit.

Consistent: Parking provided at a ratio of
one parking space per unit, with shared
credit between the commercial visitors and
residential unit visitors. A shared parking
analysis was provided by a traffic engineer.

At least 20 percent of units included are
affordable to lower‐income residents.

Not Applicable: The project does not include
an affordable housing component; however,
the project would include one‐bedroom
units that would be accessible to various
income levels and consistent with the
density goals of the Scoping Plan.

Results in no net loss of existing affordable units.

Consistent: The project would not result in
the loss of existing affordable units.

Building
Decarbonization
Uses all‐electric appliances without any natural
gas connections and does not use propane or
other fossil fuels for space heating, water
heating, or indoor cooking.

Consistent: All appliances to be electrical.

Source: CARB 2022 Scoping Plan (CARB 2022).

EV = electric vehicle
GHG = greenhouse gas
SCS = Sustainable Communities Strategy
VMT = vehicle miles traveled
Per CARB guidance, as included in Appendix D of the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan, since the proposed project includes the applicable Local Actions included in Table 9 it would therefore also be considered consistent with the goals of the State and the 2022 Scoping Plan. As such, the proposed project is considered to be consistent with other plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purposes of reducing GHGs. Furthermore, as the proposed project would meet all requirements of

1.i
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) 10/9/23 «P:\HAV2001\AQ‐GHG\Products\HAV2001 AQ‐GHG Memo_20231006.docx»   21 Title 24, CalGreen, and the City’s municipal code, and would incorporate the emission reduction measures included in the City’s CAP, the proposed project would not conflict with the goals of the City’s General Plan or CAP.

In addition, the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS was determined by CARB to achieve CARB’s 2035 GHG reduction targets; therefore, consistency with the RTP/SCS would demonstrate consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan. As further discussed in the Transportation Memorandum prepared for the proposed project (LSA 2022), the proposed project meets the City’s vehicle miles traveled screening criteria and would have a less than significant impact on the transportation system based on the significance thresholds in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Furthermore, the proposed project includes infrastructure to support electrification, and introduces a mix of land uses in an urban area, with residential housing located near workspaces and retail shopping. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the goals of the RTP/SCS.

The low level of project GHG emissions shown in Table 8 combined with the attributes shown in Table 9 indicate that the project would be compliant with all City, regional, and State GHG emissions reduction plans. Therefore, the proposed project’s GHG emissions would not result in a significant impact.

STANDARD CONDITIONS
Construction
The project is required to comply with regional rules that assist in reducing short‐term air pollutant emissions. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with the best‐available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source (SCAQMD 2005). In addition, SCAQMD Rule 403 requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off site. Applicable dust suppression techniques from Rule 403 are summarized below.

Implementation of these dust suppression techniques can reduce the fugitive dust generation (and thus the PM10 component). Compliance with these rules would reduce impacts on nearby sensitive receptors (SCAQMD 2005). As shown in Table 5, implementation of Rule 403 measures results in dust emissions below SCAQMD thresholds.

The applicable Rule 403 measures are as follows:
 Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers’ specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more).  Water active sites at least twice daily (locations where grading is to occur shall be thoroughly watered prior to earthmoving).
 Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, or maintain at least 2 feet (0.6 meter) of freeboard (vertical space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer) in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code Section 23114.  Pave construction access roads at least 100 feet (30 meters) onto the site from the main road.

1.i
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) 10/9/23 «P:\HAV2001\AQ‐GHG\Products\HAV2001 AQ‐GHG Memo_20231006.docx»   22  Reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 mph or less.

The applicable California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) Sustainable (Green) Building Program Measures are:
 Recycle/reuse at least 50 percent of the construction material (including, but not limited to, soil, mulch, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal, and cardboard) (CalRecycle 2019a).  Use “green building materials” such as those materials that are rapidly renewable or resource‐ efficient, and recycled and manufactured in an environmentally friendly way, for at least 10 percent of the project, as specified on the CalRecycle website (CalRecycle 2019b).

Operations
The proposed project is required to comply with the CALGreen Code and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations established by the California Energy Commission regarding energy conservation and green building standards.

CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis presented above, the construction and operational emissions associated with the proposed project would not exceed SCAQMD established significance thresholds. The proposed project is not expected to produce significant emissions that would affect nearby sensitive receptors. The proposed project would also not result in objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. GHG emissions released during operation of the project are estimated to be lower than significance thresholds and would not be cumulatively considerable. Additionally, the project would not conflict with the goals and objectives of State or regional plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.

Attachments: A:   References
B: Figures
C: CalEEMod Output

1.i
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) P:\HAV2001\AQ‐GHG\Products\HAV2001 AQ‐GHG Memo_20231006.docx (10/09/23) A‐1

ATTACHMENT A

REFERENCES
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2013. Amendments to California Cap‐and‐Trade Program.

April 9. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/cap‐and‐trade/linkage/resolution13‐

7.pdf (accessed August 2023).
_____. 2022. Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change. December. Website:
www.arb.ca.gov/our‐work/programs/ab‐32‐climate‐change‐scoping‐plan (accessed August 2023).
_____. n.d.‐a. Cap‐and‐Trade Program. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/our‐work/programs/cap‐and‐ trade‐program (accessed August 2023).
_____. n.d.‐b. Low‐Emission Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Program. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/our‐ work/programs/advanced‐clean‐cars‐program/lev‐program/low‐emission‐vehicle‐ greenhouse‐gas (accessed August 2023).

California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2023. Naturally‐Occurring Asbestos in California.

Website: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/minerals/mineral‐hazards/asbestos (accessed August 2023).

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2019a. Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling. Website: https://calrecycle.ca.gov/ConDemo/ (accessed August 2023).
_____. 2019b. Implementing the Governor’s Sustainable Building Executive Order: Sustainable (Green) Building Programs at CalRecycle. Website:
https://calrecycle.ca.gov/GreenBuilding/Programs/ (accessed August 2023).

City of Santa Clarita. 2011. City of Santa Clarita General Plan, Conservation and Open Space Element.

Website: www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaClarita/html/SantaClaritaGP/6%20‐%20 Conservation%20and%20Open%20Space%20Element.pdf (accessed August 2023). _____. 2012. Climate Action Plan. August. Website: greensantaclarita.com/files/2012/10/ APPROVED‐CAP‐AUGUST‐2012.pdf (accessed August 2023).

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2023. AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023. Website: www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth‐assessment‐report‐cycle/ (accessed August 2023).

LSA. 2022. Transportation Memorandum for the Promenade Flats Project, April.

1.i
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) P:\HAV2001\AQ‐GHG\Products\HAV2001 AQ‐GHG Memo_20231006.docx (10/09/23) A‐2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. April.

Website: www.aqmd.gov/home/rules‐compliance/ceqa/air‐quality‐analysis‐handbook/ ceqa‐air‐quality‐handbook‐(1993) (accessed August 2023). _____. 2005. Rule 403. Fugitive Dust. Website: www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐source/rule‐book/rule‐ iv/rule‐403.pdf (accessed August 2023).
_____. 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. June. Website: www.aqmd.gov/ docs/default‐source/ceqa/handbook/localized‐significance‐thresholds/final‐lst‐ methodology‐document.pdf (accessed August 2023).
–––––. 2015. Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin (MATES‐IV). August.

Website: www.aqmd.gov/home/air‐quality/air‐quality‐studies/health‐studies/mates‐iv (accessed August 2023).
_____. 2016. Advisory Notice on Rule 1113. Website: www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐source/rule‐ book/reg‐xi/r1113.pdf (accessed August 2023).
_____. 2019. South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. April. Website:
https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐source/ceqa/handbook/south‐coast‐aqmd‐air‐quality‐ significance‐thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=25 (accessed August 2023). _____. 2022. Final 2022 Air Quality Management Plan. February. Website: www.aqmd.gov/home/ air‐quality/clean‐air‐plans/air‐quality‐mgt‐plan (accessed August 2023). _____. n.d. Air Quality Analysis Handbook. Website: www.aqmd.gov/home/rules‐compliance/ ceqa/air‐quality‐analysis‐handbook (accessed August 2023). _____. Greenhouse Gases (GHG) CEQA Significance Thresholds. Website: www.aqmd.gov/home/ regulations/ceqa/air‐quality‐analysis‐handbook/ghg‐significance‐thresholds/ (accessed August 2023).
_____. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) Attainment Status for South Coast Air Basin. Website: www.aqmd.gov/ docs/default‐source/clean‐air‐plans/air‐quality‐management‐plans/naaqs‐caaqs‐ feb2016.pdf (accessed August 2023).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2021a. Regulations for Emissions from Vehicles and Engines. Website: www.epa.gov/regulations‐emissions‐vehicles‐and‐engines/ final‐rule‐phase‐2‐greenhouse‐gas‐emissions‐standards (accessed August 2023). _____. 2021b. Final Rule to Revise Existing National GHG Emissions Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks Through Model Year 2026. Website: www.epa.gov/regulations‐emissions‐ vehicles‐and‐engines/final‐rule‐revise‐existing‐national‐ghg‐emissions (accessed August 2023).

