4.15 – Transportation

4.15 Transportation

This section describes the existing traffic/circulation setting near the proposed Sand Canyon Resort Project (project) site, identifies associated regulatory requirements, and evaluates potential adverse impacts related to (1) conflicts with an applicable program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; (2) conflict or inconsistency with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15064.3(b); (3) a substantial increase in hazards due to a geometric design feature; and (4) inadequate emergency access. Following the impact analysis, this section lists any applicable project design features and identifies mitigation measures required related to implementation of the proposed project.

The following discussion summarizes the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis and Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Stantec on August 7, 2020, and November 8, 2019, respectively, per requirements established by the revised CEQA Guidelines, the City of Santa Clarita Traffic Study Guidelines (City of Santa Clarita 1990), and the Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Clarita (City of Santa Clarita 2020a). Additionally, a Transportation Demand Management Plan and a Parking Analysis for Sand Canyon Resort have been prepared by Stantec. All reports are included as Appendix J of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

4.15.1 Environmental Setting

This section describes key roadway segments and intersections, as well as transit, pedestrian, and biking facilities within the vicinity of the proposed project.

Existing Roadway System

The proposed project is located in the southeast portion of the City of Santa Clarita (City). The project site is located north of Robinson Ranch Road, east of Sand Canyon Road, west of the Sand Canyon Country Club clubhouse, and south of Oak Springs Canyon Road. Access to the project site will be via four new intersections with Robinson Ranch Road in addition to the existing gated entry via the Sand Canyon Road/Robinson Ranch Road intersection. A secondary access is proposed south of the property through Live Oak Springs Canyon Road, which could be used as an emergency evacuation route. Regional access to the project will be via State Route (SR) 14, which is located approximately 1 mile north of the project. Access to SR-14 is via an interchange with northbound ramps connecting to Sand Canyon Road and southbound hook ramps on Soledad Canyon Road.

Soledad Canyon Road in the study area (defined in the TIA) is designated as a Major Highway in the City of Santa Clarita General Plan (City of Santa Clarita 2011). It is an east–west arterial with six lanes between Sierra Highway and Galeton Road and a four-lane road for the remaining portion in the study area.

Sand Canyon Road is a north–south arterial with mostly two lanes between Sierra Highway and Soledad Canyon Road, four lanes between Soledad Canyon Road and SR-14 Northbound Ramps, and two lanes south of the SR- 14 northbound ramps. It is designated as a Major Highway between Soledad Canyon Road and Lost Canyon Road, a Secondary Highway between Sierra Highway and Soledad Canyon Road, and a Limited Secondary Highway south of Lost Canyon Road (City of Santa Clarita 2011).

SR-14 or Antelope Valley Freeway is located north of the project site. It provides access to the Antelope Valley to the northeast and connects to Interstate 5 to the southwest.

Sand Canyon Resort Project Draft EIR 11285 November 2020 4.15-1 4.15 – Transportation

In consultation with City staff, using the criteria of identifying locations where the project would add 50 or more peak hour trips, the following five intersections were selected and included in the traffic analysis of the project:

1. SR-14 southbound ramps/Soledad Canyon Road (signalized) 2. Sand Canyon Road/SR-14 northbound ramps (signalized) 3. Sand Canyon Road/Soledad Canyon Road (signalized) 4. Sand Canyon Road/Lost Canyon Road (all-way stop) 5. Sand Canyon Road/Robinson Ranch Road (two-way stop)

Figure 4.15-1 illustrates the project site location and study area selected for traffic analysis. Figure 4.15-2, Master Plan of Highways, illustrates the classification of roadway designation in the vicinity of the project site.

Public Transportation

The City of Santa Clarita Transit (SCT) Route 6 is the closest service route to the project. The closest bus stop is approximately 2 miles from the project. SCT Routes 6 travels along Soledad Canyon Road and provides services between the east side of the City and Stevenson Ranch with stops at the Santa Clarita and Newhall Metrolink stations, as well as at the McBean Regional Transit Center. Additional routes are accessible from this route, which provides service to the greater Santa Clarita Valley area. Figure 4.15-3 illustrates the City’s transit routes.

SCT Commuter Express offers express commuter bus travel to Los Angeles, Warner Center, Van Nuys, Century City, and the Antelope Valley. Three Metrolink stations (i.e., Newhall Station, Santa Clarita Station, and Via Princessa Station) exist within the City, which serve the Antelope Valley line. This line travels between Lancaster and Union Station, Los Angeles. The closest Metrolink station is the Via Princessa Station, which is approximately 4.5 miles west of the project.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities

The City of Santa Clarita Non-Motorized Transportation Plan Update (City of Santa Clarita 2014) focuses on the City’s bicycle and pedestrian network, planning and policies related to bicycling and walking, nonmotorized connections to transit, safe routes to schools, and complete streets. This plan update also provides direction for future investments in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.

Currently, there are no bike lanes serving the project site. There is a proposed Class III Bike Path along Sand Canyon Road. The proposed Class III Bike Path along Sand Canyon Road would connect to the existing Class II Bike Lane along Soledad Canyon Road. Figure 4.15-4 illustrates the existing and planned future bicycle facilities in the study area.

The existing multipurpose pedestrian pathway along Sand Canyon Road would be extended from Road Runner Road to the southern boundary of the City. There are limited pedestrian facilities along roadways adjacent to the project due to the rural nature of the study area.

Sand Canyon Resort Project Draft EIR 11285 November 2020 4.15-2 4.15 – Transportation

4.15.2 Regulatory Framework

State

Senate Bill 743

On September 27, 2013, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 743, which became effective on January 1, 2014. The purpose of SB 743 is to streamline the review under the CEQA process for several categories of development projects, including the development of infill projects in transit priority areas, and to balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. SB 743 adds Chapter 2.7, Modernization of Transportation Analysis for Transit Oriented Infill Projects, to the CEQA Statute (California Public Resources Code, Section 21099). Section 21099(d)(1) provides that aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment. In addition, SB 743 mandates that alternative metrics for determining impacts relative to transportation shall be developed to replace the use of level of service (LOS) in CEQA documents.

In the past, environmental review of transportation impacts focused on the delay that vehicles experience at intersections and on roadway segments, which is often measured using LOS. Mitigation for impacts on vehicular delay often involves increasing capacity, such as widening a roadway or increasing the size of an intersection, which in turn encourages more vehicular travel and greater pollutant emissions. Additionally, improvements to increase vehicular capacity can often discourage alternative forms of transportation such as biking and walking. SB 743 directed the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop an alternative metric for analyzing transportation impacts in CEQA documents. The alternative shall promote the state’s goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and traffic-related air pollution, promoting the development of multimodal transportation system, and providing clean, efficient access to destinations. Under SB 743, it was anticipated that the focus of transportation analysis would shift from vehicle delay to VMT within transit priority areas (i.e., areas well served by transit).

Pursuant to SB 743, OPR released the draft revised CEQA Guidelines in November 2017, recommending the use of VMT for analyzing transportation impacts. Additionally, OPR released updates to Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA(OPR 2018), to provide guidance on VMT analysis. In this Technical Advisory, OPR provides its recommendations to assist lead agencies in screening out projects from VMT analysis and selecting a significance threshold that may be appropriate for their particular jurisdictions. While OPR’s Technical Advisory is not binding on public agencies, CEQA allows lead agencies to “consider thresholds of significance . . . recommended by other public agencies, provided the decision to adopt those thresholds is supported by substantial evidence” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7[c]).

In December 2018, the CEQA Guidelines were updated to add new Section 15064.3, Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts, which describes specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts using the VMT methodology. This new methodology is required to be used for projects beginning on July 1, 2020.

Sand Canyon Resort Project Draft EIR 11285 November 2020 4.15-3 4.15 – Transportation

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) is divided into four subdivisions as follows:

1. Land Use Projects. Vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact. 2. Transportation Projects. Transportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. For roadway capacity projects, agencies have discretion to determine the appropriate measure of transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements. To the extent that such impacts have already been adequately addressed at a programmatic level, such as in a regional transportation plan EIR, a lead agency may tier from that analysis as provided in Section 15152. 3. Qualitative Analysis. If existing models or methods are not available to estimate the vehicle miles traveled for the particular project being considered, a lead agency may analyze the project’s vehicle miles traveled qualitatively. Such a qualitative analysis would evaluate factors such as the availability of transit, proximity to other destinations, etc. For many projects, a qualitative analysis of construction traffic may be appropriate. 4. Methodology. A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revisions to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project.

Since the project is a land use development, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)1 applies to the proposed project.

Senate Bill 375 (Sustainable Communities Strategies)

SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (Sustainable Communities Act) supports the state’s climate action goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through coordinated transportation and land use planning with the goal of more sustainable communities. Under the Sustainable Communities Act, the California Air Resources Board sets regional targets for greenhouse gas emissions reductions from passenger vehicle use. In 2010, the California Air Resources Board established these targets for 2020 and 2035 for each region covered by one of the state’s Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). The California Air Resources Board will periodically review and update the targets as needed.

Each of California’s MPOs must prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as an integral part of its Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The SCS contains land use, housing, and transportation strategies that, if implemented, would allow the region to meet its greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. Once adopted by the MPO, the RTP/SCS guides the transportation policies and investments for the region. The California Air Resources Board must review the adopted SCS to confirm and accept the MPO’s determination that the SCS, if implemented, would meet the regional greenhouse gas targets. If the combination of measures in the SCS would not meet the regional targets, the MPO must prepare a separate alternative planning strategy to meet the targets. The alternative planning strategy is not a part of the RTP.

Sand Canyon Resort Project Draft EIR 11285 November 2020 4.15-4 4.15 – Transportation

The Sustainable Communities Act also establishes incentives to encourage local governments and developers to implement the SCS or the alternative planning strategy. Developers can get relief from certain CEQA requirements if their new residential and mixed-use projects are consistent with a region’s SCS (or alternative planning strategy) that meets the targets (see California Public Resources Code, Sections 21155, 21155.1, 21155.2, 21159.28.).

California Department of Transportation

As the owner and operator of the state highway system, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) implements established state planning priorities in all functional plans, programs, and activities. Caltrans has the responsibility to coordinate and consult with local jurisdictions when proposed local land use planning and development may impact state highway facilities. Pursuant to Section 21092.4 of the California Public Resources Code, for projects of statewide, regional, or area-wide significance, the lead agency shall consult with transportation planning agencies and public agencies that have transportation facilities that could be affected by the project.

To comply with SB 743 implementation, the 2020 Caltrans Draft Transportation Impact Study Guide (TISG) (Caltrans 2020) will replace the Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (Caltrans 2002). Per the 2020 TISG, Caltrans’ primary review focus is VMT, replacing LOS as the metric used in CEQA transportation analyses. Caltrans recommends use of OPR’s recommended thresholds and guidance on methods of VMT assessment found in OPR’s Technical Advisory (OPR 2018) for land use projects. In addition to VMT, the 2020 TISG states that it may request a targeted operational and safety analysis to address a specific geometric or operational issue related to the state highway system and connections with the state highway system (Caltrans 2020). The analysis of intersections provided in the TIA in Appendix J is consistent with and is based on the Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (Caltrans 2002).

Regional

Southern California Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy

In addition to the Regional Comprehensive Plan, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has prepared and adopted the 2016 RTP/SCS. The 2016 RTP/SCS aims to plan, build, and connect communities within Southern California by providing expanded and environmentally sustainable transit options, including bus and rail service, in close proximity to residential and business land uses (SCAG 2016). The 2016 RTP/SCS identifies priorities for transportation planning within the Southern California region, sets goals and policies, and identifies performance measures for transportation improvements to ensure that future projects are consistent with other planning goals for the area.

The RTP/SCS contains overarching goals that are applicable to the project, including, but not limited to, the following:

• Identify regional strategic areas for infill and investment. • Identify strategic centers based on a three-tiered system of existing, planned, and potential relative to transportation infrastructure. This strategy more effectively integrates land use planning and transportation investment. • Develop “Complete Communities.” • Plan for additional housing and jobs near transit. • Continue to protect stable, existing single-family areas. • Ensure adequate access to open space and preservation of habitat. • Incorporate local input and feedback on future growth.

Sand Canyon Resort Project Draft EIR 11285 November 2020 4.15-5 4.15 – Transportation

The 2020–2045 RTP/SCS (also known as the Connect SoCal Plan) (SCAG 2020) was made available in March 2020 and presents the land use and transportation vision for the region through the year 2045, providing a long-term investment framework for addressing the region’s challenges. The Proposed Final Connect SoCal Plan has not yet been adopted by SCAG’s Regional Council; however, in May 2020 the Regional Council approved Connect SoCal for the limited purpose of submitting the plan to the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration for review prior to the June 1, 2020 deadline, as required by the Clean Air Act.

Local

City of Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element

The City of Santa Clarita General Plan is the primary planning document for the incorporated areas of the City, including the Sand Canyon community. The Circulation Element (City of Santa Clarita 2011) provides the framework for the continued development of sustainable and efficient transportation within the City and surrounding areas. The Circulation Element plans for increased transportation efficiency through the coordination of land use planning with transportation planning by promoting concentrated development within the City near transit facilities.

Based on the circulation planning needs identified for the Santa Clarita Valley, following goals and policies were developed and included in the Circulation Element:

Goal C 1: An inter-connected network of circulation facilities that integrates all travel modes, provides viable alternatives to automobile use, and conforms with regional plans (Policy C1.1.1 through C 1.3.10).

Goal C 2: A unified and well-maintained network of streets and highways which provides safe and efficient movement of people and goods between neighborhoods, districts, and regional centers, while maintaining community character (Policy C 2.1.1 through C 2.2.15).

Goal C 3: Reduction of vehicle trips and emissions through effective management of travel demand, transportation systems, and parking (Policy C 3.1.1 through C 3.3.8).

Goal C 4: Rail service to meet regional and inter-regional needs for convenient, cost-effective travel alternatives, which are fully integrated into the Valley’s circulation systems and land use patterns.

Goal C 5: Establish transit impact fee rates that are based on the actual impacts of new development on the transit system, and regularly monitor and adjust these fees as needed to ensure adequate mitigation.

Goal C 7: Walkable communities, in which interconnected walkways provide a safe, comfortable and viable alternative to driving for local destinations (Policy C 7.1.1 through C 7.1.10).

4.15.3 Methodology

This section summarizes the methodologies used to perform the VMT and transportation analyses. The methodologies described are consistent with City’s traffic study guidelines (City of Santa Clarita 1990) and VMT analysis guidelines. In December 2018, the CEQA Guidelines were updated to include a threshold for evaluating traffic impacts using the VMT methodology. This new methodology is required to be used statewide beginning on July 1, 2020.

Sand Canyon Resort Project Draft EIR 11285 November 2020 4.15-6 4.15 – Transportation

Vehicle Miles Traveled

OPR has approved the addition of new Section 15064.3, Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts, to the state’s CEQA Guidelines, compliance with which will be required beginning July 1, 2020. The Updated CEQA Guidelines state that “generally, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts” and define VMT as “the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project.” “Automobile” refers to on-road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks. OPR has clarified in the Technical Advisory (OPR 2018) and recent informational presentations that heavy-duty truck VMT is not required to be included in the estimation of a project’s VMT. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized traveled.

To aid in this transition, OPR released a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (OPR 2018). Pursuant to OPR guidelines, the City has adopted its own VMT analysis guidelines and thresholds. Therefore, the proposed project analysis uses the City’s VMT analysis methodology and thresholds.

Screening for Land Use Projects

The City’s VMT analysis guidelines suggest that projects can be exempt from requiring a detailed VMT analysis based on project size, locally serving retail, areas of low VMT, transit priority areas, affordable housing, and transportation facilities project types. Consistent with OPR’s Technical Advisory, projects that meet the screening thresholds based on their location and project type may be presumed to result in a less-than-significant transportation impact (OPR 2018).