1.i
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) P:\HAV2001\AQ
‐GHG\Products\HAV2001 AQ‐GHG Memo_20231006.docx «10/09/23»

ATTACHMENTB

FIGURES

1.i
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) SOURCE: ArcGIS Online Topographic Map (2020)
Ventura
County
Los
Angeles
County
27 170
126 14
118
405
210
5 I:\HAV2001\G\Project_LocaƟon.ai (10/6/2023)
FIGURE 1
Promenade Flats
Project LocaƟon
Project Vicinity
FEET
LEGEND
Project Site
0 500 1000
Project Location

1.i
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project)

NOT PART

OF THE PROJECT
SOURCE: CHARC Design
FEET
0 30 60
FIGURE 2
I:\HAV2001\G\Site_Plan.ai (10/6/2023)
Promenade Flats
Site Plan
LEGEND
Project Site

1.i
Packet Pg. 195
Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats P:\HAV2001\AQ
‐GHG\Products\HAV2001 AQ‐GHG Memo_20231006.docx «10/09/23»

ATTACHMENTC

CALEEMOD OUTPUT

1.i
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) Santa Clarita Plaza (HAV2001) Custom Report, 8/9/2023
1 / 39
Santa Clarita Plaza (HAV2001) Custom Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated

3.3. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated

3.5. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated

1.i
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Santa Clarita Plaza (HAV2001) Custom Report, 8/9/2023
2 / 39

3.9. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated

3.11. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated

3.13. Architectural Coating (2024) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.2. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.2. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.2. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

1.i
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Santa Clarita Plaza (HAV2001) Custom Report, 8/9/2023
3 / 39

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

1.i
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Santa Clarita Plaza (HAV2001) Custom Report, 8/9/2023
4 / 39

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

8. User Changes to Default Data

1.i
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Santa Clarita Plaza (HAV2001) Custom Report, 8/9/2023
5 / 39

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Santa Clarita Plaza (HAV2001)
Construction Start Date 1/2/2024
Operational Year 2025
Lead Agency—
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.50
Precipitation (days) 16.0
Location 34.41859183266135, -118.54244801031707
County Los Angeles-South Coast
City Santa Clarita
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 3623
EDFZ7
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.14

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description

1.i
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Santa Clarita Plaza (HAV2001) Custom Report, 8/9/2023
6 / 39
Condo/Townhouse 30.0 Dwelling Unit 1.00 31,800 11,042 0.00 89.0 — Health Club 3.03 1000sqft 0.00 3,027 0.00 0.00 — —
Regional Shopping
Center

7.27 1000sqft 0.00 7,266 0.00 0.00 — —
Parking Lot 0.53 Acre 0.53 0.00 4,892 0.00 — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.66 10.7 13.6 0.02 0.40 0.44 0.84 0.37 0.10 0.48 — 2,519 2,519 0.10 0.05 2.11 2,540 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.66 19.2 18.1 0.04 0.74 3.01 3.72 0.68 1.37 2.05 — 5,383 5,383 0.26 0.46 0.18 5,528 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.59 7.10 8.72 0.01 0.28 0.34 0.62 0.25 0.09 0.34 — 1,658 1,658 0.07 0.04 0.58 1,672 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.29 1.30 1.59 < 0.005 0.05 0.06 0.11 0.05 0.02 0.06 — 274 274 0.01 0.01 0.10 277

1.i
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Santa Clarita Plaza (HAV2001) Custom Report, 8/9/2023
7 / 39
Exceeds — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
(Daily
Max)
Threshold 75.0 100 550 150 — — 150 — — 55.0 — — — — — — — Unmit. No No No No — — No — — No — — — — — — —
Exceeds
(Average
Daily)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshold 75.0 100 550 150 — — 150 — — 55.0 — — — — — — — Unmit. No No No No — — No — — No — — — — — — —

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 3.66 10.7 13.6 0.02 0.40 0.44 0.84 0.37 0.10 0.48 — 2,519 2,519 0.10 0.05 2.11 2,540 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 3.66 19.2 18.1 0.04 0.74 3.01 3.72 0.68 1.37 2.05 — 5,383 5,383 0.26 0.46 0.18 5,528 2025 0.59 4.69 7.24 0.01 0.20 0.16 0.37 0.19 0.04 0.22 — 1,156 1,156 0.05 0.01 0.02 1,161 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.59 7.10 8.72 0.01 0.28 0.34 0.62 0.25 0.09 0.34 — 1,658 1,658 0.07 0.04 0.58 1,672 2025 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.53 4.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.55 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.29 1.30 1.59 < 0.005 0.05 0.06 0.11 0.05 0.02 0.06 — 274 274 0.01 0.01 0.10 277 2025 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.75 0.75 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.75

1.i
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Santa Clarita Plaza (HAV2001) Custom Report, 8/9/2023
8 / 39

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.28 1.58 17.0 0.03 0.04 2.84 2.88 0.04 0.72 0.76 28.9 3,932 3,960 3.13 0.15 12.1 4,096 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.03 1.69 14.0 0.03 0.04 2.84 2.87 0.04 0.72 0.76 28.9 3,791 3,820 3.14 0.16 0.58 3,946 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.16 1.71 15.7 0.03 0.04 2.84 2.88 0.04 0.72 0.76 28.9 3,831 3,860 3.14 0.16 5.38 3,991 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.58 0.31 2.87 0.01 0.01 0.52 0.52 0.01 0.13 0.14 4.79 634 639 0.52 0.03 0.89 661 Exceeds
(Daily
Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshold 55.0 55.0 550 150 — — 150 — — 55.0 — — — — — — — Unmit. No No No No — — No — — No — — — — — — —
Exceeds
(Average
Daily)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshold 55.0 55.0 550 150 — — 150 — — 55.0 — — — — — — — Unmit. No No No No — — No — — No — — — — — — —

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)

1.i
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Santa Clarita Plaza (HAV2001) Custom Report, 8/9/2023
9 / 39
Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2OR CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Mobile 2.06 1.33 14.7 0.03 0.02 2.84 2.86 0.02 0.72 0.74— 3,242 3,242 0.18 0.14 11.8 3,300 Area 1.21 0.02 2.15 < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 0.00 6.39 6.39 < 0.005 < 0.005— 6.41 Energy 0.01 0.23 0.12 < 0.005 0.02— 0.02 0.02— 0.02— 663 663 0.05 < 0.005— 665 Water—————————— 3.52 20.2 23.7 0.36 0.01— 35.4
Waste—————————— 25.4 0.00 25.4 2.54 0.00— 88.9
Refrig.——————————————— 0.28 0.28
Total 3.28 1.58 17.0 0.03 0.04 2.84 2.88 0.04 0.72 0.76 28.9 3,932 3,960 3.13 0.15 12.1 4,096 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Mobile 2.03 1.46 13.8 0.03 0.02 2.84 2.86 0.02 0.72 0.74— 3,107 3,107 0.19 0.15 0.31 3,156 Area 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 Energy 0.01 0.23 0.12 < 0.005 0.02— 0.02 0.02— 0.02— 663 663 0.05 < 0.005— 665 Water—————————— 3.52 20.2 23.7 0.36 0.01— 35.4
Waste—————————— 25.4 0.00 25.4 2.54 0.00— 88.9
Refrig.——————————————— 0.28 0.28
Total 3.03 1.69 14.0 0.03 0.04 2.84 2.87 0.04 0.72 0.76 28.9 3,791 3,820 3.14 0.16 0.58 3,946 Average
Daily
—————————————————
Mobile 2.01 1.47 14.1 0.03 0.02 2.84 2.86 0.02 0.72 0.74— 3,144 3,144 0.19 0.15 5.10 3,197 Area 1.14 0.01 1.47 < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 0.00 4.38 4.38 < 0.005 < 0.005— 4.39 Energy 0.01 0.23 0.12 < 0.005 0.02— 0.02 0.02— 0.02— 663 663 0.05 < 0.005— 665 Water—————————— 3.52 20.2 23.7 0.36 0.01— 35.4
Waste—————————— 25.4 0.00 25.4 2.54 0.00— 88.9
Refrig.——————————————— 0.28 0.28