Table 4.15-1. Project VMT Screening Criteria and Threshold

Category Criteria/Screening Threshold Project Size Small projects can be screened out If the project generates less than 110 trips per from completing a full VMT analysis. day, the project is assumed to have a less than significant impact. Locally Serving If the project is a local serving retail, the If local serving retail is 50,000 square feet or less, Retail project is assumed to have a less-than- the retail project may be presumed to have a less- significant impact. than-significant impact. Low VMT Area Residential and office projects that are If the residential and office project is in an area located in areas with low VMT and that that is already 15% below the baseline VMT, the are similar in character to the existing project is assumed to have a less-than-significant development can be screened out from impact. completing a full VMT analysis. Transit Proximity Projects within 0.5 miles of a major If the project is within 0.5 miles of a major or high- transit stop or a stop located along a quality transit stop/corridor, the project is high-quality transit corridor reduce VMT assumed to have a less-than-significant impact. and therefore can be screened out from completing a full VMT analysis. The project should generally also meet the following criteria: • FAR > 0.75 • Not provide more parking than required by City • Be consistent with the regional SCS • Not replace existing affordable units with a smaller number of moderate- to high-income units

Sand Canyon Resort Project Draft EIR 11285 November 2020 4.15-7 4.15 – Transportation

Table 4.15-1. Project VMT Screening Criteria and Threshold

Category Criteria/Screening Threshold Affordable Affordable housing in infill locations can If a residential project is comprised 100% of Residential be screened out from completing a full affordable units and is located in an infill location, VMT analysis. then the project is assumed to have a less-than- significant impact. Transportation Transportation projects that promote If the project promotes non-auto travel, such as Facilities non-auto travel, improve safety, or transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities; improves improve traffic operations can be safety; improves traffic operations at current screened out from completing a full bottlenecks; improves intersection traffic control; VMT analysis or promotes widening at intersections to provide new turn lanes, then the project is assumed to have a less-than-significant impact. Source: Appendix J.

The proposed project does not meet any of the screening criteria as explained as follows:

• Project Size (110 daily trips or less): Since the project generates more than 110 trips per day, it cannot be assumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact. • Low VMT Area: Based on City’s model data the project is not in a low VMT generating area; therefore, it does not qualify for the location-based screening • Transit Proximity: A project can be screened out as having a less-than-significant impact on VMT if the project is within 0.5 miles of an “existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor.” A major transit stop is defined as the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. A high-quality transit corridor is defined as an existing corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. Based on this definition, the proposed project would not be eligible to be screened out under this threshold since it is not within 0.5 miles of either type of transit facility. • The proposed project is not comprised of affordable housing and does not include locally serving retail.

Based on the City’s VMT guidelines, the project requires a detailed project-level VMT analysis. An assessment of the project’s VMT impact under base and cumulative year conditions has been conducted using following methodology.

Methodology for Vehicle Miles Traveled Estimation and Efficiency Metric

The City has selected the SCAG model as the most appropriate tool for the SB 743 implementation process, since the SCAG model covers the entire SCAG region, and therefore captures a more complete assessment of trip length and VMT as compared to the City’s traffic model. This ensures that VMT generated in the City that occurs outside the City limits is captured and allows for comparison between the City’s VMT data and regional VMT data. The most recent version of the SCAG model has a base year of 2012 and future year of 2040 and was developed for the 2016 RTP/SCS. The VMT data is based on the traffic analysis zones (TAZs) in the City during the Base Year 2012, Future Year 2040 conditions, and interpolated conditions to estimate the Existing Year 2020 baseline.

In the City’s guidelines, an origin-destination VMT methodology was determined to be the appropriate methodology for estimating the VMT of land use projects and plans. The origin-destination VMT method estimates the VMT generated by land uses in a specific geographic area, such as the City or a larger geographic area such

Sand Canyon Resort Project Draft EIR 11285 November 2020 4.15-8 4.15 – Transportation as Los Angeles County. All vehicles traveling to/from the defined geographic area are tracked within the SCAG model and the number of trips and length of trips are used to calculate the origin-destination VMT.

For the City, the VMT methodology includes all trips within the SCAG model for each of the following variable formats:

• Total VMT per Service Population (all vehicles and all trip purposes): The total VMT to and from all zones in the City is divided by the total service population (employees and residents) in the City to get the efficiency metric of VMT per service population. • Home-Based VMT per Capita (automobile only): Includes all VMT for home-based auto vehicle trips that are traced back to the residence of the trip-maker (non-home-based trips are excluded). This VMT is then divided by the population within the City to get the efficiency metric of Home-Based VMT per Capita. • Home-Based Work VMT per Employee (automobile only): Includes all VMT for auto vehicle trips between home and work. This VMT is then divided by the number of employees within the City to get the efficiency metric of Home-Based Work VMT per Employee.

The Technical Advisory (OPR 2018) and the City’s VMT guidelines (City of Santa Clarita 2020a) do not specifically address or provide methodology for VMT analysis of specialty uses such as the proposed project (resort hotel). Therefore, the project’s VMT was evaluated in two parts:

1. As an employee trips generator consistent with the guidelines for employment (commercial or industrial) using available travel demand model 2. As a generator of visitor/tourist (resort guests) trips using qualitative analysis

Level of Service Performance Criteria

Traffic operations of roadway facilities are described using LOS and are provided for informational purposes and General Plan consistency requirements. LOS is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on several factors, including speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are typically defined ranging from LOS A, representing free-flow conditions, to LOS F, representing severe traffic congestion. The ranges are defined in the Highway Capacity Manual 2010 (TRB 2010) and are used by the City for estimating intersection LOS.

The Highway Capacity Manual 2010 calculation methodology and associated LOS performance standards used in the project’s TIA are summarized in the following subsections.

Delay Methodology

Calculation Methodology

Level of service based on “average vehicle delay” calculated as follows:

• Synchro/HCM delay-based intersection methodology for traffic signals • HCM 2010 delay-based intersection methodology for stop sign control • Sidra delay-based intersection methodology for roundabouts

Sand Canyon Resort Project Draft EIR 11285 November 2020 4.15-9 4.15 – Transportation

Performance Standard

Level of Service D defined as follows:

• stopped delay to not exceed 55 seconds for signalized intersections • stopped delay to not exceed 35 seconds for stop sign control • stopped delay to not exceed 50 seconds for roundabouts

Traffic Impact Thresholds

An intersection is considered to be operating unacceptably if the project would (Appendix J):

• Worsen an intersection maintained by the City of Santa Clarita from LOS D or better to LOS E or F • Cause the following increase in delay at an intersection maintained by the City of Santa Clarita that operated (with the Project) at LOS D or worse: o LOS D with the Project: more than 4-second increase in delay is significant o LOS E or F with the Project: more than 2-second increase in delay is significant

For intersections under joint jurisdiction of the City and Caltrans, the analysis utilizes the corresponding threshold of the local agency (City) as applicable.

Project Trip Generation

The proposed resort includes 387 guest rooms consisting of a hotel and separate villas and a banquet facility that includes ballrooms and meeting rooms for weddings, events, and conferences for day use, and will be integrated with the existing a 27-hole golf course. The project includes amenities like “chip and putt” golf, swimming pools, tennis, pickleball courts, a 2-mile-long multipurpose pedestrian pathway, upscale restaurants, spa and sauna, beauty salons, gym, and kids club. Table 4.15-2 summarizes the trip generation of the proposed project.

Table 4.15-2. Trip Generation Summary

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Average Trip Rates Amount Units In Out Total In Out Total Daily Trips Resort Hotel — Room 0.23 0.09 0.32 0.18 0.23 0.41 — (330)1 Resort Case — Room — — — — — — 2.35 Study2 Proposed Project Hotel 3923 Room 90 35 125 71 90 161 921 Source: Appendix J. Notes: 1 Peak Hour Trip Rate Source: ITE 2017 (ITE code given in parentheses). 2 Average Daily Traffic Trip Rate Source: Appendix J. 3 The TIA analyzes 392 guest rooms, which results in a higher trip generation; therefore, the analysis is more conservative as opposed to 387 guest rooms.