1.i
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Santa Clarita Plaza (HAV2001) Custom Report, 8/9/2023
10 / 39
Total 3.16 1.71 15.7 0.03 0.04 2.84 2.88 0.04 0.72 0.76 28.9 3,831 3,860 3.14 0.16 5.38 3,991 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.37 0.27 2.58 0.01 < 0.005 0.52 0.52 < 0.005 0.13 0.14 — 520 520 0.03 0.02 0.85 529 Area 0.21 < 0.005 0.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 0.72 0.72 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.73 Energy < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 110 110 0.01 < 0.005 — 110 Water — — — — — — — — — — 0.58 3.35 3.93 0.06 < 0.005 — 5.86 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 4.21 0.00 4.21 0.42 0.00 — 14.7 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.05 0.05
Total 0.58 0.31 2.87 0.01 0.01 0.52 0.52 0.01 0.13 0.14 4.79 634 639 0.52 0.03 0.89 661

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.61 15.6 16.0 0.02 0.67 — 0.67 0.62 — 0.62 — 2,494 2,494 0.10 0.02 — 2,502 Demolitio
n
— — — — — 2.13 2.13 — 0.32 0.32 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

1.i
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Santa Clarita Plaza (HAV2001) Custom Report, 8/9/2023
11 / 39
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.21 0.22 < 0.005 0.01— 0.01 0.01— 0.01— 34.2 34.2 < 0.005 < 0.005— 34.3 Demolitio n————— 0.03 0.03— < 0.005 < 0.005———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005— 5.66 5.66 < 0.005 < 0.005— 5.67 Demolitio n————— 0.01 0.01— < 0.005 < 0.005———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite—————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Worker 0.06 0.07 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04— 167 167 0.01 0.01 0.02 169 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.06 3.53 1.31 0.02 0.03 0.72 0.75 0.03 0.20 0.23— 2,722 2,722 0.15 0.44 0.16 2,856 Average
Daily
—————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005— 2.33 2.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.36 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005— 37.3 37.3 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 39.2 Annual—————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005— 0.39 0.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.39 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005— 6.17 6.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.48

1.i
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Santa Clarita Plaza (HAV2001) Custom Report, 8/9/2023
12 / 39

3.3. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.43 13.7 12.9 0.02 0.65 — 0.65 0.59 — 0.59 — 2,064 2,064 0.08 0.02 — 2,071 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 2.44 2.44 — 1.17 1.17 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.3 11.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.3 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.87 1.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.88

1.i
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Santa Clarita Plaza (HAV2001) Custom Report, 8/9/2023
13 / 39
Dust — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.04 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 100 100 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 102 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.56 0.56 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.57 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.5. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

1.i
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Santa Clarita Plaza (HAV2001) Custom Report, 8/9/2023
14 / 39
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

1.65 15.9 15.4 0.02 0.74— 0.74 0.68— 0.68— 2,454 2,454 0.10 0.02— 2,462 Dust
From
Material
Movement
————— 2.76 2.76— 1.34 1.34———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.17 0.17 < 0.005 0.01— 0.01 0.01— 0.01— 26.9 26.9 < 0.005 < 0.005— 27.0 Dust
From
Material
Movement
————— 0.03 0.03— 0.01 0.01———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005— 4.45 4.45 < 0.005 < 0.005— 4.47 Dust
From
Material
Movement
————— 0.01 0.01— < 0.005 < 0.005———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite—————————————————

1.i
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Santa Clarita Plaza (HAV2001) Custom Report, 8/9/2023
15 / 39
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.06 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 135 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.49 1.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.51 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.25 0.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.25 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.13 9.44 10.1 0.02 0.37 — 0.37 0.34 — 0.34 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1.i
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Santa Clarita Plaza (HAV2001) Custom Report, 8/9/2023
16 / 39
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

1.13 9.44 10.1 0.02 0.37— 0.37 0.34— 0.34— 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01— 1,807 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.68 5.69 6.09 0.01 0.22— 0.22 0.21— 0.21— 1,086 1,086 0.04 0.01— 1,089 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.12 1.04 1.11 < 0.005 0.04— 0.04 0.04— 0.04— 180 180 0.01 < 0.005— 180 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite—————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Worker 0.11 0.12 1.90 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.08 0.08— 356 356 0.01 0.01 1.40 361 Vendor < 0.005 0.19 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01— 158 158 0.01 0.02 0.43 165 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Worker 0.11 0.14 1.61 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.08 0.08— 337 337 0.02 0.01 0.04 341 Vendor < 0.005 0.19 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01— 158 158 0.01 0.02 0.01 165 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
—————————————————

1.i
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Santa Clarita Plaza (HAV2001) Custom Report, 8/9/2023
17 / 39
Worker 0.07 0.09 1.02 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 206 206 0.01 0.01 0.36 209 Vendor < 0.005 0.12 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 95.2 95.2 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 99.3 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.02 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 34.1 34.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 34.6 Vendor < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.8 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 16.4 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.53 4.90 6.53 0.01 0.23 — 0.23 0.21 — 0.21 — 992 992 0.04 0.01 — 995 Paving 0.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.40 0.54 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 81.5 81.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 81.8 Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1.i
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Santa Clarita Plaza (HAV2001) Custom Report, 8/9/2023
18 / 39
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.5 13.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.5 Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.07 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 167 167 0.01 0.01 0.02 169 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.0 14.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 14.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.31 2.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.34 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

1.i
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Santa Clarita Plaza (HAV2001) Custom Report, 8/9/2023
19 / 39
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.49 4.63 6.50 0.01 0.20— 0.20 0.19— 0.19— 992 992 0.04 0.01— 995 Paving 0.04————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005— 3.88 3.88 < 0.005 < 0.005— 3.89 Paving < 0.005————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005— 0.64 0.64 < 0.005 < 0.005— 0.64 Paving < 0.005————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite—————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Worker 0.05 0.06 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04— 164 164 0.01 0.01 0.02 166 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1.i
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Santa Clarita Plaza (HAV2001) Custom Report, 8/9/2023
20 / 39
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.65 0.65 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.66 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.11 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.13. Architectural Coating (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.14 0.91 1.15 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architectu
ral
Coatings

2.25 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.14 0.91 1.15 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134

1.i
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Santa Clarita Plaza (HAV2001) Custom Report, 8/9/2023
21 / 39
Architectu 2.25————————————————
ral
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.28 0.35 < 0.005 0.01— 0.01 0.01— 0.01— 40.6 40.6 < 0.005 < 0.005— 40.7 Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.68————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005— 6.72 6.72 < 0.005 < 0.005— 6.75 Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.13————————————————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite—————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02— 71.2 71.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.28 72.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Worker 0.02 0.03 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02— 67.4 67.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 68.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1.i
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Santa Clarita Plaza (HAV2001) Custom Report, 8/9/2023
22 / 39
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20.8 20.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 21.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.45 3.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.49 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse

0.47 0.38 4.29 0.01 0.01 0.90 0.91 0.01 0.23 0.23 — 1,017 1,017 0.05 0.04 3.75 1,034 Health
Club

0.33 0.20 2.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.40 0.40 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 — 458 458 0.03 0.02 1.66 467 Regional
Shopping
Center

1.25 0.76 8.28 0.02 0.01 1.54 1.55 0.01 0.39 0.40 — 1,766 1,766 0.11 0.08 6.41 1,799 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1.i
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Santa Clarita Plaza (HAV2001) Custom Report, 8/9/2023
23 / 39
Total 2.06 1.33 14.7 0.03 0.02 2.84 2.86 0.02 0.72 0.74 — 3,242 3,242 0.18 0.14 11.8 3,300 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse

0.47 0.41 3.93 0.01 0.01 0.90 0.91 0.01 0.23 0.23 — 974 974 0.05 0.04 0.10 988 Health
Club

0.32 0.22 2.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.40 0.40 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 — 440 440 0.03 0.02 0.04 447 Regional
Shopping
Center

1.23 0.83 7.86 0.02 0.01 1.54 1.55 0.01 0.39 0.40 — 1,694 1,694 0.11 0.08 0.17 1,721 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 2.03 1.46 13.8 0.03 0.02 2.84 2.86 0.02 0.72 0.74 — 3,107 3,107 0.19 0.15 0.31 3,156 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse

0.08 0.08 0.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 0.17 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — 163 163 0.01 0.01 0.27 166 Health
Club

0.06 0.04 0.38 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 73.6 73.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.12 74.9 Regional
Shopping
Center

0.22 0.15 1.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.28 0.28 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 — 284 284 0.02 0.01 0.46 289 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.37 0.27 2.58 0.01 < 0.005 0.52 0.52 < 0.005 0.13 0.14 — 520 520 0.03 0.02 0.85 529

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e

1.i
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Santa Clarita Plaza (HAV2001) Custom Report, 8/9/2023
24 / 39
Daily,—————————————————
Summer
(Max)
Condo/To
wnhouse
——————————— 201 201 0.01 < 0.005— 202
Health
Club
——————————— 42.3 42.3 < 0.005 < 0.005— 42.5
Regional
Shopping
Center
——————————— 104 104 0.01 < 0.005— 104
Parking
Lot
——————————— 29.5 29.5 < 0.005 < 0.005— 29.6
Total——————————— 377 377 0.02 < 0.005— 378
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Condo/To
wnhouse
——————————— 201 201 0.01 < 0.005— 202
Health
Club
——————————— 42.3 42.3 < 0.005 < 0.005— 42.5
Regional
Shopping
Center
——————————— 104 104 0.01 < 0.005— 104
Parking
Lot
——————————— 29.5 29.5 < 0.005 < 0.005— 29.6
Total——————————— 377 377 0.02 < 0.005— 378
Annual—————————————————
Condo/To
wnhouse
——————————— 33.2 33.2 < 0.005 < 0.005— 33.4
Health
Club
——————————— 7.01 7.01 < 0.005 < 0.005— 7.03
Regional
Shopping
Center
——————————— 17.2 17.2 < 0.005 < 0.005— 17.3

1.i
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Santa Clarita Plaza (HAV2001) Custom Report, 8/9/2023
25 / 39
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 4.88 4.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.90
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 62.4 62.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 62.6

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse

0.01 0.18 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 231 231 0.02 < 0.005 — 232 Health
Club
< 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 41.5 41.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 41.6 Regional
Shopping
Center
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.9 13.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.0 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.01 0.23 0.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 287 287 0.03 < 0.005 — 287 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse

0.01 0.18 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 231 231 0.02 < 0.005 — 232 Health
Club
< 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 41.5 41.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 41.6 Regional
Shopping
Center
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.9 13.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.0 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.01 0.23 0.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 287 287 0.03 < 0.005 — 287

1.i
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Santa Clarita Plaza (HAV2001) Custom Report, 8/9/2023
26 / 39
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
< 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 38.3 38.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 38.4 Health
Club
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.88 6.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.89 Regional
Shopping
Center
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.31 2.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.31 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 47.4 47.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 47.6

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consume
r
Products

0.90 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.08 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt

0.23 0.02 2.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.39 6.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.41 Total 1.21 0.02 2.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 6.39 6.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.41

1.i
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Santa Clarita Plaza (HAV2001) Custom Report, 8/9/2023
27 / 39
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consume
r
Products

0.90 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.08 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consume
r
Products

0.16 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt

0.03 < 0.005 0.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.72 0.72 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.73 Total 0.21 < 0.005 0.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 0.72 0.72 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.73

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

1.i
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Santa Clarita Plaza (HAV2001) Custom Report, 8/9/2023
28 / 39
Condo/To—————————— 2.14 12.6 14.7 0.22 0.01— 21.8
Health
Club
—————————— 0.34 1.78 2.12 0.04 < 0.005— 3.26
Regional
Shopping
Center
—————————— 1.03 5.34 6.37 0.11 < 0.005— 9.79
Parking
Lot
—————————— 0.00 0.53 0.53 < 0.005 < 0.005— 0.53
Total—————————— 3.52 20.2 23.7 0.36 0.01— 35.4
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Condo/To
wnhouse
—————————— 2.14 12.6 14.7 0.22 0.01— 21.8
Health
Club
—————————— 0.34 1.78 2.12 0.04 < 0.005— 3.26
Regional
Shopping
Center
—————————— 1.03 5.34 6.37 0.11 < 0.005— 9.79
Parking
Lot
—————————— 0.00 0.53 0.53 < 0.005 < 0.005— 0.53
Total—————————— 3.52 20.2 23.7 0.36 0.01— 35.4
Annual—————————————————
Condo/To
wnhouse
—————————— 0.35 2.08 2.43 0.04 < 0.005— 3.61
Health
Club
—————————— 0.06 0.29 0.35 0.01 < 0.005— 0.54
Regional
Shopping
Center
—————————— 0.17 0.88 1.06 0.02 < 0.005— 1.62
Parking
Lot
—————————— 0.00 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005— 0.09
Total—————————— 0.58 3.35 3.93 0.06 < 0.005— 5.86

1.i
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Santa Clarita Plaza (HAV2001) Custom Report, 8/9/2023
29 / 39

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
— — — — — — — — — — 12.0 0.00 12.0 1.20 0.00 — 41.9
Health
Club
— — — — — — — — — — 9.31 0.00 9.31 0.93 0.00 — 32.6
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — 4.11 0.00 4.11 0.41 0.00 — 14.4
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 25.4 0.00 25.4 2.54 0.00 — 88.9 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
— — — — — — — — — — 12.0 0.00 12.0 1.20 0.00 — 41.9
Health
Club
— — — — — — — — — — 9.31 0.00 9.31 0.93 0.00 — 32.6
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — 4.11 0.00 4.11 0.41 0.00 — 14.4
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 25.4 0.00 25.4 2.54 0.00 — 88.9 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

1.i
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Santa Clarita Plaza (HAV2001) Custom Report, 8/9/2023
30 / 39
Condo/To — — — — — — — — — — 1.98 0.00 1.98 0.20 0.00 — 6.94 Health
Club
— — — — — — — — — — 1.54 0.00 1.54 0.15 0.00 — 5.39
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — 0.68 0.00 0.68 0.07 0.00 — 2.38
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 4.21 0.00 4.21 0.42 0.00 — 14.7

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.23 0.23
Health
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.03
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.28 0.28
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.23 0.23
Health
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01

1.i
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Santa Clarita Plaza (HAV2001) Custom Report, 8/9/2023
31 / 39
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.03
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.28 0.28
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
Health
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.05 0.05

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 1/2/2024 1/8/2024 5.00 5.00 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/9/2024 1/10/2024 5.00 2.00 — Grading Grading 1/11/2024 1/16/2024 5.00 4.00 —
Building Construction Building Construction 1/17/2024 11/19/2024 5.00 220 — Paving Paving 11/20/2024 1/2/2025 5.00 32.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 7/9/2024 12/10/2024 5.00 111 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

1.i
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Santa Clarita Plaza (HAV2001) Custom Report, 8/9/2023
32 / 39
Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
DieselAverage 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
DieselAverage 1.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

1.i
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Santa Clarita Plaza (HAV2001) Custom Report, 8/9/2023
33 / 39

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition————
Demolition Worker 12.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor— 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 38.6 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck—— HHDT
Site Preparation————
Site Preparation Worker 7.50 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor— 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck—— HHDT
Grading————
Grading Worker 10.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor— 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck—— HHDT
Building Construction————
Building Construction Worker 25.2 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 4.89 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck—— HHDT
Paving————
Paving Worker 12.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor— 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck—— HHDT

1.i
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Santa Clarita Plaza (HAV2001) Custom Report, 8/9/2023
34 / 39
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 5.04 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water unpaved roads twice daily 55% 55%
Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 25 mph 44% 44% Sweep paved roads once per month 9% 9%