Sand Canyon Resort Project Draft EIR 11285 November 2020 4.15-10 4.15 – Transportation

The peak hour trip generation is based on the trip generation rates from Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (ITE 2017) for a resort hotel type of use. Since Institute of Transportation Engineers does not have a daily trip rate for a resort hotel, the average daily trip rate used for this study was derived from a case study of similar types of resorts in California (see Error! Reference source not found. Appendix J for the detailed memo). The trip generation estimates show that the proposed project would generate approximately 921 average daily trips. Typically, approximately 8% to 10% of daily traffic occurs during the peak hours (74 to 92 trips); however, for a conservative analysis, the slightly higher Institute of Transportation Engineers peak hour trip rates were utilized for the purpose of the TIA, with 125 trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 161 trips occurring during the PM peak hour.

Project Trip Distribution and Assignment

The geographic distribution of project-generated trips was derived using the Santa Clarita Valley Consolidated Traffic Model (SCVCTM). The SCVCTM is a computerized travel demand model that utilizes a sophisticated trip distribution function to derive the distribution of vehicle trips, and which has previously been calibrated to the existing conditions of the Santa Clarita Valley. The SCVCTM is jointly maintained by City of Santa Clarita and County of Los Angeles staff, and is utilized for all major transportation planning efforts within the Santa Clarita Valley. Production and attraction trip data is generated by the model based on five separate trip purposes, and trip distribution patterns are then derived by the model. As a final step, the model assigns these trips to the roadway network based on the derived distribution patterns. The project’s trip distribution percentages are illustrated in Figure 4.15-5 as determined by a SCVCTM select zone run. As shown, approximately 97% of the project trips are oriented towards the north on Sand Canyon Road, of which approximately 61% continue south on SR-14, and 10% continue north on SR-14. Approximately 3% of the project trips are oriented towards the south of the project on Sand Canyon Road. Project trips during the AM and the PM peak hours are shown in Figure 4.15-6 and Figure 4.15-7, respectively.

On-Site Roadway System

As mentioned previously, access to the project site will be via four proposed new intersections with Robinson Ranch Road, of which the “E” Drive intersection will be gated. A secondary access is proposed south of the property through Live Oak Springs Canyon Road, which could be used as an emergency evacuation route.

Peak hour turning movement volumes for project buildout conditions for the intersections used to access the project site are illustrated in Figure 4.15-8 and Figure 4.15-9 for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively.

4.15.4 Thresholds of Significance

The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to traffic and circulation are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to traffic and circulation would occur if the project would:

1. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. 2. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). 3. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).

Sand Canyon Resort Project Draft EIR 11285 November 2020 4.15-11 4.15 – Transportation

4. Result in inadequate emergency access.

City of Santa Clarita VMT Thresholds

The City has adopted the following specific VMT thresholds (City of Santa Clarita 2020b):

a) A residential project’s traffic and transportation analyses that do not result in a 15% reduction of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as compared to the Citywide baseline VMT for home-based per capita. This is consistent with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. See Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Clarita report June 2020 for reference for (a) through (e). b) An employment (commercial or industrial) project’s and transportation analyses that do not result in a 15% reduction of VMT as compared to the Citywide baseline VMT for home-based work VMT per employee. c) A regional retail project’s traffic and transportation analyses that result in a net increase in total VMT in comparison to the Citywide Baseline VMT. d) A land use plan’s traffic and transportation analyses that do not result in a 15% reduction of VMT as compared to Citywide baseline VMT for total VMT per service population. e) A transportation project’s traffic and transportation analyses that result in an increase in VMT in the study area in comparison to baseline conditions.

The VMT metric home-based work (HBW) VMT per employee and threshold of 15% reduction (for employment based uses) as compared to the Citywide baseline VMT have been selected for the proposed project’s VMT analysis.

4.15.5 Impact Analysis

Threshold TRA-1. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?

As discussed below, the proposed project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities and the impact would be less than significant.

Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency Analysis

The proposed project’s consistency with the 2016 RTP/SCS is summarized in Table 4.15-3. The proposed project would not conflict with the applicable goals in the RTP/SCS.

Table 4.15-3. Project Consistency with RTP/SCS Goals

Policy Discussion Identify regional strategic Consistent. The proposed project would replace a previously developed, areas for infill and investment. currently unused golf course with a new resort and spa. The proposed project would retain a large portion of the project site as open space, including 2 miles of on-site pedestrian pathways. The proposed project would serve as a hospitality and recreational gathering center, connecting the local community and providing for the diverse lifestyles within Santa Clarita. Additionally, the proposed project would convert a vacant, underutilized recreational use (golf

Sand Canyon Resort Project Draft EIR 11285 November 2020 4.15-12 4.15 – Transportation

Table 4.15-3. Project Consistency with RTP/SCS Goals

Policy Discussion course) to a use with broadened recreational opportunities that would serve a greater diversity of purposes and interests. Identify strategic centers Consistent. The proposed project would not involve development of based on a three-tiered transportation infrastructure. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis and system of existing, planned Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis prepared for the project (see Appendix J of this and potential relative to EIR), the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to traffic and transportation infrastructure. circulation. As such, the proposed project would not require development of new This strategy more effectively transportation infrastructure and would not have an adverse impact on such integrates land use planning infrastructure. and transportation investment. Develop “Complete Consistent. The proposed project would provide hospitality and recreational Communities.” amenities for the existing community. Plan for additional housing Consistent. The proposed project, which would provide approximately 500 and jobs near transit. employment opportunities, would adhere to a Transportation Demand Management Plan, which outlines measures to reduce traffic to and from the site. Measures to reduce traffic include providing rideshare information, preferential parking, rideshare vehicle loading, and bicycle storage facilities, as well as shower facilities and a central lunch area for employees to encourage sustainable modes of transportation such as public transit, bicycling, and carpooling. Additionally, the City of Santa Clarita Transit bus service’s nearest stop (on Route 6), is located 2 miles from the project site and is easily accessible for those employees who choose to bike. The proposed project is located in close proximity to surrounding residential land uses and may attract employees within a walkable distance to the project site, thereby further reducing single-vehicle occupancy. Continue to protect stable, Consistent. The proposed project would not damage or divide the existing single- existing single-family areas. family residential communities surrounding the project site. The proposed project would provide hospitality and recreational amenities to residents in the project vicinity and would also generate approximately 500 employment opportunities within the local economy. Ensure adequate access to Consistent. Under the proposed project, over half of the project site would open space and preservation remain designated Open Space. Various commercial recreational amenities of habitat. would be provided to replace the existing golf course use. These amenities would be accessible for patrons of the resort and for the public via a new pedestrian pathway network, as shown in Figure 3-10, Pedestrian Pathways. Additionally, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact to biological resources, with implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-1 through MM-BIO-5, as described in Section 4.3, Biological Resources. Incorporate local input and Consistent. The proposed project would be subject to environmental review feedback on future growth. pursuant to CEQA, which includes public review periods and public hearings. Additionally, the project would be subject to City Council approval. Source: SCAG 2016.

City of Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element

The proposed project’s consistency with the General Plan Circulation Element goals is discussed in Section 4.15.2, Regulatory Framework. The City strives to maintain the LOS standard per Objective C 2.2 and Policy C 2.2.4 under Goal C 2 identified in Section 4.15.2:

Sand Canyon Resort Project Draft EIR 11285 November 2020 4.15-13 4.15 – Transportation

Objective C 2.2: Adopt and apply consistent standards throughout the Santa Clarita Valley for street design and service levels, which promote safety, convenience, and efficiency of travel.

Policy C 2.2.4: Strive to maintain a Level of Service (LOS) D or better on most roadway segments and intersections to the extent practical; in some locations, a LOS E may be acceptable, or LOS F may be necessary, for limited durations during peak traffic periods.

Although the City’s LOS policy would not be applicable as a transportation impact under CEQA per SB 743, the study area intersection operations analysis results are summarized below for the following scenarios: Existing Conditions, Opening Day plus Project Conditions, Interim Year (2028) Cumulative plus Project Conditions, and Long Range (2040) General Plan Buildout plus Project Conditions.

Existing Conditions

Table 4.15-4 provides operating conditions at the study area intersections under the Existing Conditions. All intersections in the study area currently operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and the PM peak hour.

It should be noted that the Sand Canyon Road/Lost Canyon Road intersection was analyzed as a stop- controlled intersection under Existing Conditions; however, it would be improved to the configuration of a roundabout (to be constructed by another project) prior to the opening day conditions.

Table 4.15-4. Intersection Level of Service Summary – Existing Conditions

AM Peak PM Peak Traffic No. Intersection Control Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS 1 SR-14 Southbound Ramp/Soledad Signalized 28.0 C 22.6 C Canyon 2 Sand Canyon/SR-14 Northbound Ramp Signalized 13.9 B 18.0 B 3 Sand Canyon/Soledad Canyon Signalized 41.7 D 42.7 D 4 Sand Canyon/Lost Canyon AWSC 17.8 C 14.0 B 5 Sand Canyon/Robinson Ranch Road TWSC 13.6 B 14.1 B Source: Appendix J. Notes: LOS = level of service; SR = State Route; AWSC = all-way stop control; TWSC = two-way stop control. 1 Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle.

Opening Day plus Project Conditions

Table 4.15-5 provides a comparison between the opening day (2023) without and with project operating conditions at the study area intersections. Under the opening day (2023) conditions, the study area intersections would operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and the PM peak hour, and the project would not cause an operational deficiency.

Sand Canyon Resort Project Draft EIR 11285 November 2020 4.15-14 4.15 – Transportation

Table 4.15-5. Intersection Level of Service Summary – Opening Day Conditions

Without-Project With-Project Increase AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Traffic No. Intersection Control Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS AM PM 1 SR-14 Southbound Signalized 31.3 C 24.2 C 32.0 C 24.6 C 0.7 0.4 Ramp/Soledad Canyon 2 Sand Canyon/SR-14 Signalized 14.5 B 19.5 B 14.8 B 21.0 C 0.3 1.5 Northbound Ramp 3 Sand Canyon/Soledad Signalized 42.5 D 46.5 D 42.8 D 50.0 D 0.3 3.5 Canyon 4 Sand Canyon/Lost Roundabo 5.7 A 3.0 A 5.9 A 3.0 A 0.2 0.0 Canyon ut 5 Sand TWSC 14.6 B 15.2 C 15.5 C 15.7 C 0.9 0.5 Canyon/Robinson Ranch Road Source: Appendix J. Notes: LOS = level of service; SR = State Route; TWSC = two-way stop control. 1 Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle.

Interim Year (2028) Cumulative plus Project Conditions

Table 4.15-6 provides a comparison between the interim year (2028) cumulative without and with project operating conditions at the study area intersections. The study area intersections would generally operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and the PM peak hour, with the following exceptions:

• SR-14 southbound ramp/Soledad Canyon Road intersection would operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour • Sand Canyon Road/Soledad Canyon Road intersection would operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM peak hour

The additional traffic added by the project would not result in any new LOS deficiencies and the increase in average vehicle delay would not cause an unacceptable level of operational deficiency at the above-mentioned intersections. Table 4.15-6. Intersection Level of Service Summary – Interim Year (2028) Cumulative Conditions

Without-Project With-Project Increase AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Traffic No. Intersection Control Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS AM PM 1 SR-14 Southbound Signalized 61.6 E 33.1 C 62.8 E 35.4 D 1.2 2.3 Ramp/Soledad Canyon 2 Sand Canyon/SR-14 Signalized 18.9 B 29.9 C 21.0 C 32.7 C 2.1 2.8 Northbound Ramp 3 Sand Canyon/Soledad Signalized 72.2 E 127.1 F 72.4 E 127.9 F 0.2 0.8 Canyon 4 Sand Canyon/Lost Roundabo 9.7 A 5.8 A 13.1 B 6.6 A 3.4 0.8 Canyon ut 5 Sand TWSC 14.8 B 15.8 C 16.5 C 16.4 C 1.7 0.6

Sand Canyon Resort Project Draft EIR 11285 November 2020 4.15-15 4.15 – Transportation

Table 4.15-6. Intersection Level of Service Summary – Interim Year (2028) Cumulative Conditions

Without-Project With-Project Increase AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Traffic No. Intersection Control Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS AM PM Canyon/Robinson Ranch Road Source: Appendix J. Notes: LOS = level of service; SR = State Route; TWSC = two-way stop control. 1 Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle

Long Range (2040) General Plan Buildout plus Project Conditions

Table 4.15-7 provides a comparison between the long range (2040) buildout without and with project operating conditions at the study area intersections. The study area intersections would generally operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and the PM peak hour, with the following exceptions:

• SR-14 southbound ramp/Soledad Canyon Road intersection would operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour • Sand Canyon Road/Soledad Canyon Road intersection would operate at LOS F during both the AM and the PM peak hour

The additional traffic added by the project would not result in any new LOS deficiencies and the increase in average vehicle delay would not cause an unacceptable level of operational deficiency at the above-mentioned intersections.

Table 4.15-7. Intersection Level of Service Summary – Long Range (2040) General Plan Buildout Conditions

Without-Project With-Project Increase AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Traffic No. Intersection Control Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS AM PM 1 SR-14 Southbound Signalized 76.5 E 39.6 D 76.8 E 42.5 D 0.3 2.9 Ramp/ Soledad Canyon 2 Sand Canyon/SR-14 Signalized 21.2 C 33.0 C 24.2 C 37.9 C 3.0 4.9 Northbound Ramp 3 Sand Canyon/ Signalized 79.6 E 131.3 F 80.1 F 132.8 F 0.5 1.5 Soledad Canyon 4 Sand Canyon/ Roundabout 10.6 B 5.9 A 15.2 B 6.8 A 4.6 0.9 Lost Canyon 5 Sand Canyon/ TWSC 15.7 C 16.7 C 17.6 C 17.5 C 1.9 0.8 Robinson Ranch Road Source: Appendix J. Notes: LOS = level of service; SR = State Route; TWSC = two-way stop control. 1 Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle.

Sand Canyon Resort Project Draft EIR 11285 November 2020 4.15-16 4.15 – Transportation

Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Facilities

Currently, SCT Route 6 is the closest service route to the project site and the closest bus stop is approximately 2 miles from the project site. The closest Metrolink station is 4.5 miles from the site. The project proposes to provide shuttle services for guests and employees to/from the Metrolink stations to increase share of transit trips.

The project would not conflict with any plans or policies regarding existing or proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the study area and would be consistent with the City’s Non-Motorized Transportation Plan Update (City of Santa Clarita 2014).

Threshold TRA-2. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) focuses on newly adopted criteria (VMT) adopted pursuant to SB 743 for determining the significance of transportation impacts.

On June 23, 2020, the City approved an addendum to the local guidelines and procedures for implementation of the provisions of CEQA, adopting VMT thresholds for determining significant transportation impacts effective on July 1, 2020. For the purposes of this Draft EIR, the recommended VMT analysis methodology and thresholds identified within the City’s guidelines have been used. The VMT analysis memorandum prepared by Stantec is included in Appendix J.

Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis

As mentioned under Section 4.15.3, the VMT of the project has been evaluated in two parts: (1) Analysis of Employee HBW VMT and (2) Analysis of Visitor/Tourist (Resort Guests) VMT.

Analysis of Employee Vehicle Miles Traveled

The resort proposes to have approximately 500 employees (includes part-time and full-time employees) in the future. However, not all employees will be present at the site at the same time. At any given time, approximately 40% of the total employees would be present on site based on the project’s plan to operate the resort with two shifts for most of the employees, one from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and the other from 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., with the remaining 20% of the employees working 10:00 p.m.–6:00 a.m. The baseline VMT trends of the project’s TAZ can be used to estimate the project’s employee-generated VMT, since there are other employment generating uses in the project’s TAZ. The project is located in TAZ 20276100. As shown in Table 4.15-8, the Project’s HBW VMT is estimated to be 21.7 vehicle- miles per employee, which is 17.6% above the Citywide average VMT per employee.

The results of the VMT analysis are summarized in Table 4.15-8.