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 64,395 21,465 15,450 5,150 1,385

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Yards) Material Exported (Cubic Yards) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Ton of Debris)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 772 —
Site Preparation 0.00 0.00 1.88 0.00 —
Grading 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 —

1.i
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Santa Clarita Plaza (HAV2001) Custom Report, 8/9/2023
35 / 39
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.53

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
Water Demolished Area 2 36% 36%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Condo/Townhouse — 0%
Health Club 0.00 0%
Regional Shopping Center 0.00 0%
Parking Lot 0.53 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2024 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2025 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Condo/Townhouse 136 136 136 49,713 1,269 1,269 1,269 463,175 Health Club 105 105 105 38,155 562 562 562 205,185

1.i
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Santa Clarita Plaza (HAV2001) Custom Report, 8/9/2023
36 / 39
Regional Shopping
Center
396 396 396 144,486 2,168 2,168 2,168 791,222
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Condo/Townhouse —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 30
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
64395 21,465 15,440 5,147 1,385

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value

1.i
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Santa Clarita Plaza (HAV2001) Custom Report, 8/9/2023
37 / 39
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Condo/Townhouse 137,765 532 0.0330 0.0040 720,911
Health Club 29,041 532 0.0330 0.0040 129,579
Regional Shopping Center 71,363 532 0.0330 0.0040 43,502 Parking Lot 20,224 532 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Condo/Townhouse 1,118,214 189,273
Health Club 179,204 0.00
Regional Shopping Center 538,507 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 68,608

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Condo/Townhouse 22.2 —

1.i
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Santa Clarita Plaza (HAV2001) Custom Report, 8/9/2023
38 / 39
Health Club 17.3 —
Regional Shopping Center 7.63 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Condo/Townhouse Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Condo/Townhouse Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Health Club Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Health Club Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Regional Shopping
Center
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Regional Shopping
Center
Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Main site area is 1.2 acres, new parking lot is 0.33 acres. The "Health Club" and Regional Shopping Center" are within the Residential building.

Construction: Construction Phases Construction schedule planned to start in January 2024 and last approximately 12 months. Assume architectural coatings applied during the Building Construction phase.

Construction: Architectural Coatings Assume all coatings comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113.

1.i
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Santa Clarita Plaza (HAV2001) Custom Report, 8/9/2023
39 / 39
Operations: Vehicle Data Changes per traffic study and to match previous analysis.

Operations: Hearths No woodstoves or fireplaces

1.i
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade November 16, 2023
Santa Clarita Plaza Apartments Project for a Categorical Exemption as a Class 32 In-Fill Development (Envicom Project No. 2021-053-01)

Attachment D
Hydrology Report

1.i
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project)

1.i
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
 Section 1.0: PROJECT SUMMARY
 1.1 Design Parameters
 1.2 Overview of Analysis Procedure
 1.3 Project Purpose and Scope
 1.4 Existing and Proposed Drainage conditions
 1.5 Hydrologic Analysis
 1.6 Low Impact Development Analysis
 1.7 Hydraulic Analysis
 1.8 Conclusion
 Section 2.0: HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS
 Section 3.0: LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT CALCULATIONS
 Section 4.0: HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS
 Appendix A: HYDROLOGY/LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT MAP

1.i
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) Section 1.0

PROJECT SUMMARY

1.i
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project)

1.1 DESIGN PARAMETERS
References: Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Hydrology Manual Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, LID Manual Rainfall Isohyet:
85th Percentile, 24-Hr Rainfall:

Soil Type:

Manning's Roughness Coefficient:

6.6 in (50yr – 24hr)

0.95 in
020
n=0.009, PVC
Note: Project not within County Adopted Flood Plain or Floodway. Project not within FEMA Flood Zone.

A Hydrology map delineating the Tributary Drainage areas and tabulated findings within this project for this tract is included in the Appendix of this report.

1.2 OVERVIEW OF ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
Analysis of the stormdrain runoff for both the existing and proposed conditions used the same techniques for analysis. Those being as follows:
 Used LA County HydroCalc Program to determine times of concentration and peak flow rates.
 Used LA County HydroCalc program to determine the SWQDv from the 85th percentile, 50-yr storm.

1.3 PROJECT PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The project site is the existing Santa Clarita Plaza Commercial Center located at 26111 to 26135 Bouquet Canyon Road, APNs 2811-003-016; -017, and -018. The site analyzed is

4.87 acres with existing infrastructure including buildings, parking lots, and underground utilities. The project proposes the development of an apartment building on the site along with surrounding parking stalls and planters. Additionally, the project site proposes the development of an overflow parking area to provided additional parking spaces for residents and customers of the neighboring businesses.

1.4 EXISTING & PROPOSED DRAINAGE CONDITIONS
The site’s existing conditions and terrain force the runoff to sheet flow west bound across the parking lots, ultimately reaching existing catch basins that direct the runoff off site via an underground storm drainage system.

The site’s proposed conditions and modifications change the drainage patterns of the site; the site continues to drain westbound and the runoff is collected by a network of concrete

1.i
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) swales that convey it to catch basins connected to the existing storm drainage system. As part of the scope of work, a currently undeveloped lot will be resurfaced to allow for vehicle access and parking. The runoff will drain through this parking lot and reach a proposed underground infiltration trench beneath this lot.

1.5 HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS
The methodology used to compute stormwater runoff was that described in the latest County of Los Angeles Hydrology Manual. The LA County HydroCalc program was also used for stormwater runoff calculation purposes. A 50-yr Storm is used for this analysis.

The site’s existing conditions were broken up and analyzed as three separate subareas (1A, 2A, and 3A). These subareas drain westbound, ultimately leaving the site through three outlet points at existing catch basins.

Subarea 1A is the north portion of the site, while subarea 2A is the central portion of the site, and subarea 3A is the southernmost portion of the site. The terrain of the site allows for runoff to sheet flow across the lot and eventually leave the property.

The table below summarizes the Existing Conditions Hydrologic Analysis.

Subarea Area (ac) Flowline (ft) TC (min) Q50 (cfs)
1A 0.65 343 5 2.23
1B 2.18 374 5 7.61
1C 2.04 740 9 5.29
Site Total 4.87 - - 15.13
There is a total area analyzed is 4.87 acres and generates a Q50 runoff of 15.13 cfs.

In the proposed conditions, the site breaks up into 3 separate subareas (1A, 2A, and 3A).

Subarea 1A consists of the northern half of the project site. This subarea includes a redesigned parking lot, trash enclosure, and a proposed apartment building. The runoff from this subarea drains west through a concrete swale and is intercepted by catch basins and routed off site. Subarea 2A consists of the lower half of the project site. This subarea includes the development of the overflow parking area occurring on APN: 2811-003-016.

Runoff from this subarea sheet flows westward and is collected at a catch basin and a proposed storm drainage pipe conveys the runoff to a proposed area of infiltration.

1.i
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) The table below summarizes the Proposed Conditions Hydrologic Analysis:

Subarea Area (ac) Flowline (ft) TC (min) Q50 (cfs)
1A 2.83 417 6 8.99
1B 2.04 740 8 5.82
Site Total 4.87 - - 14.81
Comparing the existing and the proposed conditions, the runoff caused by the 50 yearstorm decreased by -0.32 cfs for the proposed site.

The decrease in flow rate is due to the change in flow line lengths between the subareas analyzed in the two separate conditions. In the existing conditions, the site has three outlet locations and therefore is divided into three subareas. The proposed improvements modify the drainage pattern to only have two outlet points. Because of this, the runoff was rerouted and consequently extended the flow line length. This caused the time of concentration (Tc) to increase and therefore minimizes the amount of runoff at the point of confluence at any point in time, resulting in a decreased runoff rate.

1.6 LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS
The methodology used for the Low Impact Development Analysis was that described in the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works: Low Impact Development Standards manual February 2014. The HydroCalc Program was also used for Stormwater Quality Design Volume (SWQDv) calculation purposes. The 85th Percentile storm for the site is 0.95 inches, which is greater than the 0.75 inch storm; the 85th Percentile Storm was used to generate the SWQDv.

The site is analyzed as 1 subarea (1A), where the runoff drains westward.

The method in which the SWQDv will be handled will be through an underground infiltration device beneath the proposed overflow parking lot.

The table below summarizes the Low Impact Development Analysis.

Subarea Area
(ac)
Flowline
(ft)

IMP QPM
(cfs)
SWQDv
(ft3)
1A 2.04 740 0.82 0.36 5275
Site Total 2.04 - - 0.36 5275
The total area analyzed is 2.04 acres not including offsite areas and generates a QPM of

0.36 cfs and a SWQDv of 5275 ft3.

1.7 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS

1.i
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) The methodology used to analyze the Hydraulic capacity of the drainage devices on the site is Manning's equation. The roughness coefficient used is n=0.009 for PVC pipe and the design flow for these pipes are 70% full. The design storm used is the 50-yr storm runoff.

The proposed drainage system onsite is comprised of a 10” PVC pipe. The slope of the pipe is 9.3% and the actual flow in the system is calculated to be 5.82 cfs. The storm drain system has been designed to flow 70% full however the proposed pipe drains at a much lower volume than the 70% design value. See Section 4.0 for information on the pipe system including flow depth, flow velocity, and pipe max capacity.

1.9 CONCLUSION
The site is comprised of 3 lots with existing infrastructure located at 26111 to 26135 Bouquet Canyon Road in the City of Santa Clarita, Ca. The runoff of the site generally sheet flows to the west where it enters an underground drainage system and drains offsite.

The proposed conditions include the incorporation of a residential building and improvements to the parking lot area to provide additional parking stalls and planters.

The runoff from areas that are affected by the improvements will continue to drain west and will be collected by respective catch basins and conveyed to an underground infiltration trench within the property. The overall drainage design of the site has been adequately designed to handle the runoff of a 50-yr storm and is consistent with the requirements of the County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works.

1.i
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) Section 2.0

HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS
(EXISTING CONDITIONS - HYDROCALC CALCULATOR)

1.i
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: F:/Job Files/3525- IHOP/Civil/Hydrology/Calculations/Existing/Output/3525 SC PLAZA EX Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name 3525 SC PLAZA EX
Subarea ID 1A
Area (ac) 0.65
Flow Path Length (ft) 343.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.01
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 6.6
Percent Impervious 0.8
Soil Type 20
Design Storm Frequency 50-yr
Fire Factor 0.34
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 6.6
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 3.9377
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.6585
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8517
Time of Concentration (min) 5.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 2.18
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 2.233
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.2677
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 11662.659

1.i
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: F:/Job Files/3525- IHOP/Civil/Hydrology/Calculations/Existing/Output/3525 SC PLAZA EX Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name 3525 SC PLAZA EX
Subarea ID 2A
Area (ac) 2.18
Flow Path Length (ft) 374.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.01
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 6.6
Percent Impervious 0.87
Soil Type 20
Design Storm Frequency 50-yr
Fire Factor 0.34
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 6.6
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 3.9377
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.6585
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8686
Time of Concentration (min) 5.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 7.4564
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 7.6141
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.9582
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 41740.5938

1.i
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: F:/Job Files/3525- IHOP/Civil/Hydrology/Calculations/Existing/Output/3525 SC PLAZA EX Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name 3525 SC PLAZA EX
Subarea ID 3A
Area (ac) 2.04
Flow Path Length (ft) 740.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.01
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 6.6
Percent Impervious 0.82
Soil Type 20
Design Storm Frequency 50-yr
Fire Factor 0.34
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 6.6
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 2.9872
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.6054
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.847
Time of Concentration (min) 9.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 5.1614
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 5.2865
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.8562
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 37296.2203

1.i
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) Section 2.0

HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS
(PROPOSED CONDITIONS - HYDROCALC CALCULATOR)

1.i
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: F:/Job Files/3525- IHOP/Civil/Hydrology/Calculations/Proposed/Output/3525 PROP Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name 3525 PROP
Subarea ID 1A
Area (ac) 2.83
Flow Path Length (ft) 417.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.01
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 6.6
Percent Impervious 0.84557318
Soil Type 20
Design Storm Frequency 50-yr
Fire Factor 0.34
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 6.6
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 3.6144
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.6406
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8599
Time of Concentration (min) 6.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 8.796
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 8.9939
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 1.2166
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 52993.7042

1.i
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: F:/Job Files/3525- IHOP/Civil/Hydrology/Calculations/Proposed/Output/3525 PROP Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name 3525 PROP
Subarea ID 2A
Area (ac) 2.04
Flow Path Length (ft) 740.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.01
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in) 6.6
Percent Impervious 0.957041515
Soil Type 20
Design Storm Frequency 50-yr
Fire Factor 0.34
LID False
Output Results
Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 6.6
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 3.1573
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.6153
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.8878
Time of Concentration (min) 8.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 5.718
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 5.8158
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.9668
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 42113.9065

1.i
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) Section 3.0

LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT CALCULATIONS
(85th PERCENTILE STORM - HYDROCALC CALCULATOR)

1.i
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: F:/Job Files/3525- IHOP/Civil/Hydrology/Calculations/LID/Output/3525 SC PLAZA LID Report.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name 3525 SC PLAZA LID
Subarea ID 1A
Area (ac) 2.04
Flow Path Length (ft) 740.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.01
85th Percentile Rainfall Depth (in) 0.95
Percent Impervious 0.82
Soil Type 20
Design Storm Frequency 85th percentile storm
Fire Factor 0.34
LID True
Output Results
Modeled (85th percentile storm) Rainfall Depth (in) 0.95 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.2271
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.1
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.756
Time of Concentration (min) 35.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.3503
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.3584
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.1211
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 5274.5435

1.i
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) STORM

WATER NO HEAVY
Equipment Required

DETENTION / INFILTRATION
A new approach to underground stormwater storage, infiltration, treatment, harvesting or other stormwater management needs, subject to availability.

Potential LEED® credits for Sustainable Sites (6.1, 6.2), Materials & Resources (4, 5 in CA, AZ, NV, OR, UT) and Water Efficiency (1, 3)
Reshaping the Future of
Stormwater Management

1.i
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) Modular Polypropylene Cubes for Underground Water Storage CUDO components snap together, forming a single or
multiple stack. Assembled stacks are installed to form
the desired system size and shape, with a maximum
amount of footprint flexibility.

Cubes incorporate an arched design that adds structural integrity, increased water storage and enhanced access for inspection and maintenance. Made in the USA of injection molded polypropylene plastic, a single CUDO assembly
requires just two modules and two end caps.

Per application, either a filter fabric or plastic liner is wrapped around the CUDO modules, encasing the entire
system. Geo-grid or other structural enhancement may be incorporated into the CUDO installation, depending on the loading requirements.

FEATURES AND BENEFITS
• Large interior openings offer ease of access for
inspection and maintenance
• High water storage capacity (95%)
• CUDO size (24” x 24” x 24”) offers ease of handling
and installation
• Unique shape offers superior strength
• Minimal number of components required
for assembly
• May be integrated into bioretention systems
(rain gardens)

NO HEAVY
Equipment Required
(800) 579-8819
oldcastleinfrastructure.com

1.i
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) Section 4.0

HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS

1.i
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) Date: 04/14/23
Job: 3525 Santa Clarita Plaza
Hydraulic Calculations
Formula: Q= 50-yr Flow (cfs)
k'= 0.498 (at full capacity, See Hydraulic Table)
n= 0.009/0.013 (PVC/RCP, Mannings Roughness Coeff.)
b= Pipe Diameter (ft)
s= Slope of Pipe (ft/ft)
D= Flow Depth (ft)
A= Flow Area (ft2
)
f'= Hydraulic Constant, see Hydraulic Table
v= flow velocity (ft/s)
d'= Depth Ratio, See Hydraulic Table
Line Q50 (cfs) b (in) s (ft/ft) k' d' D (ft) f' A (ft2) v (ft/s) QMAX (cfs) 1A 5.82 10 0.093 0.279 0.56 0.47 0.4626 0.321 18.1 10.38 1 of 1

1.i
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project)

1.i
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project) Appendix A

HYDROLOGY/LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT MAP

1.i
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project)

1.i
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project)

1.i
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project)

1.i
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: CEQA Notice of Exemption (Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed Use Project)

CITY OF SANTA CLARITA

PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
~ Minutes ~
Tuesday, June 18, 2024 6:00 PM City Council Chambers

CALL TO ORDER
Chair Burkhart called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL
Chair Burkhart, Vice-Chair Ayala, Commissioner Berlin, Commissioner Eichman, and Commissioner Ostrom were all present.