Table 4.15-8. Project VMT Analysis Summary

Analysis Metric: Resort Hotel Project Land Use 392 guest rooms, resort hotel Project Screening None Project TAZ 20276100 Population 2,520 residents Project TAZ 20276100 Employment 473 employees Project TAZ 20276100 Home-Based Work VMT per Employee (2020) 21.7 VMT per employee Santa Clarita Average Home-Based Work VMT per Employee (2020) 18.45 VMT per employee1

Sand Canyon Resort Project Draft EIR 11285 November 2020 4.15-17 4.15 – Transportation

Table 4.15-8. Project VMT Analysis Summary

Analysis Metric: Resort Hotel Percent Difference (comparison to baseline) +17.6% Threshold of Significance (15% reduction from baseline) 15.7 VMT per employee2 Difference (project minus threshold of significance) 6.0 VMT per employee Above or Below Threshold of Significance Above Threshold of Significance Significant Transportation Impact Yes Project Impact (comparison to threshold of significance) +38.2% Source: Appendix J. Notes: TAZ = traffic analysis zone; VMT = vehicle miles traveled. 1 SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS Travel Demand Model, Santa Clarita 2020 VMT Look Up Table provided by the City via email dated June 23, 2020. 2 Fehr & Peers 2020.

Based on the VMT guidelines, for the significance threshold, a 15% reduction is applied to the Citywide baseline average HBW VMT (18.45 VMT per employee), resulting in a threshold of significance of 15.7 VMT per employee. Since the project’s 21.7 VMT per employee is greater than the threshold of significance, the project would result in a potentially significant impact.

Analysis of Visitor/Tourist (Resort Guests) Vehicle Miles Traveled

The project includes a resort style hotel, which will attract a wide range of visitor and guest types. Some guests will be from the Southern California area, while others will be arriving from out of state or from other countries. The facility is being designed as a full-service destination resort where guests can stay multiple days without the need to leave the facility. It will also provide facilities for conferences and special events such as weddings. A shuttle bus will operate between the resort and the new Vista Canyon Metrolink rail station, which is being constructed approximately 2 miles from the project site.

The SCAG model does not include data specific to hotel or resort types of use; therefore, the SCAG model does not allow for a quantitative analysis of VMT regarding the resort’s visitors and guests. The City’s VMT analysis guidelines (City of Santa Clarita 2020a) provide limited guidance on evaluating special types of use such as a resort but do state that the approach should be consistent with the overall goal of SB 743, which is to reduce VMT. The specific approach used for analysis of special uses is left to the discretion of the lead agency.

Vehicle trips made by the resort’s visitors and guests are a unique trip type. Unlike trips made for the purpose of work, school, or shopping, a typical vacation or special event trip will be made infrequently. When considered on a per capita basis, these infrequent trips will have a negligible effect on per capita VMT rates. Guests, while at the resort, will typically generate minimal VMT due to the all-inclusive features of the resort. In comparison to a typical day that includes trips made for work, school, or shopping, resort guests can be expected to generate significantly lower than average VMT. Overall, the resorts visitors and guests are expected to have a less-than-significant impact on VMT.

Conclusion

Based on the VMT analysis for project’s employees shown above, the project would conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) and the project’s impact would be potentially significant.

Sand Canyon Resort Project Draft EIR 11285 November 2020 4.15-18 4.15 – Transportation

Threshold TRA-3. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

As mentioned previously, the proposed project would be accessed via four proposed new intersections with Robinson Ranch Road, of which the “E” Drive intersection will be gated. A secondary access is proposed south of the property through Live Oak Springs Canyon Road, which could be used as an emergency evacuation route. Peak hour turning movement volumes for project buildout conditions for the project access intersections, as shown on Figures 4.15-8 and 4.15-9 for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, were analyzed in the TIA. Based on the intersection analysis and as shown in Table 4.15-9, each on-site project intersection is anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better. No queuing impacts are anticipated at the study area intersection locations.

Table 4.15-9. Intersection Level of Service Summary -Project Access

AM Peak PM Peak

No. Intersection Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS 5 Sand Canyon/Robinson Ranch Road 13.8 B 15.0 C 10 “E” Drive/Robinson Ranch Road 9.0 A 9.4 A 11 “C” Drive/Robinson Ranch Road 9.3 A 9.5 A 12 “A” Drive/Robinson Ranch Road 9.2 A 9.5 A 13 “B” Drive/Robinson Ranch Road 9.1 A 9.4 A Source: Appendix J. Notes: LOS = level of service. 1 Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle

All roadway improvements required as a result of the project, whether located on or off site, would be designed and constructed in accordance with all applicable roadway standards and practices. The project driveways’ intersections along Robinson Ranch Road have been analyzed as intersections and will be improved and designed per local standards to accommodate project traffic.

This approach would ensure compliance with any and all applicable roadway design requirements. As such, no hazardous design features would be part of the project’s roadway improvements. Therefore, impacts associated with hazardous design features or incompatible uses in conjunction with the implementation of improvements would be less than significant.

Threshold TRA-4. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?

All areas of the project site would be accessible to emergency responders during both construction and operation. Local access to the proposed project would be provided via the Sand Canyon Road/Robinson Ranch Road intersection via an existing gated entry. A total of four new access points are proposed off Robinson Ranch Road, each of which would be designed and constructed according to applicable design standards. Similarly, the internal drive aisles and loading and parking areas would be designed to comply with City’s width, clearance, and turning radius requirements. Additionally, a secondary access is proposed from south of the property through Live Oak Springs Canyon Road, which could be used as an emergency evacuation route during natural disasters like fire.

The proposed project would provide adequate access to the project site, including access for emergency vehicles. The project applicant would be required to design, construct, and maintain structures, roadways, and facilities to comply with applicable local, regional, state, and/or federal requirements related to emergency

Sand Canyon Resort Project Draft EIR 11285 November 2020 4.15-19 4.15 – Transportation access and evacuation plans. The mitigation measures related to emergency access and evacuation plans for the proposed project are described in detail in Section 4.17, Wildfire. The proposed site plan, including the access driveways, will be reviewed and approved by the fire department during plan check review. Adherence to these requirements would ensure that impacts due to inadequate emergency access are below a level of significance. Therefore, impacts associated with inadequate emergency access would be less than significant.

4.15.6 Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures

The proposed project would require mitigation measures (MMs), as impacts would be potentially significant. Certain measures are feasible for reducing or removing VMT. Various sources, such as the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures report (CAPCOA 2010), have identified actions and changes to project features that reduce or eliminate VMT. The following strategies are described in the VMT guidelines as sample options that are most effective in areas like Santa Clarita and are appropriate for the proposed project to avoid or substantially reduce the project’s significant impact:

• Provide ride-sharing programs • Implement subsidized or discounted transit program • Encourage telecommuting and alternative work schedules • Implement commute trip reduction marketing • Provide employer-sponsored vanpool/shuttle

According to the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association report, each of these strategies would be applicable in urban and suburban locations (CAPCOA 2010). Because the project is located in a more rural area of suburban Santa Clarita, they may not be as effective as the calculations would indicate. To account for this fact, conservative estimates of employee participation have been applied to the VMT reduction calculations.

MM-TRA-1 Provide Ride-Sharing Programs for Employees. The project shall provide/promote ride-sharing programs to the resort employees by utilizing approaches such as designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride sharing vehicles, designating adequate passenger loading/unloading and waiting areas for ride-sharing vehicles, and providing a website or message boards for coordinating rides. Increasing the vehicle occupancy by utilizing ride sharing will result in fewer cars driving the same trip, thereby decreasing the vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

As shown in Table 4.15-10 and Table 4.15-11, providing ride-sharing programs to approximately 25% of the resort employees would result in a 1.3% reduction in VMT.

MM-TRA-2 Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program for Employees. The project shall provide subsidized or discounted daily or monthly public transit passes to the resort employees. Although subsidized or discounted transit program would be available to all staff, the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction calculation conservatively assumes that the program would be available and utilized by 25% of staff members.

As shown Table 4.15-10 and Table 4.15-11, implementing subsidized or discounted transit program to approximately 25% of the resort employees would result in a 0.8% reduction in VMT.

Sand Canyon Resort Project Draft EIR 11285 November 2020 4.15-20 4.15 – Transportation

MM-TRA-3 Encourage Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedules for Employees. According to the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, encouraging telecommuting and alternative work schedules would reduce the number of commute trips, thereby reducing the project’s vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Staggered start times, flexible schedules, or compressed work weeks are examples of alternative work schedules. Because resort operations require most of the employees to be on site 24 hours per day, telecommuting and alternative work schedules may not be feasible for a majority of the employees. The project shall implement a 4-day/40-hour work schedule for approximately 10% of the resort employees.

As shown in Table 4.15-10 and Table 4.15-11, with 10% employee participation in an alternate work schedule consisting of a 4-day/40-hour work week, a VMT reduction of 1.5% would result.

MM-TRA-4 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing. The project shall implement marketing strategies to reduce commute trips. The marketing strategies would include new employee orientation regarding trip reduction and alternative mode options, event promotions, and publications. Although the marketing would target all employees, a conservative assumption of marketing to only 25% of the employees was utilized in the reduction calculation.

As shown in Table 4.15-10 and Table 4.15-11, implementing/promoting commute trip reduction marketing to approximately 25% of the resort employees would result in a 1.0% reduction in vehicle miles traveled.

MM-TRA-5 Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle. The project shall provide an employer-sponsored vanpool and shuttle for use by employees for commutes to work; the shuttle shall service the nearby transit station. The vanpool and shuttle will be available to all employees; however, the calculations conservatively assume the program would be offered to/utilized by 25% of employees.

As shown Table 4.15-10 and Table 4.15-11, providing employer-sponsored vanpool/shuttle to approximately 25% of the resort employees would result in a 1.7% reduction in vehicle miles traveled.

The buildout of the project would have approximately 500 employees. Since the project will have more than 50 employees, the City has requested that the project prepare a Transportation Demand Management plan. Stantec has prepared the Sand Canyon Resort – Transportation Demand Management Plan, dated March 2, 2018, and Parking Analysis, dated September 5, 2018, both of which are included in Appendix J. The following Transportation Demand Management strategies from the memo are summarized as Project Design Feature (PDF) TRA-1, which is intended to reduce vehicle trips and parking needs of the project.

PDF-TRA-1 The following Transportation Demand Management (TDM) facilities and services are recommended be provided by the resort, as required by the City of Santa Clarita.

1. An employee common area space such as a lunch room or coffee area would be used to provide rideshare information like the current bus and train routes and schedules, and other public transit resources. The building management should assign an Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC) among staff to implement and promote TDM strategies. A commuter information kiosk would be installed to provide transit and rideshare information, with access to local transportation agency websites including Santa Clarita Transit, Metrolink, and Rideshare service at www.commutesmart.info.

Sand Canyon Resort Project Draft EIR 11285 November 2020 4.15-21 4.15 – Transportation

2. Provide designated at least five parking spaces for carpool vehicles. Implement a carpool permit system administered by the ETC. At least two motorcycle parking spaces should be provided by converting a regular car parking space in the designated employee parking area. 3. Rideshare vehicle loading areas should be provided at the curb in front of the employee entrances to the building, preferably with a bench. 4. Secure bicycle storage racks would be provided for at least 10 bicycles located adjacent to the employee entrances of the buildings. 5. Shower facilities would be provided, with at least two shower stalls; these can be unisex if separate dressing areas enclosed with internal doors are provided for each shower stall and they have a shared wash basin and mirror area. 6. A central lunch area or outside eating area would be provided to allow employees to have a place for lunch to minimize the need for additional travel. Information on catering/delivery of food would also be provided to reduce vehicle trips for lunch. 7. The resort management would offer financial incentives to encourage employees to commute by other modes of transportation. Under the Commuter Choice Program, employers can pay their employees up to $100 per month ($1,200 per year) in tax-free benefits to commute to work by transit or eligible vanpools. It offers a significant tax savings to both employers and employees. 8. Detailed design of the TDM facilities in the parking lot would be completed by the project civil engineers, and facilities such as the central lunch area and shower facilities would be designed by the project architects.

4.15.7 Level of Significance After Mitigation

Threshold TRA-2. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?

MM-TRA 1 through MM-TRA-5 were identified and examined for applicability to the proposed project’s VMT reduction (see Table 4.15-10). The VMT reductions associated with the mitigation measures are applied incrementally, resulting in a lower net reduction in comparison to the sum of the numbers (see Table 4.15-11). The proposed project’s VMT with mitigation is summarized in Table 4.15-12.

Table 4.15-10. VMT Reduction Calculation

Strategy VMT Reduction Calculation Project Reduction (%) MM-TRA-1: Ride-Sharing % VMT Reduction = Commute x Employee % VMT reduction = 5% x 25% Program for Employees (TRT-3) = 1.3% Where Commute = % reduction in commute VMT (for low density suburb, Commute = 5%) Employee = % employees eligible (25%) MM-TRA-2: Implement % VMT Reduction = A x B x C % VMT reduction = 3.3% x Subsidized or Discounted 25% x 1.0 = 0.8% Where A = % reduction in commute vehicle Transit Program for Employees trips (for low density suburb, providing a daily (TRT-4) transit subsidy of $1.49, % reduction in commute VT = 3.3%) B = % employees eligible (25%) C = Adjustment from commute VT to commute

Sand Canyon Resort Project Draft EIR 11285 November 2020 4.15-22 4.15 – Transportation

Table 4.15-10. VMT Reduction Calculation

Strategy VMT Reduction Calculation Project Reduction (%) VMT (C = 1.0) MM-TRA-3: Encourage % Commute VMT Reduction = Commute % VMT reduction in commute Telecommuting and Alternative VMT for a maximum of 10% Where Commute = % reduction in commute Work Schedules for employee participation, for a VMT Employees (TRT-6) 4-day / 40- hour work week = 1.5% MM-TRA-4: Implement Commute % Commute VMT Reduction = A x B x C % VMT reduction = 4% x 25% Trip Reduction Marketing (TRT- x 1.0 = 1.0% Where A = % reduction in commute vehicle 7) trips (4%) B = % employees eligible (25%) C = Adjustment from commute VT to commute VMT (C = 1.0) MM-TRA-5: Provide Employer- % VMT Reduction = A x B x C % VMT reduction = 10% x Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle 25% x 0.67 = 1.7% Where A = % shift in vanpool mode share of (TRT-11) commute trips (10%*) *10% represents the mid- B = % employees eligible (25%) range of typical annual C = adjustment from vanpool mode share to reduction in vehicle mode commute VMT (C = 0.67) share Source: Appendix J. Note: VMT = vehicle miles traveled. TRT refers to Commute Trip Reduction Fact Sheets for Transportation category from CAPCOA 2010.

Table 4.15-11. VMT Reduction Summary

California Air Pollution Control Description Officers Association Category Project Reduction (%) 1. The Project shall provide ride-sharing programs Commute Trip Reduction Programs 1.3% for approximately 25% of the employees TRT-3 2. The Project shall implement subsidized or Commute Trip Reduction Programs 0.8% discounted transit programs for approximately TRT-4 25% of the employees 3. The Project shall encourage alternative work Commute Trip Reduction Programs 1.5% schedules for approximately 10% of the TRT-6 employees 4. The Project shall implement commute trip Commute Trip Reduction Programs 1.0% reduction marketing for approximately 25% of the TRT-7 employees 5. The Project shall provide employer-sponsored Commute Trip Reduction Programs 1.7% vanpool/shuttle programs for approximately 25% TRT-11 of the employees Total 6.1%1 Source: Appendix J. Note: 1 The calculated reductions do not sum to a total since the effect of individual strategy reductions are multiplicative (not additive). Overall % VMT Reduction = 1-(1-A)*(1-B)*(1-C) where A, B, C equals reductions for individual strategies.

Sand Canyon Resort Project Draft EIR 11285 November 2020 4.15-23 4.15 – Transportation

Table 4.15-12. Project VMT with Mitigation

California Air Pollution Control Officers Description Association Category Project TAZ Home-Based Work VMT per Employee (2020) 21.7 VMT per employee Mitigation Reduction 6.1% Project with Mitigation 20.4 VMT per employee City Threshold of Significance 15.7 VMT per employee Is Project above or below Threshold Above Threshold of Significance Significant Transportation Impact Yes Source: Appendix J. Note: VMT = vehicle miles traveled.

The 6.1% reduction in VMT is applied to the project’s HBW VMT per employee and results in 20.4 HBW VMT per employee, which is above the city threshold of 15.7 HBW VMT per employee. Therefore, with implementation of the mitigation measures, the proposed project’s significant impact cannot be fully mitigated. Hence the proposed project would be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b), and impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

4.15.8 References Cited

Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2002. Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. December 2002.

Caltrans. 2020. Transportation Impact Study Guide. Vehicles Miles Traveled-Focused Draft. February 2020.

CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association). 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. August 2010.

City of Santa Clarita. 1990. Preliminary Traffic Impact Report Guidelines, August 1990.

City of Santa Clarita. 2011. City of Santa Clarita General Plan, Circulation Element. June 2011. Accessed June 2020. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaClarita/html/SantaClaritaGP/4%20-% 20Circulation%20Element.pdf.

City of Santa Clarita. 2014. City of Santa Clarita Non-Motorized Transportation Plan. August 2014; Accessed October 2020. https://www.santa clarita.com/home/showdocument?id=9307

City of Santa Clarita. 2020a. Transportation Analysis Updates in Santa Clarita. May 2020. Accessed September 2020 http://santaclaritacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx? Frame=&MeetingID=2178&MediaPosition=7063.360&ID=2931&CssClass=

City of Santa Clarita. 2020b. “Addendum to the City Guidelines and Procedures for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act Relating to Adopting Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds Pursuant to Senate Bill 743.” Resolution No. 20-51. June 23, 2020. http://santaclaritacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/ Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=2178&MediaPosition=7063.360&ID=2931&CssClass=.

ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers). 2017. Trip Generation Manual, 10th ed. Washington DC: ITE.

Sand Canyon Resort Project Draft EIR 11285 November 2020 4.15-24 4.15 – Transportation

OPR (California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research). 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. December 2018. Accessed June 2020. http://opr.ca.gov/ docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf.

SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments). 2016. 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Accessed April 2, 2019. http://scagrtpscs.net/ Documents/2016/final/f2016RTPSCS.pdf.

SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments). 2020. 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Accessed October 2020. https://www.connectsocal.org/ Documents/Adopted/0903fConnectSoCal-Plan.pdf

TRB (Transportation Research Board). 2010. Highway Capacity Manual, 5th Edition. Washington DC.

Sand Canyon Resort Project Draft EIR 11285 November 2020 4.15-25 4.15 – Transportation

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Sand Canyon Resort Project Draft EIR 11285 November 2020 4.15-26 3 1

d 2 R

n d

o R

y n n r a o D

y C n d n o

4 a y a -1 n

d R C a

S le C d t o s

S n Lo

a S 4

y a W t e m o C

Project Site Ro 5 binson Ra nch Rd Z:\Projects\j1128501\MAPDOC\Traffic\

SOURCE: Stantec 2020 FIGURE 4.15-1 Project Site Location and Traffic Study Area Sand Canyon Resort Project 4.15 – Transportation

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Sand Canyon Resort Project Draft EIR 11285 November 2020 4.15-28 Z:\Projects\j1128501\MAPDOC\Traffic

SOURCE: Stantec 2020 FIGURE 4.15-2 Master Plan of Highways Sand Canyon Resort Project 4.15 – Transportation

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Sand Canyon Resort Project Draft EIR 11285 November 2020 4.15-30 Z:\Projects\j1128501\MAPDOC\Traffic\

SOURCE: Stantec 2020 FIGURE 4.15-3 City of Santa Clara Transit Map Sand Canyon Resort Project 4.15 – Transportation

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Sand Canyon Resort Project Draft EIR 11285 November 2020 4.15-32 3 1

d 2 R

n d

o R

y n n r a o D

y C n d n o

4 a y a -1 n

d R C a

S le C d t o s

S n Lo

a S 4

y a W t e m o C

Legend Existing Class I Bike Path Proposed Class I Bike Path Project Site Ro 5 binson Ra Existing Class II Bike Path nch Proposed Class II Bike Path Rd Existing Class III Bike Path Proposed Class III Bike Path

Z:\Projects\j1128501\MAPDOC\Traffic\ Existing Multi-Use Trail Proposed Multi-Use Trail

SOURCE: Stantec 2020 FIGURE 4.15-4 Existing and Future Bicycle Facilities Sand Canyon Resort Project 4.15 – Transportation

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Sand Canyon Resort Project Draft EIR 11285 November 2020 4.15-34 %

5 6%

3 1 10% 10%

d 2

R

d

R

n r o

% D

y

n n

d 2 o

a y a 14 n

- 9

d R C

S le Ca d t o s

S n Lo a 5% S 4

61%

y a W t e m o C

9 7 %

Project Site Ro 5 binson Ra nch Rd

3

Legend %

Z:\Projects\j1128501\MAPDOC\Traffic\ x Intersection Number x% Trip Distribution Percentage (%)

SOURCE: Stantec 2020 FIGURE 4.15-5 Project Trip Distribution Sand Canyon Resort Project 4.15 – Transportation

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Sand Canyon Resort Project Draft EIR 11285 November 2020 4.15-36 Soledad Canyon

1 p

3 m

a

R

B

S

d 2 4

R 1

n - d

o

R R

y

S n n r a o D

y C n d n o

4 a y -1 n da R C a S C le d t o s

S n Lo

a S 4

y a W t e m o C

SR-14 NB Ramp Project Site n

Robinson o 5 Ran c y h R d n

a

C

d

n

a

S

h Rd n Ranc Robinso n

Soledad Canyo Lost Canyon

n

n

o

o

n

y

y

o

n

n

y

a

a

n

C

C a

d

d

C

n

n d

Z:\Projects\j1128501\MAPDOC\Traffic\

a

a

n

S

S

a S

SOURCE: Stantec 2020 FIGURE 4.15-6 Project Only Trips – AM Peak Hour Sand Canyon Resort Project 4.15 – Transportation

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Sand Canyon Resort Project Draft EIR 11285 November 2020 4.15-38 Soledad Canyon

1 p

3 m

a

R

B

S

d 2 4

R 1

n - d

o

R R

y

S n n r a o D

y C n d n o

4 a y -1 n da R C a S C le d t o s

S n Lo

a S 4

y a W t e m o C

SR-14 NB Ramp Project Site n

Robinson o 5 Ran c y h R d n

a

C

d

n

a

S

h Rd n Ranc Robinso n

Soledad Canyo Lost Canyon

n

n

o

o

n

y

y

o

n

n

y

a

a

n

C

C a

d

d

C

n

n d

Z:\Projects\j1128501\MAPDOC\Traffic\

a

a

n

S

S

a S

SOURCE: Stantec 2020 FIGURE 4.15-7 Project Only Trips – PM Peak Hour Sand Canyon Resort Project 4.15 – Transportation

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Sand Canyon Resort Project Draft EIR 11285 November 2020 4.15-40 Project Site 10 5

13 11 12

Robinson Ranch Rd "E"Drive

n

o

y

n

a Robinson Ranch Rd

C

d

n

a

S

e

v

i

r

ve

i

r

e D

"

iv D

r B "

D "

A " " C " Rd nch Ra son nch Rd bin inson Ra Ro Ro Rob bin Z:\Projects\j1128501\MAPDOC\Traffic\ so n R an ch Rd

SOURCE: Stantec 2020 FIGURE 4.15-8 Project Site Access Volumes (Existing Plus Project Conditions) - AM Peak Hour Sand Canyon Resort Project 4.15 – Transportation

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Sand Canyon Resort Project Draft EIR 11285 November 2020 4.15-42 Project Site 10 5

13 11 12

Robinson Ranch Rd "E"Drive

n

o

y

n

a Robinson Ranch Rd

C

d

n

a

S

e

v

i

r

ve

i

r

e D

"

iv D

r B "

D "

A " " C " Rd nch Ra son nch Rd bin inson Ra Ro Ro Rob bin Z:\Projects\j1128501\MAPDOC\Traffic\ so n R an ch Rd

SOURCE: Stantec 2020 FIGURE 4.15-9 Project Site Access Volumes (Existing Plus Project Conditions) - PM Peak Hour Sand Canyon Resort Project 4.15 – Transportation

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Sand Canyon Resort Project Draft EIR 11285 November 2020 4.15-44