FLAG SALUTE
Commissioner Eichman led the flag salute.

COMMISSION SECRETARY ANNOUNCEMENT
Rachel Clark gave the secretary announcement.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made by Commissioner Berlin and seconded by Commissioner Ostrom to approve the minutes from the June 4, 2024 meeting. Said motion carried by a voice vote of 5-0.

PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM 1

APPEAL OF THE HEARING OFFICER APPROVAL OF THE PROMENADE FLATS MIXED USE PROJECT (MASTER CASE 21-086)
Public Hearing for Appeal 24-001 of the Hearing Officer approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed-Use Project (Master Case 21-086).

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Staff recommends the Planning Commission:

1. Receive staff presentation;

2. Conduct the public hearing;

3. Determine that the project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines § 15332, as a Class 32 categorical exemption consisting of an in-fill development project; and,

4. Adopt Resolution P24-11, denying Appeal 24-001 and affirming the Hearing Officer approval of a request by Harvard 826 Property, LLC to construct and operate the Promenade Flats Mixed-Use Project (Master Case 21-086).

Andy Olson, Associate Planner, presented on the item.

Commissioner Berlin requested the City Attorney, Ephraim “Eppi” Margolian to provide clarity of the Planning Commission’s authority as it relates to Senate Bill 330. Eppi responded with the definition of Objective Design Standards that must be applied to the project.

Chair Burkhart opened the public comment portion of the public hearing at 6:13 p.m.

Hunt Braly, Dean Arizabal (Parking Management Plan), and Brandon Helfer (parking consultant), of the applicant team, presented on behalf of the item.

Vice-Chair Ayala asked about the number of handicap accessible (ADA) spaces. Mr. Braly responded that they meet code-required parking. Carolina Henao, of the applicant team, noted that ADA parking is exceeded by 20 percent. Patrick Leclair, Planning Manager, noted that during the building plan check review process, the location and number of accessible stalls are reviewed to ensure compliance with the Building Code. Chair Burkhart posed the question if it makes sense to "overpark" ADA stalls when the number of parking stalls are a concern. He also made note that he may propose not exceed code-required ADA parking to ensure maximum available for public use.

Commissioner Berlin asked if the site would be losing parking stalls and if the IHOP restaurant would still be allocated their 30 parking spaces. Mr. Olson confirmed that the number of parking spaces on the project site would be reduced; some spaces would be shifted/dispersed across the project site but the number of spaces based on parking demand would meet requirements for existing uses.

Chair Burkhart asked if the spaces will remain convenient to the restaurant. The Commissioners expressed concerns over location, convenience, and availability of parking; guest parking and employee parking usage and enforcement; and monitoring of the parking spaces. Commissioner Eichman expressed the need to have the on-site operator as a continual requirement and concern that employees with long shifts would be cited for parking. The applicant’s parking consultant provided a response noting there would be an on-site operator to actively audit and manage the parking lot usage.

Chair Burkhart asked if there is another location within the City that requires the same level of parking management. Mr. Leclair responded that he is unaware of another that has been conditioned by the City of Santa Clarita.

Commissioner Berlin asked how many parking spaces would be available for the existing businesses during construction, additionally, she shared concern of the distance that the elderly or disabled person would need to travel from the parking stall to the IHOP during construction.

Mr. Braly noted that 152 commercial parking spaces would be available during construction and the distance between the southern parking spaces and IHOP would be similar to parking at the mall and walking to a restaurant.

Commissioner Berlin asked how the commercial tenants would receive deliveries. Mr. Braly noted that he would respond after consulting with his client after hearing the public speakers.

There were three speakers in support of the project noting support for in-fill development and mixed-use development, and a reminder to focus on long-term benefits instead of short-term complaints. There were six speakers in opposition expressing concerns of congested parking/spillover into Cinema Park, potential confrontation over parking enforcement, current spillover parking from Las Flores apartments, access to Las Flores access during construction, light spillover, and the potential impacts to employee and customer parking. Additionally, there were two speakers that were neutral or did not disclose their position noting concerns for sewer capacity and commercial delivery spaces.

There was one written comment in opposition to the project.

Exercising the right of rebuttal, Mr. Braly responded to comments. He noted that IHOP currently closes at 3:00 p.m. with no dinner service; to date, no data has been provided to indicate that offsite parking occurs at Cinema Park; and, one delivery area is available for IHOP. In reference to the number of parking spaces provided for the live/work units, he mentioned that the proposed project meets the City’s code and Senate Bill 330 does not affect the required parking. Ms.

Henao provided more detail on the number of ADA parking spaces and the excess was due to code and convenience. She also provided more details on locations of commercial delivery spaces. Mr. Braly added that any tenants could use the delivery spaces.

Chair Burkhart closed the public comment portion of the public hearing at 7:34 p.m.

Commissioner Berlin asked how many employees are currently in the center. Mr. Braly responded that there is no data but the allocated spaces are based on the City’s code.

Commissioner Berlin stated that upon her visit to the center at around 9:15 a.m., both the project parking lot and Cinema Park were busy. She also noted that during construction, the site would be short 57 spaces, requested that a condition of approval be added for the City to look at the parking management plan and be re-evaluated within six months, and if the on-site parking attendant escort people to the rear parking lot due to safety concerns. Mr. Braly noted that the construction of the new parking lot will happen prior to the construction of the new building thus giving the Las Flores residents uninterrupted access via their access gate, as required per their agreement. He also noted that the Los Angeles County Sanitation District has not provided any feedback regarding issues with the project.

Mr. Braly deferred the response to the City if the City would want to evaluate the parking management plan and states that 6 months may be too short of a time. He also stated that that the “shortage” of parking spaces is not correct as this would be prior to construction of the residential and commercial that would require those spaces.

Commissioner Berlin requested an ADA accessibility plan, construction management plan, and a parking management plan for during construction. She also asked to limit or reduce construction hours on weekends. She asked the applicant team for the size of the balconies and if there would be a permanent shade structure on the roof top. Ms. Henao responded with the approximate balcony size and confirmed that a shade structure would be provided and discussed with staff.

Commissioner Berlin suggested that the applicant implement a business interruption plan with signage during construction. She also asked if there is a condition of approval that requires the south parking lot to be built first and, if not, she requests the condition be added. Mr. Olson noted that it is not currently a condition, but that a condition could be added, should the Commission choose to do so. Mr. Braly indicated that the applicant would accept such a condition.

Commissioner Berlin asked if there is a northbound bus stop. Andy confirmed. Commissioner Berlin asked that the live/work unit be marketed as live/work for a year, prior to being able to be converted to residential.

Commissioner Eichman asked Mr. Braly to confirm that the on-site parking attendant would only be there Monday through Friday during peak hours, out of concern of additional unauthorized overnight parking. Mr. Braly responded that the schedule is not yet confirmed but if it is found that there are impacts during business hours, it can be revisited, evaluated, and enforced. The Commission discussed peak/off-peak parking activities and guest parking for residents. Mr.

Braly requested that the parking management plan be reviewed by staff and re-evaluated after six to eight months of implementation and states that they have vested interest in preventing negative parking impacts.

Vice-Chair Ayala shared her observations regarding the parking lot and requested to implement measures that ensure the parking is available for its intended uses by way of parking permits, visible signage, real-time monitoring and security personnel, and to keep communicating with tenants during the project.

Commissioner Eichman asked about noise mitigation during the 58 weeks of construction noting that the tea house restaurant, specifically, uses the outdoor space. She also shared concern of impacts to businesses during construction and also noted that once the project is built, she believes that the businesses will do well.

Commissioner Berlin asked if reduced construction hours on the weekends would be considered.

Chair Burkhart stated that it would prolong construction.

Commissioner Ostrom, in response to parking concerns, recalled that when the hospital was built, underground parking was suggested but it does not seem practical for this project.

Commissioner Berlin and Mr. Leclair confirmed the conditions as requested by the Commission to include: 1. Staff review of the Parking Management Plan before occupancy with an evaluation by the applicant in six to eight months after implementation; 2. A construction management plan, to ensure sufficient overall parking, ADA parking, and ADA access are provided during construction; 3. Marketing of the live/work units for a period of one year, prior to conversion to residential, instead of six months; 4. Permanent shade structure on roof top; and 5. Construction of the southwest parking lot prior to building construction. Mr. Leclair asked the applicant team to confirm that the roof-top solar structures could be dual purpose as shade structures. Ms. Henao confirmed that the structures fulfill both functions.

Mr. Braly confirmed that the three-hour parking is not applied on all commercial spaces but only the spaces on the north side of the building. Parking enforcement would not negatively impact employees. He also requested an exception for overnight parking for tenants with an approved need. Mr. Braly and Commissioner Berlin clarified that after eight months of the Parking Management Plan implementation, the City would evaluate the plan and provide feedback for any changes that would need to be made. Mr. Leclair suggested that condition PL5 be amended to reflect the Parking Management Plan evaluation.

A motion was made by Commissioner Berlin and seconded by Vice-Chair Ayala adopting Resolution P24-11, denying Appeal 24-001 and affirming the Hearing Officer approval of a request by Harvard 826 Property, LLC to construct and operate the Promenade Flats Mixed-Use Project (Master Case 21-086) and determining that the project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines § 15332, as a Class 32 categorical exemption consisting of an in-fill development project, with aforementioned amendments. Said motion carried by a roll-call vote of 4-1.

A recess was called at 8:02 p.m. and was called back to order at 8:17 p.m. by Chair Burkhart.

RESULT: APPROVED AS AMENDED [4 TO 1]
MOVER: Renee Berlin, Commissioner
SECONDER: Patsy Ayala, Vice-Chair
AYES: Lisa Eichman, Dennis Ostrom, Renee Berlin, Patsy Ayala NAYS: Timothy Burkhart

CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
ITEM 2
WILEY CANYON MIXED USE PROJECT (MASTER CASE 20-238)
A request to allow for the development of a mixed-use project consisting of a senior-living facility with 130 independent living units, 61 assisted-living units, and 26 memory care beds; 8,914 square feet of commercial floor area; and 379 multi-family apartment units.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Planning Commission:

1. Receive the staff presentation in response to Planning Commission direction;

2. Continue the public hearing to receive testimony from the applicant and the public;

3. Provide direction to staff on the hearing schedule; and

4. Continue the public hearing.

Erika Iverson, Senior Planner, presented on the item.

Commissioner Berlin asked to confirm that although this project would not widen Wiley Canyon, there would be sufficient right-of-way for future widening, if needed. Ms. Iverson confirmed that Traffic Engineering has reviewed and, at the narrowest point, the roadway could be designed with four vehicle lanes and sidewalks. Commissioner Berlin asked about the length

of the Metro sound wall. Ms. Iverson demonstrated the approximate limit of the sound wall.

Chair Burkhart asked for clarification that 20 feet of grading and re-compaction does not mean that it will raise or lower the grade by 20 feet and, with compaction, would be relatively close to the existing grade. Ms. Iverson confirmed and deferred to the applicant to provide additional explanation of grading activities but did note that there is also import of dirt to address floodplain issues that would raise the site slightly from current grade.

The public comment portion of the public hearing was re-opened at 8:36 p.m.

Tom Clark, Glenn Adamick, Ron Ziebart, and Erick Seward spoke on behalf of the item.

There were five speakers in support citing needs for more affordable housing, walkable communities, added sidewalks and roundabouts for speed reduction and safety, reduced freeway noise, and improved landscaping. There were 15 speakers in opposition noting concerns regarding parking, local hire, hospital capacity, outreach meeting notifications, languagebarrier/communication concerns, discrimination, urbanization, evacuation safety, traffic congestion, invasion of privacy, and proximity of other assisted living facilities. One speaker held a neutral position or did not disclose their position.

Exercising the right of rebuttal, Mr. Adamick responded to comments. He noted that the single means of access has been reviewed by the Fire Department and has been found to be sufficient as long as there is an emergency access provided. This access is provided via the Wabuska gated access which will only used for emergency purposes. He also noted that this project does not preclude Wiley Canyon from being expanded to four lanes in the future. He noted that local improvements would benefit the overall community. This is a suburban community with urban components but pedestrian connectivity is important. They can have outreach with the Carpenters Union. The park would be maintained by a private Landscape Maintenance District, would not use General Funds, and would be available to the public. The legal notices were distributed. Notices regarding public outreach do not have same standards as legal notices.

Commissioner Ostrom asked about liquefaction concerns and if piles would be used. Mr.

Adamick responded that with mitigation measures, liquefaction issues would be mitigated. Erick Seward provided more details on the soils and noted other projects within the area that had similar liquefaction properties and were mitigated in the same manner.

The public comment portion of the public hearing was closed at 10:06 p.m.

Vice-Chair Ayala encourages the developer to have communications with the community in Spanish. She also asked that City staff to clarify the four-lane requirement for Wiley Canyon.

Commissioner Berlin also asked for clarification of the road width required and location of the power poles. Ian Pari, Senior Traffic Engineer, provided information. Vice-Chair Ayala asked the applicant to consider providing solar and/or sustainable power. Mr. Adamick responded that there is potential for solar due to carports. Vice-Chair Ayala also asked the applicant to consider communicating with the nearby neighborhoods regarding an evacuation plan.

Commissioner Berlin asked for renderings of the sound wall without the berm from the

residential side, a rendering of berm at the sound wall gap, from eastside of Wiley from houses on hill looking down project and looking towards Towsley, requested that the installed bus stops be improved on pads, agrees with Commissioner Ayala to provide an outreach meeting with Spanish translation. She asked why Kelton Estates weren’t notified, requested the traffic simulation of emergency evacuation of Hawkbryn/Wabuska, evacuation plan for assisted living and memory care, how many employees would be sharing the 44 parking spaces for assisted living facility.

Commissioner Eichman agrees with Commissioner Berlin on her requests. She is still concerned about having only one access point (compared to Promenade Flats project that was required to have two) and the drive into the Athletic Club when entering the roundabout. Mr. Adamick stated that they are having discussions with the Athletic Club property owner. Additionally, Commissioner Eichman requests a rendering with a different perspective than provided due to the height of the berm wall and concerns of noise, a traffic simulation with roundabouts, and a simulation of traffic impacts to Wiley Canyon Elementary. She noted that she is a proponent for the four-lanes to be proactive for future growth and asks if there will be an emergency access near the Athletic Club and where overflow parking would go if there is not enough on-site.

Commissioner Eichman also asked if ADA guest parking spots would be available within the gates for the multi-family units. Mr. Adamick confirmed. She asked for more information on timing of road development plans or remedies during construction for noise and dust impacts and suggested filters for the mobile home park and Wiley Canyon Elementary. She asked the applicant to consider temporary noise barriers for the senior living while the project is under construction. Commissioner Berlin agreed.

Commissioner Berlin asked if the traffic signal and roundabout is too close. Mr. Adamick provided clarification. She echoed Commissioner Eichman’s comments regarding the second access and agrees with everything she noted and requested.

Vice-Chair Ayala asked that the applicant consider speaking to the Carpenter’s Union.

Commissioner Berlin asked that the sound wall be tempered with landscaping. She also asked that the project does not return to Commission until all information is available to be provided.

She also requested that the applicant host an outreach meeting in Spanish.

Commissioner Berlin made a motion and was seconded by Vice-Chair Ayala to continue to project to a date uncertain. Said motion carried by a roll-call vote of 5-0.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Renee Berlin, Commissioner
SECONDER: Patsy Ayala, Vice-Chair
AYES: Eichman, Ostrom, Burkhart, Berlin, Ayala

PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
Patrick Leclair gave the Planning Manager's report providing an update to the anticipated Planning Commission meeting schedule.

Commissioner Berlin asked to received a copy of the Riverview Project environmental documents as soon as available. Patrick Leclair agreed.

PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
There were no reports made by the Planning Commission.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
There were no speakers for Public Participation.

ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made at 10:26 p.m. by Commissioner Ostrom and seconded by Commissioner Eichman to adjourn the meeting. Said motion carried by a voice vote of 5-0. ______________________________________
ATTEST: PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR
______________________________________

PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY