Addendum to the
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
prepared for David March Park
(previously referred to as the “Plum Canyon County Park Project”)
Prepared for City of Santa Clarita
Public Works Department
23920 Valencia Boulevard
Santa Clarita, California 91355
Contact: Julia Regan
Prepared by Psomas
5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 300
Santa Ana, California 92707
June 2024
Table of Contents
D AVID MARCH PARK i
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Section Page
Section 1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Purpose and Basis for the Addendum .................................................... 1-1 Section 2.0 Background ...................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Summary of the Adopted Plum Canyon County Park Project IS/MND ... 2-1
2.2 Mitigation Measures of the Adopted Final IS/MND ................................. 2-1 Section 3.0 Modified Project Description and Setting ...................................................... 3-1
3.1 Project Location ...................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Existing Site and Area Characteristics .................................................... 3-1
3.3 Project Description.................................................................................. 3-1
3.3.1 Circulation and Parking ............................................................... 3-1
3.3.2 Future Operations ....................................................................... 3-1
3.3.3 Project Construction .................................................................... 3-1
3.3.4 Discretionary Approvals .............................................................. 3-2 Section 4.0 Environmental Analysis ................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.1 Prior Analyses in the 2002 IS/MND ............................................ 4-1
4.1.2 Modified Project Impact Analysis ................................................ 4-1
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ....................................................... 4-4
4.2.1 Prior Analyses in the 2002 IS/MND ............................................ 4-4
4.2.2 Modified Project Impact Analysis ................................................ 4-5
4.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................... 4-7
4.3.1 Prior Analyses in the 2002 IS/MND ............................................ 4-7
4.3.2 Modified Project Impact Analysis ................................................ 4-8
4.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................ 4-11
4.4.1 Prior Analyses in the 2002 IS/MND .......................................... 4-11
4.4.2 Modified Project Impact Analysis .............................................. 4-12
4.5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................... 4-18
4.5.1 Prior Analyses in the 2002 IS/MND .......................................... 4-18
4.5.2 Modified Project Impact Analysis .............................................. 4-19
4.6 Energy .................................................................................................. 4-21
4.6.1 Prior Analyses in the 2002 IS/MND .......................................... 4-21
4.6.2 Modified Project Impact Analysis .............................................. 4-22
4.7 Geology and Soils................................................................................. 4-24
4.7.1 Prior Analyses in the 2002 IS/MND .......................................... 4-24
4.7.2 Modified Project Impact Analysis .............................................. 4-25 Table of Contents
D AVID MARCH PARK ii
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................. 4-28
4.8.1 Prior Analyses in the 2002 IS/MND .......................................... 4-28
4.8.2 Modified Project Impact Analysis .............................................. 4-29
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................... 4-31
4.9.1 Prior Analyses in the 2002 IS/MND .......................................... 4-31
4.9.2 Modified Project Impact Analysis .............................................. 4-32
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................ 4-35
4.10.1 Prior Analyses in the 2002 IS/MND .......................................... 4-35
4.10.2 Modified Project Impact Analysis .............................................. 4-36
4.11 Land Use and Planning ........................................................................ 4-39
4.11.1 Prior Analyses in the 2002 IS/MND .......................................... 4-39
4.11.2 Modified Project Impact Analysis .............................................. 4-39
4.12 Mineral Resources ................................................................................ 4-40
4.12.1 Prior Analyses in the 2002 IS/MND .......................................... 4-40
4.12.2 Modified Project Impact Analysis .............................................. 4-41
4.13 Noise .................................................................................................... 4-42
4.13.1 Prior Analyses in the 2002 IS/MND .......................................... 4-42
4.13.2 Modified Project Impact Analysis .............................................. 4-43
4.14 Population and Housing ........................................................................ 4-45
4.14.1 Prior Analyses in the 2002 IS/MND .......................................... 4-45
4.14.2 Modified Project Impact Analysis .............................................. 4-45
4.15 Public Services ..................................................................................... 4-46
4.15.1 Prior Analyses in the 2002 IS/MND .......................................... 4-46
4.15.2 Modified Project Impact Analysis .............................................. 4-47
4.16 Recreation ............................................................................................ 4-48
4.16.1 Prior Analyses in the 2002 IS/MND .......................................... 4-48
4.16.2 Modified Project Impact Analysis .............................................. 4-48
4.17 Transportation....................................................................................... 4-50
4.17.1 Prior Analyses in the 2002 IS/MND .......................................... 4-50
4.17.2 Modified Project Impact Analysis .............................................. 4-51
4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ..................................................................... 4-52
4.18.1 Prior Analyses in the 2002 IS/MND .......................................... 4-52
4.18.2 Modified Project Impact Analysis .............................................. 4-53
4.19 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................... 4-54
4.19.1 Prior Analyses in the 2002 IS/MND .......................................... 4-54
4.19.2 Modified Project Impact Analysis .............................................. 4-55
4.20 Wildfire .................................................................................................. 4-57 Prior Analyses in the 2002 IS/MND ...................................................... 4-57
4.20.1 Modified Project Impact Analysis .............................................. 4-58 Table of Contents
D AVID MARCH PARK iii
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Section 5.0 Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 5-1 Section 6.0 References ........................................................................................................ 6-1
TABLES
Table Page
1 Cultural Resource Studies Within ½-Mile of the Project Site ....................................... 4-20 2 Cultural Resources Within ½-Mile of the Project Site .................................................. 4-20 3 Energy Consumption for a Typical Day ........................................................................ 4-23
EXHIBITS
Exhibit Follows Page
1 Site Plan ......................................................................................................................... 3-1 2 Site Lighting Plan ........................................................................................................... 3-1 3 Area Lighting Photometric Plan ...................................................................................... 4-3
APPENDICES
Appendix
A Biological Resources Memorandum
B Cultural Resources Memorandum
D AVID MARCH PARK 1-1
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE AND BASIS FOR THE ADDENDUM
In 2002, the Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County (County) adopted the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for Plum Canyon County Park, which evaluated the environmental impacts associated with a project to develop an existing open space area as a park. The project that was approved in 2002 (the Approved Project) involves development of two pads; the northern pad has been approved for the development of walkways, utilities, tots play area, site amenities (picnic tables, park benches, bicycle rack, etc.), landscape and irrigation, restrooms/maintenance area, a 15-space parking lot, security lighting, and signage. The southern pad has been approved for the development of utilities, children's play area, site amenities (picnic tables, park benches, bicycle racks, etc.), mult ipurpose athletic field (including baseball and soccer), outdoor basketball court, jogging path with exercise equipment, landscape and irrigation, tennis court, group picnic shelter, and a 15-space parking lot.
This document is an Addendum to the Plum Canyon County Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and has been prepared due to changes proposed in the Approved Project design that have been made since 2002 when the Approved Project was approved by the County.
The Project as currently proposed (hereinafter referred to as the “Modified Project”) involves the addition of six stadium lights, associated with the previously approved sports field, and a set of exercise stairs. These new project features were not originally planned in 2002 and they were therefore not evaluated for potential environmental impacts.
CEQA allows for the preparation of an Addendum to an adopted IS/MND (Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration) to document minor changes in the project characteristics or environmental conditions under which the project will be developed. This Addendum to the adopted 2002 IS/MND for the Project has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of CEQA (PRC, Sections 21000 et seq.); the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.); and the rules, regulations, and procedures for implementing CEQA as adopted by the City of Santa Clarita.
Section 15164(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that “an addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred”. Pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no subsequent EIR may be required for a project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that one or more of the following conditions are met:
A. When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant Introduction
D AVID MARCH PARK 1-2
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
In accordance with Sections 15162 and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, based on the analysis and substantial evidence presented in this Addendum, the City has determined there are no new significant environmental impacts result ing from the Modified Project. The City has determined that there are no substantial increases in the severity of any previously identified significant environmental impacts and no new mitigation measures are required for the implementation of the Modified Project; there ar e no changes in circumstances under which the Modified Project would be undertaken that would result in new or more severe significant environmental impacts; and there is no new inform ation of substantial importance that would result in one or more new or substantially more severe significant impacts. Therefore, an Addendum is the appropriate environmental documentation for the Modified Project and requested approvals.
At the time the IS/MND was prepared, Plum Canyon County Park was located in unincorporated Los Angeles County. In 2012, the City of Santa Clarita (City) annexed North Copperhill/Saugus, containing the Project site.
Pursuant to Section 15050 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Santa Clarita is the lead agency for this Addendum and has the authority for Project approval and approval of the accompanying environmental documentation (i.e., this Addendum).
D AVID MARCH PARK 2-1
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SECTION 2.0 BACKGROUND
While Los Angeles County was the Lead Agency responsible for the Plum Canyon County Park Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), the Lead Agency responsible for the subject Addendum to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Plum Canyon County Park Project is the City of Santa Clarita (City). The Modified Project would be implemented on the same site as the Approved Project, which is located at 28310 Via Joyce Drive. The following section provides a summary of the adopted Plum Canyon County Park Project IS/MND that is integral to the Modified Project.
2.1 SUMMARY OF THE ADOPTED PLUM CANYON COUNTY PARK PROJECT IS/MND The 2002 Plum Canyon County Project proposed the conversion of approximately 7 of the 13 acres of undeveloped land into a passive and active year-round public park; the remaining six acres would remain undeveloped. Project development would occur over two relatively flat pads; as proposed, the Project would involve the development of walkways, utilities, tots play area, site amenities (picnic tables, park benches, bicycle rack, etc.), landscape and irrigation, restrooms/maintenance area, a 15-space parking lot, security lighting, and signage in the northern pad, and utilities, children's play area, site amenities (picnic tables, park benches, bicycle racks, etc.), multipurpose athletic field (including baseball and soccer), outdoor basketball court, jogging path with exercise equipment, landscape and irrigation, tennis court, group picnic shelter, and a 15-space parking lot in the southern pad.
2.2 MITIGATION MEASURES OF THE ADOPTED FINAL IS/MND
The 2002 IS/MND included the following mitigation m easures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level for all environmental topics:
Biological Resources
M-IV.l The County shall mitigate impacts to the CDFG-jurisdictional drainages by contributing to a mitigation fund through the payment of a fee. The mitigation fund shall be used to mitigate off- site at an appropriate preserve selected by CDFG. The fee shall be used to purchase 0.069 acres of mitigation at the selected preserve.
M-IV.2 If disturbance of suitable nesting habitat occurs during the nesting season (February 15 through August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a general bird survey within a 300-foot buffer from the limits of grading no more than 15 days prior to the first ground disturbance to determine if nesting birds are present. If nesting birds are not found during the survey on site or within 300 feet of the limits of grading, construction activities may proceed. During construction, similar surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted on a weekly basis on site and within a 300- foot buffer from the limits of construction. If a nesting bird listed as protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is observed l on site or within 300 feet of the grading limits, all activity within 300 feet of the nest shall be halted until it is certain that the young have fledged. This measure will ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Cultural Resources
M-V.l If previously unidentified cultural resources, including a potential feature or intact deposit, are exposed during ground disturbing construction activities, work shall be halted in that area, and the feature will need to be assessed for significance by a qualified archaeologist.
Introduction
D AVID MARCH PARK 2-2
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Noise
M-XI.l Project construction shall comply with the County of Los Angeles Noise Code. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Mondays Fridays; prior written approval shall be obtained to conduct constructi on activities on Saturdays between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. No construction shall occur on Sundays and legal holidays.
I M-XI.2 All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained muffling devices.
M-XI.3 Temporary noise mufflers and noise atte nuating devices, particularly along the northern boundary of the project site adjacent to the single-family residences, shall be employed to reduce noise generated during construction.
Utilities and Service Systems
M-XVI.l Prior to completion of plans and specifications, the County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation shall include in the final plans and specifications the requirement for the construction contractor to work with the County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation's recycling coordinator, Mr. Boyd Horan, to ensure that source reduction techniques, procurement of recycled building materials, and the development of recycling programs during construction and operation of the facility are considered and implemented whenever possible.
The County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation's recycling coordinator shall review the plans and specifications for incorporation of the specified language. The County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works the incorporation of this requirement.
M-XVI.2 Prior to completion of plans and specifications, the County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation shall clearly identify bin enclosures and recycling containers, in accordance with the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycle Access Act of 1991, as amended.
The County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the County of Los Angeles Department of Public works the incorporation of this requirement.
D AVID MARCH PARK 3-1
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SECTION 3.0 MODIFIED PROJEC T DESCRIPTION AND SETTING
3.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The Modified Project site is located within David March Park, at 28310 Via Joyce Drive in the City of Santa Clarita (City), California. The Northern portion of the Project site is currently developed with an existing parking lot, picnic tables, open space, play structures, canopy structures, and restrooms. The southern portion of the Project site currently consists of open space and dirt trails.
The Project site can be accessed from Plum Canyon Road and Via Joyce Drive.
3.2 EXISTING SITE AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS
David March Park is a local neighborhood park serving the Plum Canyon community. The existing park provides recreational space to the community through a large, shaded playground, open grass area, and a fitness zone (City of Santa Clarita 2023b). As discussed above, the Northern portion of the Modified Project site is developed with an existing parking lot, picnic tables, open space, play structures, canopy structures, and restrooms. The southern portion of the Modified Project site is currently open space and dirt trails. Land uses in the area include residential and institutional land uses (City of Santa Clarita 2011a).
The Modified Project site has a General Plan designation of Open Space (OS) and a zoning designation of Open Space (OS) (City of Santa Clarita 2011a; City of Santa Clarita 2023c).
3.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Modified Project consists of the installation of new outdoor lighting, comprised of six individual light fixtures. The Modified Project also includes new exercise stairs. These improvements are shown in Exhibit 1, Site Plan. The new stadium lights would consist of three 70-foot-tall tower LED flood lights and one 16-foot area light single pole mounted light fixture associated with the baseball field, a 50-foot flood light twin pole mounted light fixture associated with the basketball court, and one 16-foot area light single pole mounted light fixture associated with the parking lot and walkway. The new proposed lights are depicted on Exhibit 2, Site Lighting Plan.
3.3.1 CIRCULATION AND PARKING
On-site circulation for the Modified Project would not change from what was previously for the Approved Project. Park patrons would access the Project site by Via Joyce Drive and either Adriene Way or Jerry Place. These roads currently provide access to the existing park.
3.3.2 FUTURE OPERATIONS
Operation for the Park would continue to be managed by the City of Santa Clarita. The Project would not result in any major new operational features or needs from the Approved Project.
Operations of the Modified Project would be consistent with those described in the Approved Project. Operations would consist of recreational use of David March Park; as described in the Approved IS/MND, many park patrons would be from neighboring areas and would walk or bike to the park.
3.3.3 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
Construction of the Modified Project would not exceed the equipment quantities or overall construction duration of that analyzed for the Approved Project. The 2002 IS/MND assumes that 26S=19'W=8'26S=9'W=8'26S=15'W=8'26S=11'W=8'26S=14'W=8'26S=4'W=8'26S=19'W=8'26S=11'W=8'26S=15'W=8'26S=19.5'W=8'2L=6'W=8'2L=7'W=8'2L=21.75'W=8'2L=5'W=8'2L=19'W=8'2L=6'W=8' 2L=8'W=8'2L=5'W=8'
2L=6'W=8'2L=6'W=8'
2 2L=10.5'W=8'2L=19'W=8'
20.19'8.96'18.39'
27220 Turnberry Lane , Suite 190Valencia, CA 91355(661) 219-6000 (661) 775-2718 faxwww.psomas.com EXERCISE STAIRS -PLAN & PROFILEC-2.60
APPROVED
CONSTRUCTION NOTESSAWCUT AND JOIN EXISTING GRADECONSTRUCT SIDEWALK, 4" PCC OVER 4" CAB. SEE DETAIL 9 ON SHEET C-6.10FINISH AND CONSTRUCTION JOINTS PER LANDSCAPE PLANSBASKETBALL COURT, REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLANSINSTALL GRASS, REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLANSCONSTRUCT 4" AC PAVEMENT OVER 8" CMB WITHIN DRIVE AISLE. SEE DETAIL 8 ONSHEET C-6.10.INSTALL DOUBLE ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL STRIPING AND SIGNAGE, SEE DETAILS1, 3 AND 5 ON SHEET C-6.10.INSTALL TRUNCATED DOME PANEL. SEE DETAIL 2 ON SHEET C-6.10SITE FURNITURE, REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLANSFITNESS AREA, REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLANSPLAY FEATURES, REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLANSCONSTRUCT 6" CURB PER SPPWC STD 120-2, TYPE A1-6. SEE SHEET C-6.30TREE WELL, REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLANSPICNIC PAVILLION, REFER TO ARCHITECT PLANSTRASH ENCLOSURE, REFER TO ARCHITECT PLANSCONSTRUCT MOUNTABLE CURB AND GUTTER PER SPPWC STD 121-3, SEE SHEETC-6.30CONSTRUCT 6" CURB AND 18" WIDE GUTTER PER SPPWC STD 120-2, TYPE A2-6. SEESHEET C-6.30CONSTRUCT DRIVEWAY ENTRY PER SPPWC 110-2. SEE SHEET C-6.30, TYPE CINSTALL CURB CUT OPENING, WIDTH PER PLANCONSTRUCT CURB RAMP PER SPPWC 111-5, TYPE PER PLANBASEBALL FIELD FENCE, REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLANSINSTALL PARKWAY DRAIN PER SPPWC 151-3. SEE SHEET C-6.30INSTALL ACCESSIBLE EV CHARGING PARKING STALLS SIGNAGE AND STRIPING PERDETAIL 6 ON SHEET C-6.10INSTALL PCC PAVEMENT, SEE DETAIL 2 ON SHEET C-6.20.INSTALL CATCH BASIN WITH INLET FILTER SIZE =18"x18", SEE DETAIL 10 ON SHEETC-6.10INSTALL DRAINAGE INLET AT SWALE, SEE DETAIL 4 ON SHEET C-6.20CONSTRUCT REINFORCED CONCRETE STAIRS PER SPPWC STD PLAN 640-4, W PERPLAN; STAIR CURB C=6"; CONCRETE PER CONSTRUCTION NOTE 2, TREAD, T=12",RISER, R=5.4"; FLIGHT LENGTH, S= NO. OF STAIRS, PER PLAN. INSTALL HANDRAILSPER SPPWC STD PLAN 606-4 ON SHEET C-6.30CONSTRUCT RAMP WITH HANDRAIL. FOR HANDRAIL DETAILS SEE LANDSCAPE PLANSCONSTRUCT SWALE ADJACENT TO WALKING PATH, SEE DETAIL 3 ON SHEET C-6.20CONSTRUCT 0" CURB MODIFIED FROM SPPWC STD 120-2, TYPE A1-6. FINISH PERLANDSCAPE PLANS. SEE SHEET C-6.30CONSTRUCT SWALE ADJACENT TO BASEBALL FIELD FENCE, SEE DETAIL 5 ON SHEETC-6.20CONSTRUCT SPORTS FIELD, REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLANSWARM UP LAWN, REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLANSCONSTRUCT GROUTED RIPRAP PER DETAIL 1 ON SHEET C-6.20CONSTRUCT CONCRETE HEADWALL PER CALTRANS DETAIL D89. STRAIGHTHEADWALL FOR SINGLE CIRCULAR PIPE. SEE DETAIL 7 ON SHEET C-6.20CONSTRUCT VEGETATED SWALE, L=100', BOTTOM WIDTH=2', SEE DETAIL 6 ON SHEETC-6.20PROPOSED FIELD LIGHTING, REFER TO LIGHTING PLANSAPPLY PARKING STALL STRIPING 4" WHITE SOLID LINE, TYPICAL ALL STALLS ARE 9'X 18' UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE.INSTALL SITE ACCESSIBILITY TOW AWAY SIGN PER DETAIL 4 ON SHEET C-6.10.APPLY 6' WIDE BLUE ADA PATH STRIPING PER ADA STANDARDS. MATCH EXISTINGSTRIPING AT ADJACENT PARK SITE DRIVE AISLES.COMPACTED SOIL, REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLANSINSTALL 6" OF CONCRETE IN 2'x2' FOOTPRINT FOR FUTURE EVCS PARKING STALLDUGOUT, REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLANSBATHROOM STRUCTURE, REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANSPROPOSED HARDSCAPE DRAIN, NDS ROUND GRATE, DIAMETER=6", COLOR BLACK.SEE DETAIL 11 ON SHEET C-6.10CONSTRUCT 3" AC OVER 6.5" CMB WITHIN PARKING STALL AREA. SEE DETAIL 8 ONSHEET C-6.10.INSTALL STANDARD EV CHARGING STATION PARKING STALL FOR FUTURE USE. SEEDEATIL 7 ON SHEET C-6.10.CONSTRUCT 6.5" PCC OVER RECOMPACTED BASE, WITH RELATIVE COMPACTION OF95%, SEE DETAIL 2 ON SHEET C-6.20DIRT TRAIL, REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLANSCONSTRUCT SWALE ADJACENT TO EXCERCISE STAIRS. SEE DETAIL 5 ON SHEETC-6.20.RECONSTRUCT EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER, PER SPPWC DETAIL 120-2INSTALL CURB STOP, SEE DETAIL 11 ON SHEET C-6.10ACCESS ROAD, CLEAR AND GRUB. REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLANS 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152 GENERAL NOTES:1. REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR TURF, PLANTING, IRRIGATION,FLATWORK, SHADE STRUCTURES, SITE FURNITURE DETAILS.2. SEE TITLE SHEET FOR GRADING PLAN LEGEND
Project Description and Setting
D AVID MARCH PARK 3-2
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project construction would consist of one loader, one dozer, one backhoe, one water pump, one concrete pump, one paver, and one truck crane over a six-month timeframe.
3.3.4 DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS
Pursuant to CEQA, the City has primary discretionary authority over the approval of the Modified Project. The anticipated discretionary approvals required for the City to implement the Project includes the following:
Find that the Addendum to the Plum Canyon County Park IS/MND complies with CEQA pursuant to Title 14 CCR Article 11, Sections 15162 and 15164 for changes to the Original Project.
Adoption of the Addendum to the Plum Canyon County Park IS/MND; Adoption of a mitigation monitoring and reporting program; and Design, construction, and operation of the project.
Other public agencies may also have discretionary authority over the Project, or aspects of the Project, and are considered responsible agencies. The IS/MND can be used by the responsible agencies to comply with CEQA in connection with permitting or approval authority over the Project.
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-1
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This document is an addendum to the previously approved CEQA document outlined in Section 2.0, Project Background. By definition, an addendum to a CEQA document is intended to demonstrate that the modifications to the previ ously Approved Project would not substantially increase environmental impacts or create any new significant impacts. The following analysis is documentation of why and how this conclusion has been made.
For each topical issue, summaries of the environmental analysis conclusions, and any applicable mitigation measures, from the 2002 IS/MND are provided. Following the summary of the 2002 IS/MND, the analysis for the Modified Project is presented.
4.1 AESTHETICS
4.1.1 PRIOR ANALYSES IN THE 2002 IS/MND
The 2002 IS/MND stated that there are no officially designated scenic vistas or highways in the immediate vicinity of the Approved Project site. Additionally, the previous environmental analysis determined that the Approved Project site is not within the viewshed of an officially designate State scenic highway; the nearest officially designated State scenic highway was Angeles Crest Highway, located approximately 20 miles southeast of the Approved Project site. Additionally, the previous analysis determined that public parks are aesthetically consistent with single-family residential communities, such as the neighborhood around the Approved Project site. Therefore the 2002 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would have a less than significant impact on the visual character of developed urban areas. Regarding new sources of light or glare, the Approved Project included security lighting along the pathways, at the restroom, and in the parking lot and did not propose other nighttime lighting. Therefore, it was determined that impacts related to light and glare would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were required for this resource topic.
4.1.2 MODIFIED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
From
Previous
Analysis
AESTHETICS – Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage sceni c resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppi ngs, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, su bstantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the pr oject conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-2
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Environmental Issues
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
From
Previous
Analysis
d) Create a new source of substa ntial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Existing Views and Visual Character
The northern portion of the Project site is currently developed with an existing public park and associated parking lot, while the southern portion of the Project site consists of vacant parcel and dirt paths. The existing on-site public park is David March Park; park infrastructure includes playsets, permanent canopy structures, benches, picnic tables, exercise equipment, and public restrooms. The associated surface parking lot is located along the northwestern border of the Project site.
Would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Substantial Change from Previous Analys is. Scenic vistas and other important visual resources are typically associated with natural landforms such as mountains, foothills, ridgelines, coastlines, and open space areas. Open space resources within the City of Santa Clarita include a number of scenic canyons, woodlands, water bodies, geological features, and significant ridgelines (City of Santa Clarita 2011b).
There are ridgelines within the Project site that may be considered significant, and therefore scenic pursuant to the City of Santa Clarita General Plan. These ridgelines are visible from public roads adjacent to the Project site. The newly proposed lighting would partially impair views of ridgelines within the eastern portion of the Project site. However, these views would generally be maintained since the lighting would have large gaps that viewers would be able to see beyond.
Furthermore, views of these ridgelines are already obscured from many viewpoints by existing streetlights and landscaping, which already detract from these ridgeline views.
Construction within the Project site may temporarily alter views of significant ridgelines to vehicles traveling along Via Joyce Drive; however, consistent with the Approved IS/MND, these would be short-term changes and would not represent a substantial adverse effect on any scenic vistas.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The 2002 IS/MND identified that there are no officially designated scenic highways within the vi cinity of the Project site. The nearest officially designated State scenic highway is Angeles Cr est Highway, located approximately 20 miles southeast of the Project site (Caltrans 2023a). Given that the Project site is not visible from Angeles Crest Highway due to distance and intervening topography, the Modified Project would have no impacts related to this threshold.
Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-3
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project site is located within an urbanized area. As such, the potential impacts under this threshold are assessed based on whether the Project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
The Project continues to propose recreational land uses, which are consistent with the OS zoning designation of the Project site. Implementation of the Modified Project would result in a change to the existing visual character of the Project site as described in more detail below, similar to what was anticipated for the Approved Project in the 2002 IS/MND.
During construction, construction equipment woul d be visible at the Project site. This visual change would be temporary in nature and typical of construction sites in an urban environment.
During Project operations, the Modified Project would add sports field lighting and exercise stairs to an existing park that is being expanded. Therefore, these additional features would be consistent with existing and proposed uses within the Project site.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis . The Project site is located in an area that is already subject to ambient lighting from existing and surrounding uses. Existing sources of light near the Project site include streetlights, vehicle headlights, and interior and exterior lighting from nearby residential land uses. The Modified Project would include new exterior light sources that were not included in the Approved Project, which would generate light at levels sufficient for safety and visibility and for evening use of the sporting fields.
Photometric analyses have been conducted for the Modified Project, which have confirmed that outdoor lighting levels would not substantially increase for off-site areas as shown in Exhibit 3, Area Lighting Photometric Plan (Anil Verma Associates, Inc, 2023).
Additionally, the Project would comply with Municipal Code Chapter 17.51.050 “Outdoor Lighting Standards”, which requires the following of sport field lighting:
• 17.51.050.11. Lighting for public facilities including, but not limited to, sports fields/playfields, community centers and other facilities for public assembly, that are owned and operated by the City of Santa Clarita and that exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height shall be subject to an administrative permit (refer to Section 17.23.100 (Administrative Permit)) and be subject to lighting standards provided for in subsection (D) of this section with a further requirement for a photometric study and renderings of the project (City of Santa Clarita, 2023a).
Environmental Checklist
DAVID MARCH PARK 4-4
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Consistent with the above policy, the Project shall obtain an administrative permit for installation of the proposed lighting fixtures; additionally, the Project’s lighting would be consistent with all developments standards within Municipal Code 17.51.050.
Since the Project site and surrounding areas are largely developed, the lighting associated with the Modified Project would not substantially increase light and glare within the site or surroundings. With c ompliance with General Plan policies and Municipal Code 17.51.050 potential impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, regarding glare, the proposed lighting fixtures and exercise stairs would be constructed with non-reflective materials to minimize glare.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required.
Conclusion
The aesthetics impacts of the Modified Project would be consistent with the impacts identified for the 2002 IS/MND. The Modified Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the Modified Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. For these reasons, no major revi sions to the aesthetics analysis provided in the 2002 IS/MND are required.
4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
4.2.1 PRIOR ANALYSES IN THE 2002 IS/MND
The 2002 IS/MND identified no impacts associated with the topic of Agricultural Resources because the Project site contains no designated farmland by the California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping Program, no land designated Farmland would be converted to non-agricultural use as a result of implementation of the Approved Project; and no sites would be affected by a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, as detailed in 2002 IS/MND , the Approved Project would result in no impacts pertaining to agriculture resources.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were required.
Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-5
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
4.2.2 MODIFIED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
From
Previous
Analysis
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES – Would the
project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoni ng for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning fo r, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section
12220[g]), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104[g])?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in t he existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The 2002 IS/MND determined that there would be no impacts related to conversion of Farmland with implementation of the Approved Project. Consistent with the findings of the 2002 IS/MND, there are no designated farmlands within or near the Project site (DOC 2023a). No farmland conversion or impacts to agricultural uses would occur with implementation of the Modified Project. ‘ Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The 2002 IS/MND determined that there would be no impact related to conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract with implementation of the Approved Project. Consistent with the findings of the 2002 IS/MND, there are no agricultural activities within or near the Project site. Also, the Project area is not zoned for agricultural use, and there are no Williamson Act Contracts. Therefore, no impacts to agricultural uses would occur with implementation of the Modified Project.
Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-6
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220[g]), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104[g])?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. At the time of approval of the 2002 IS/MND, rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production was not a CEQA Appendix G threshold question. Nonetheless, there are no forest land occurs on the Project site or within the nearby vicinity. Therefore, no rezoning of forest land or timberland zoned Timberland Production is proposed as part of the Project.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. At the time of approval of the 2002 IS/MND, loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use was not a CEQA Appendix G threshold question. Nonetheless, no loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use is proposed as part of the Project.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Consistent with the findings of the 2002 IS/MND, no conversion of Farmland to a non-agricultural use is proposed as part of the Project.
Additionally, there would be no conversion of forest land to a non-forest use with the Modified Project.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required.
Conclusion
The agriculture and forestry resources impacts of the Modified Project would be consistent with the impacts identified for the Approved Project analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. The Modified Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the Modified Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. For Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-7
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION these reasons, no substantial changes to the agriculture and forestry resources analysis provided in the 2002 IS/MND are required.
4.3 AIR QUALITY
4.3.1 PRIOR ANALYSES IN THE 2002 IS/MND
The 2002 IS/MND determined that implementation of the Approved Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan.
As discussed in the 2002 IS/MND, implementation of the Approved Project would result in new emissions generated by construction activities. The 2002 IS/MND determined that implementation of the Approved Project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for operation and construction.
Motor vehicles, and traffic-congested roadways and intersections are the primary source of high localized CO concentrations. Localized areas where ambient concentrations exceed federal and/or State standards for CO are termed CO “hotspots.” Based on the Approved Project’s anticipated traffic, the 2002 IS/MND determined that implementation of the Approved Project would not expose existing or future sensitive uses within the City to substantial CO concentrations. This impact was found to be less than significant.
The 2002 IS/MND determined that when evaluating potential air quality impacts to sensitive receptors, due to the low number of trips associated with the Approved Project and the temporary nature of construction implementation of the Approved Project would not expose existing or future sensitive uses within the City to substantial pollutant concentrations. This impact was found to be less than significant.
The 2002 IS/MND concluded that no activities would occur and no materials or chemicals would be stored on-site that would have the potential to cause odor impacts during the construction and use of the proposed park facility. Therefore, adverse odor impacts would not occur and no mitigation measures were required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were required.
Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-8
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
4.3.2 MODIFIED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
From
Previous
Analysis
AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct impl ementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
c) Expose sensitive receptor s to substantial pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Would the Project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Air pollutant emissions associated with the Approved and Modified Projects would occur over the short term from construction activities and over the long term from operation of the park.
CEQA requires a discussion of any inconsistenc ies between a project and applicable General Plans and regional plans (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15125). The regional plan that applies to the Modified Project includes the SCAQMD ’s AQMP, as discussed above. A project is considered to be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency:
1. Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP.
2. Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP, or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase.
Both criteria are evaluated for the Project, as shown below.
With respect to determining the Modified Project’s consistency with AQMP growth assumptions, the projections in the AQMP for achieving air quality goals are based on assumptions in SCAG’s RTP/SCS regarding population, housing, and growth trends. No housing is proposed as part of the Modified Project and therefore no long-term population growth would occur. Therefore, implementation of the Modified Project would not interfere with SCAQMD’s goals for improving air quality in the region because the Modified Project would not consist of growth beyond what SCAQMD already projected for the City. Consequently, the Project would not conflict with the 2022 AQMP and, as such, would not jeopardize attainment of the CAAQS and NAAQS in the area under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD.
Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-9
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Furthermore, construction and operation of the Modified Project would not result in an exceedance of the SCAQMD’s thresholds for criteria pollutants. Construction of the Modified Project would not consist of construction equi pment or durations beyond what was analyzed in the IS/MND for the Approved Project. Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in exceedances of the SCAQMD’s significant thresholds nor would the Modified Project result in a violation of air quality standards. Due to these factors, it can be concluded that the Modified Project would be consistent with the projections in the AQMP. As such, the Modified Project would not lead to new or substantially more severe significant impacts associated with clean air consistency beyond those identified in the 2002 IS/MND.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The following analysis describes the Modified Project’s construction- and operation-related air quality impacts. As discussed in more detail below, the Modified Project would result in less than significant construction and operational air quality impacts.
Construction
Construction of the Modified Project would not exceed the equipment quantities or overall construction duration of that analyzed for the Approved Project. The 2002 IS/MND assumes that Project construction would consist of one loader, one dozer, one backhoe, one water pump, one concrete pump, one paver, and one truck crane over a six-month timeframe. The modified Project’s emissions associated with this equipment are low and would not substantively change from the previous assessment. As such, construction emissions associated with the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for VOC, NO
x, CO, sulfur oxides (SO X), PM2.5, or PM10
emissions (SCAQMD 2023a). In addition to the construction period thresholds of significance, 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 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. Therefore, the Modified Project would not lead to new or substantially more severe significant impacts associated with construction-related air quality beyond those identified in the 2002 IS/MND.
Operations
Long-term air pollutant emission impacts are those typically associated with mobile sources (e.g., vehicle trips), energy sources (e.g., electricity and natural gas), area sources (e.g., architectural coatings and the use of landscape maintenance equipment), and stationary sources (e.g., diesel emergency backup generator) related to the Project. Consistent with what was discussed in the 2002 IS/MND, the Project site is a neighborhood recreational facility; as such, it is expected that many visitors would arrive on foot or by alternative means of transportation (bicycle, etc.). The Project components themselves would not generate a substantial increase in vehicular trips, however, it would enable use of the facilities for more hours of operation due to lighting. The 2002 IS/MND estimates that there would be 90 trips on any given day. Conservatively estimating that lighting would enable 25% more trips to the site on a daily basis, that equates to 22 more vehicle trips which may potentially result in 112 trips per day. Emissions associated with this quantity of Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-10
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION vehicle trips for the Modified Project would not result in impacts substantially beyond those that were identified in the 2002 IS/MND.
Carbon Monoxide Hotspot
Vehicular trips contribute to congestion at intersections and along roadway segments. Localized air quality impacts would occur when emissions from vehicular traffic increase as a result of a Modified Project. The primary mobile-source pollutant of local concern is CO, a direct function of vehicle idling time and, thus, of traffic flow conditions. CO transport is extremely limited; under normal meteorological conditions, CO disperses rapidly with distance from the source. However, under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels, affecting local sensitive receptors (e.g., residents, schoolchildren, the elderly, and hospital patients). Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with roadways or intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service or with extremely high traffic volumes.
The Modified Project would not result in significant localized or regional emissions during Project construction or operation due to the low magnitude of vehicle trips. In addition, given the extremely low level of CO concentrations expected in the vicinity of the Project Site and the lack of traffic impacts at any intersections, the additional trips that would result from the Modified Project are not expected to contribute significantly to, or result in CO concentrations exceeding the State or federal CO standards. Therefore, once the Modified Project is constructed, the Modified Project would not be a source of substantial pollutant emissions and sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations during Project operation.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Consistent with the Approved Project, implementation of the Modified Project would not involve the storage of material or chemicals in the Project Site that would have the potential to cause odor impacts during construction or operations. Likewise, no activities would occur that would cause odor impacts during operation of the Modified Project, which consists of additional sports field lighting and stairs. During Project construction, some odors may be present due to diesel exhaust. However, these odors would be temporary, limited to the construction period and do not rise to the level of a public nuisance. Also, these odors were assumed for the Approved Project in the 2002 IS/MND. As such, the Modified Project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) affecting a substantial number of people.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required.
Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-11
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Conclusion
The air quality impacts of the Modified Project would be consistent with the impacts identified for the Approved Project, analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. The Modified Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the Modified Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new informati on has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impac ts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. For these reasons, no major revisions to the air quality analysis provided in the 2002 IS/MND are required.
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4.1 PRIOR ANALYSES IN THE 2002 IS/MND
The 2002 Final IS/MND disclosed that disturbed coastal sage scrub within the Project Site would be impacted by the Project.
The 2002 Final IS/MND identified two narrow drainages on the project site.
Regarding special status plants, the 2002 Final IS/MND determined that the only notable special status plant species with potential to occur on the project site was the slender-horned spineflower.
Because the potential habitat for this species was being avoided (i.e. wash habitat), no focused surveys were conducted.
Regarding special status wildlife, Coastal California gnatcatcher was addressed in the 2002 Final IS/MND. Focused surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher were conducted in 2001, which found the species to be absent within the Project site
The 2002 Final IS/MND included mitigation measure M-IV.2, which requires pre-construction nesting bird surveys and protection of active nests.
Mitigation Measures
M-IV.l The County shall mitigate impacts to the CDFG-jurisdictional drainages by contributing to a mitigation fund through the payment of a fee. The mitigation fund shall be used to mitigate off- site at an appropriate preserve selected by CDFG. The fee shall be used to purchase 0.069 acres of mitigation at the selected preserve.
M-IV.2 If disturbance of suitable nesting habitat occurs during the nesting season (February 15 through August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a general bird survey within a 300-foot buffer from the limits of grading no more than 15 days prior to the first ground disturbance to determine if nesting birds are present. If nesting birds are not found during the survey on site or within 300 feet of the limits of grading, construction activities may proceed. During construction, similar surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted on a weekly basis on site and within a 300- foot buffer from the limits of construction. If a nesting bird listed as protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is observed on site or within 300 feet of the grading limits, all activity within 300 feet of the nest shall be halted until it is certain that the young have fledged. This measure will ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-12
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
4.4.2 MODIFIED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
From
Previous
Analysis
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife sp ecies or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policie s or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. To evaluate existing conditions within the Project Site, a biological field survey and Biological Technical Memorandum were prepared for the Modified Project in 2024 (Psomas 2024a).
Vegetation in the biological survey area is consistent with conditions described in the 2002 Final IS/MND. Vegetation throughout the majority of the biological survey area consists of disturbed coastal sage scrub dominated by deer weed ( Acmispon glaber ) and California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum ) with scattered individuals of California sagebrush ( Artemisia californica) and black sage ( Salvia mellifera ). Herbaceous species scattered throughout the disturbed sage scrub include tocalote ( Centaurea melitensis), horehound ( Marrubium vulgare), red-stem filaree ( Erodium cicutarium ), popcorn flower ( Plagiobothrys sp .), pectocarya (Pectocarya sp.), cudweed ( Gnaphaltum sp.), and black mustard ( Brassica nigra). Ornamental Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-13
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION vegetation such as turf grass and London plane trees (Platanus ×hispanica) occurs in the existing park.
CDFW provides a list of vegetation alliances, associations, and special stands that are considered “Sensitive Natural Communities” based on their rarity and threat. Vegetation that occurs in the biological survey area would be consistent with the Eriogonum fasciculatum Alliance and the Acmispon glaber [Lotus scoparius ] Association. Neither of these vegetation communities are considered sensitive natural communities (Psomas 2024a). The additional stairs proposed as part of the Modified Project would impact a small qua ntity of coastal sage scrub habitat beyond what was assumed for the Approved Project. However, the limited loss of this vegetation would not be considered a significant impact given its low quality and the minimal quantity that would be removed by the Modified Project.
Special Status Plants
Plant or wildlife species may be considered to have “special status” due to declining populations, vulnerability to habitat change, or restricted distributions. Certain special status species have been listed as Rare, Threatened, or Endangered under State and/or Federal Endangered Species Acts. Four federally and/or State listed Endangered, Threatened, or Rare plant species or Candidate were reported from the project region: Nevin’s barberry ( Berberis nevinii ; federal Endangered, California Endangered, CRPR 1B.1), San Fernando Valley spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina ; California Endangered, CRPR 1B.1), slender-horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras; federal Endangered, California Endangered, CRPR 1B.1), and California Orcutt grass ( Orcuttia californica ; federal Endangered, California Endangered, CRPR 1B.1). Nevin’s barberry is not expected to occur because it was not observed during field surveys conducted in late 2023. This species is a perennial that is observable year-round.
California Orcutt grass is not expected to occur due to lack of suitable vernal pool habitat. Slender- horned spineflower is not expected to occur due to lack of suitable alluvial sage scrub wash habitat. However, San Fernando Valley spineflower has potential to occur. At the time of the 2002 Final IS/MND, all the records for San Fernando spineflower were historic; the species was believed to be extirpated from the region containing the Project Site. However, this species was rediscovered in the vicinity of the Project Site in 2011. Since then, several locations have been reported from southwest-facing slopes of coastal sage scrub in the Newhall area (Psomas 2024a).
No focused plant surveys were previously conducted on the Project Site because the 2002 Final IS/MND did not consider that this species had potential to occur. Any loss of a State listed Endangered species would be considered regionally significant. If San Fernando Valley spineflower is present, it would need to be avoided or mitigation would be required.
Also, the literature review conducted by Psomas for the Modified Project in 2024 determined that there are several California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 1B1 or 2B2 that have been reported from region containing the Project Site. One CRPR 1B species has potential to occur in the Project Site, which is the slender mariposa-lily ( Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis ). Several locations of this species occur in the region containing the Project Site. One California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) record occurs approximately one mile northeast of the Project Site in similar habitat. This species tends to occur as scattered individuals across a hillside. The proposed stair improvements proposed by the Modified Project w ould impact a very small extent of habitat for this species. Therefore, it is expected that if this species occurs, the impact would be considered less than significant. However, the significance would also depend on the size of the population that would be impacted (i.e., the number of indi viduals) in relation to the number of individuals recently reported in the project region. To confirm absence of special status plant species in the areas of the Project Site that would be directly impacted by the stair improvements, focused protocol surveys for special status plants are being conducted in 2024. If any special status plant Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-14
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION are identified during those surveys, they will be flagged as environmentally sensitive areas and avoided during construction.
Special Status Wildlife
Thirteen federally and/or State listed Endangered or Threatened species, or those proposed for listing, were identified in the literature review conducted for the Modified Project in 2024, which include: vernal pool fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta lynchi; federally Threatened), quino checkerspot butterfly ( Euphydryas editha quino ; federally Endangered), unarmored threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni; federally Endangered, California Endangered), arroyo toad (Anaxyrus californicus; federally Endangered, California Species of Special Concern), southern mountain yellow-legged frog ( Rana muscosa ; federally Endangered, California Endangered), California red-legged frog ( Rana draytonii; federally Threatened, California Species of Special Concern), western pond turtle ( Emys marmorata ; proposed federally Threatened, California Species of Special Concern), Swainson’s hawk ( Buteo swainsoni ; California Threatened), western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis; federally Threatened, California Endangered), southwestern willow flycatcher ( Empidonax traillii extimus ; federally Endangered, California Endangered), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus ; federally Endangered, California Endangered), coastal California gnatcatcher ( Polioptila californica californica ; federally Threatened, California Species of Special Concern), and tricolored blackbird ( Agelaius tricolor; California Threatened). The vernal pool fairy shrimp is not expected to occur due to lack of suitable vernal pool habitat. The quino checkerspot butterfly is not expected to occur because it is believed to be extirpated from northern Los Angeles County. The unarmored threespine stickleback, arroyo toad, southern mountain yellow-legged frog, California red-legged frog, western pond turtle, western yellow-billed cuckoo, southwestern willow flycatcher, least Bell’s vireo, and tricolored blackbird are not expected to occur due to lack of suitable aquatic, riparian, or freshwater marsh habitat. The Swainson’s hawk could forage over the Project Site during migration but is not expected to occur in the region containing the Project Site for nesting. Of these species, only the coastal California gnatcatcher has potential to occur in the Project Site and adjacent areas.
Additionally, one state Candidate species also has potential to occur in the biological survey area, Crotch’s bumble bee ( Bombus crotchii ; proposed California Endangered). These species are discussed in more detail below.
Coastal California Gnatcatcher
The coastal California gnatcatcher is a federally Threatened species and a California Species of Special Concern. This species occurs in most of Baja California, Mexico’s arid regions, but this subspecies is extremely localized in the United St ates, where it predominantly occurs in coastal regions of highly urbanized Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Diego Counties. In California, this subspecies is a resident of coastal sage scrub vegetation types. The breeding season for the coastal California gnatcatcher ranges from late February to August. Nests are generally placed in a shrub about three feet above ground. Santa Clarita is thought to be at the northern range of the species’ distribution, and it is hypothesized that there is a small but reliable breeding population in the Santa Clarita region. The USFWS published a Revised Final Rule designating Critical Habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher in 2007. This Revised Critical Habitat designates 197,303 acres in San Diego, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Ventura Counties. The biological survey area is not located within the designated Revised Critical Habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher. The coastal California gnatcatcher has been observed at several locations around Santa Clarita, including multiple locations where previous protocol focused surveys determined them to be absent but more recent surveys found them to be present. Breeding California gnatcatchers were observed in 2018 and 2019 in Santa Clarita approximately 3.5 miles southwest of the Project Site. Protocol-level presence/absence surveys Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-15
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION for coastal California gnatcatcher were conducted to support the IS/MND that was prepared for the Approved Project in 2001; no coastal California gnatcatchers were observed during those surveys. However, given the observation of coastal California gnatcatcher observations in the vicinity in recent years, and the presence of suitable coastal sage scrub habitat within the additional areas that would be impacted by the proposed stairs, the coastal California gnatcatcher has potential to occur. Any loss of occupied habitat for a federally Threatened species would be considered potentially significant. Therefore, protocol-level presence/absence surveys were conducted in 2024 within the area that would be impacted by the stairs to confirm absence of this species in this area. No coastal California gnatcatcher were detected during those surveys.
Crotch’s Bumble Bee
Crotch’s bumble bee is proposed as a Candidate to be State listed as Endangered. This species was not addressed in the 2002 Final IS/MND due to it not being special status at the time of publication. Crotch’s bumble bee is a ground nester and often makes its nest in abandoned mammal burrows; it can be found in most native habitat types, although it prefers grassland and scrub habitats. It is primarily associated with plants from the following families: Fabaceae, Apocynaceae, Asteraceae, Lamiaceae, and Boraginaceae. A historic observation (1978) is located approximately 3.3 miles to the southeast. The nearest recent observations (2023) of Crotch’s bumble bee is approximately 2 miles east of the Project Site. The stairs proposed by the Modified Project contain potentially suitable habitat for Crotch’s bumble bee. Loss of occupied habitat for a state Candidate Endangered species would be considered potentially significant. As such, focused surveys are being conducted in 2024 prior to construction to confirm absence of this species in these areas of the Project Site. If no Crotch’s bumble bee are observed during the 2024 surveys, no further action shall be required within the year that the focused survey is conducted, and no further actions shall be necessary. Because Crotch’s bumble bee moves ground nests annually, the pre-construction focused survey(s) shall be repeated if construction does not begin before the spring (i.e., March 1) following the previous focused survey(s). If required, the updated Crotch’s bumble bee surveys shall occur between April and August, which is the colony active period for this species. If Crotch’s bumble bee is present as determined by the focused survey(s), the City shall consult with CDFW to determine if a permit (2081 or 2080.1) will be needed under applicable laws and regulations. If a permit is required under applicable laws and regulations, then the City shall obtain said permit prior to initiation of construction activities within the relevant work area. If a permit is required, additional CEQA documentation may be required. If a ground nest is observed, it shall be protected in place until it is no longer active as determined by the qualified Biologist. An initial protective buffer of at least 100 feet shall be established around the active ground nest until CDFW can be consulted. A qualified Biologist shall determine the protective buffer distance needed depending on the location with respect to construction activities and the type of construction activities occurring; CDFW shall approve the protective buffer distance needed. A Letter Report shall be prepared to document the results of the pre-construction survey(s) and shall be provided to CDFW within 30 days of completion of the survey(s).
Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-16
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Conclusion
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. As noted above under threshold (a), the Modified Project would not result in any impacts to sensitive natural communities. The stairs proposed by the Modified Project would occur within upland areas of the Project Site that do not contain any drainages or riparian habitat. As such, the Modified Project would have no impact related to this threshold.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. One drainage occurs in the northern portion of the Project Site, which would not be impacted by the Modified Project. As such, the Modified Project would have no impact related to this threshold. The proposed additional project features would not impact this drainage.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resi dent or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Landscape features or travel routes that connect the larger open space areas would be considered “wildlife corridors” if they provide adequate space, cover, food, and water and do not contain obstacles or distractions (e.g., man- made noise, lighting) that would generally hinder wildlife movement. The Project Site is located in an area that is undeveloped with some undeveloped areas to the north (across Via Joyce Drive) and south (across Plum Canyon Road). However, these undeveloped areas that remain within the areas are constrained by residential development to the east and west. Therefore, the Project Site is located in an area that would be regarded as a wildlife corridor that could be used to access larger areas of open space along ridgelines and canyons to the northwest and south. The additional proposed project features would impact a very small quantity of habitat; the limited loss of vegetation would be considered a less than significant impact to wildlife movement given the limited quantity and low quality of the habitat that would be removed. Also, the stairs and lighting proposed as part of the Modified Project would not result in any barriers to wildlife movement.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) protects the taking of migratory birds and their nests and eggs. Bird species protected under the provisions of the MBTA are identified by the List of Migratory Birds (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, §10.13). Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any bird’s nest or any bird’s eggs. Section 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits the take and possession of Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-17
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION any migratory nongame bird, as designated in the MBTA. Birds have potential to nest throughout the biological survey area in vegetation, on bare ground, and on adjacent structures (i.e., transmission towers). If construction would be initiated during the nesting season (generally between February 1 and August 31), a pre-construction survey would be required to ensure that no nests are impacted. If an active nest is present, construction may be restricted in the immediate vicinity of the nest until nesting is complete. The 2002 Final IS/MND includes a mitigation measure that requires a pre-construction survey for nesting birds and a protective buffer of 300 feet if any active nests are observed (i.e., M-IV.2). No new mitigation would be required. Structures adjacent to the biological survey area have potential to be used for nesting by raptors. Regulations prohibit activities that “take, possess, or destroy” any raptor nest or egg (California Fish and Game Code §3503, 3503.5, and 3513). Additionally, the noise and disturbance associated with construction may disturb a nesting raptor adjacent to the proposed project. If construction would be initiated during the raptor nesting season (generally between February 1 and August 31), a pre- construction survey would be required to ensure that no raptor nests are impacted. If an active nest is present, construction may be temporarily restricted in the immediate vicinity of the nest until nesting is complete. The 2002 Final IS/MND includes a mitigation measure that requires a pre-construction survey for nesting birds, wh ich would also include nesting raptors, and a protective buffer of 300 feet if any active nests are observed (i.e., M-IV.2). With implementation of existing mitigation measures, the Modified Projec t would result in similar impacts as to the Approved Project.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Section 17.51.040 of the City’s Municipal Code addresses oak tree preservation. No oak tree can be removed on any public or private property within the City except in accordance with the conditions of a valid oak tree permit issued by the City, in conformance with Section 17.23.170 of the Municipal Code. The stair improvements proposed by the Modified Project would not require the removal of any oak trees. As such, the Project would not conflict with the City’s oak tree preservation requirements.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. There are no habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plans, or other habitat conservation plans that are applicable to the Project Site. As such, the Modified Project would have no impact related to this threshold.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required.
Conclusion
The biological resources impact of the Modified Project would be consistent with the impacts identified for the Approved Project, analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. The Modified Project would not Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-18
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the Modified Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new si gnificant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. For these reasons, no major revisions to the biological resources analysis provided in the 2002 IS/MND are required.
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.5.1 PRIOR ANALYSES IN THE 2002 IS/MND
Cultural resources investigations were conducted as part of the preparation of the 2002 IS/MND in 2000. The results from the 2000 cultural resources records search identified six archaeological sites consisting of one precontact archaeological site (prior to the arrival of Europeans) and five historic-era sites (after the arrival of Europeans) within a half-mile of the Project site. None of the six archaeological sites identified were located within the 2002 IS/MND Project site.
Additionally, an archaeological field survey was conducted for the Project on November 2000. No cultural resources were identified during the field survey. The conclusion for the 2002 cultural resources study was that the Project would not impact cultural resources with implementation of mitigation measure M.V.1, which specified procedures if previously unidentified cultural resources were to be encountered during construction.
Mitigation Measures
M.V.1 If previously unidentified cultural resources, including a potential feature or intact deposit, are exposed during ground disturbing construction activities, work shall be halted in that area, and the feature will need to be assessed for significance by a qualified archaeologist.
Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-19
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
4.5.2 MODIFIED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
From
Previous
Analysis
CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Would the Project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis.
A Cultural Resources Memorandum was prepared for the Modified Project by Psomas, which is included as Appendix B of this Addendum (Psomas 2024b). An updated literature review and records search were conducted for the Modified Project in November 2023, which revealed that seven cultural resource studies have been conducted within a half mile of the Project Site. These studies are described below in Table 1. The studies consisted primarily of archaeological surveys, archaeological field studies, and archaeological evaluations. None of the cultural resource studies occurred within or overlapped the Project Site.
Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-20
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION TABLE 1
CULTURAL RESOURCE STUDIES WITHIN ½-MILE OF THE PROJECT SITE Report No. Author(s) (Year) Title
LA-00904 Wlodarski (1979)
An Evaluation of the Impact Upon Cultural Resources by the Proposed Development of Tentative Tracts: 30546, 30562, and 30599 Located in Bouquet Canyon, Los Angeles County,
California
LA-01114 Toren (1976) Assessment of the Archaeologi cal Impact by the Proposed Development of Tract No. 32615 in Valencia, California
LA-02590 Rasson and Greenwood
(1992)
An Archaeological Reconnaissance of Tract 31803, a 220 Acre Parcel in Plum Canyon, Los Angeles County
LA-03690 Wlodarski (1997) Cultural Resources Evaluation, City of Santa Clarita Circulation Element EIR
LA-04843 Allen (1999) Addendum to Cultural Resource s Reassessment of the Camp Joseph Scott Project
LA-05137 Anonymous (1999)
Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Reassessment of the Bouquet Canyon Project, County of Los Angeles (VTT 52192, 52193, and 52194)
LA-12691 Simon (2010) Class III Inventory/Phase I Archae ological Survey of the Fire Station 128 Alternate Site, Los Angeles County, California Source: SCCIC 2023.
Eight archaeological sites were identified within the half mile search radius of the Project, as shown in Table 2. One of the cultural resour ces (P-30-000295) is a precontact rock shelter. The remaining seven cultural resources include six historic-era archaeological and one historic-era built environment (structure). None of the eight cultural resources are located within the Project Site.
TABLE 2
CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN ½-MILE OF THE PROJECT SITE
Primary
Number Trinomial Recorder (Year) Description
P-19-000295 CA-LAN-295 Riddell (1963) Precontact: rock shelter P-19-002040 CA-LAN-002040H Rasson and LeCount (1992) Historic: refuse scatte r P-19-002041 CA-LAN-002041H Rasson and LeCount (1992) Historic: refuse scatte r P-19-002042 CA-LAN-002042H Rasson and LeCount (1992) Historic: refuse scatte r P-19-002043 CA-LAN-002043H Rasson and LeCount Historic: refuse scatter; structural remains
P-19-002044 CA-LAN-002044H Rasson and LeCount (1992) Historic: refuse scatte r P-19-004853 – Roy (2018) Historic: structural remains
P-19-004854 CA-LAN-004854H Roy (20 18) Historic: structural remains; water conveyance system;
remnants of wall
Source: SCCIC 2023.
Based on the cultural resources information from the 2002 IS/MND and 2023 SCCIC literature review and records search discussed above, there are no new cultural resources within the Project Site that would be impacted by the Modified Project. However, it is possible that during Project-related ground disturbance that intact cultural resources may be encountered. Impacts to Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-21
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION such resources would be significant under CEQA. Therefore, the Project would implement mitigation measure.V.1 from the 2002 IS/MND duri ng Project construction to monitor, salvage, and curate any recovered cultural resources associated with the Project to satisfy the requirements of CEQA.
With implementation of mitigation measure V 1 im pacts related to historical and archeological resources would be less than significant.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. There is no indication that there are any formal or informal cemeteries or burial sites present at the Project site, and it is unlikely that human remains would be discovered during Project development. In the event that human remains are discovered during grading activities, the Project would adhere to all State and local regulations and policies, including California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Section 15064.5, and PRC Section 5097.98, to addresses procedures to follow the discovery of human remains.
Compliance with these regulations would ensure that impacts to human remains would not occur.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required.
Conclusion
The cultural resources impact of the Modified Pr oject would be consistent with the impacts identified for the Approved Project, analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. The Modified Project would not create a new significant impact or a subst antial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the Modified Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND For these reasons, no major revisions to the cultural resources analysis provided in the 2002 IS/MND are required.
4.6 ENERGY
4.6.1 PRIOR ANALYSES IN THE 2002 IS/MND
The 2002 IS/MND did not directly address energy impacts because energy analysis was not part of the required CEQA Checklist at the time that the 2002 IS/MND was adopted. Effective December 28, 2018, the State of California adopted amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines requiring the analysis of energy as a separate topic in CEQA documents.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were required.
Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-22
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
4.6.2 MODIFIED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
From
Previous
Analysis
ENERGY – Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnece ssary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Would the Project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The following analysis evaluates the Modified Project’s potential to increase the demand for energy through construction and operation of the Project, day-to-day operations, and fuel consumption associated with construction.
Energy Consumption During Construction
Construction activities would require energy for activities such as the manufacturing and transportation of building materials, grading activities, building construction, paving, and architectural coatings. Construction of the Pr oject would require diesel and gasoline to fuel construction equipment. The Project would result in a minor amount of additional construction activities associated with the new lights and stairs that are proposed with the Modified Project.
No unusual Project characteristics would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or the State, or from what could have been previously assumed when the 2002 IS/MND was circulated for public review. In addition, construction activities would not result in an inefficient use of energy as gasoline and diesel fuel would be supplied by c onstruction contractors who would conserve the use of their supplies to minimize their costs on the Project. The Project would not cause or result in the need for additional energy facilities or an additional or expanded delivery system. As such, fuel consumption during construction would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary.
Energy Use During Operations
Operational energy use is typically associated with natural gas use, electricity consumption, and fuel used for vehicle trips associated with a project. As stated in the 2002 IS/MND, the Project was expected to result in nominal additional traffic when compared to pre-Project conditions. The Modified Project has the potential to result in minor increases in the usage of the park through the addition of new amenities, lit ball fields and stairs that will be used for exercise purposes.
Also, the proposed sports field lighting would result in energy consumption. The energy consumption for the new lighting fixtures that are proposed as part of the Modified Project was Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-23
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION calculated based on the number of kilowatts each fixture of lighting would consume and the hours the lighting would be operating under typical conditions. Energy consumption was calculated for a typical day in the winter (December [5 hours coinciding with sun setting at 5:00 PM and park closure at 10:00 PM]) as well as a typical day in the summer (June [2 hours coinciding with sun setting at 8:00 PM and park closure at 10:00 PM]). Table 3 depicts the energy consumption for a typical day.
TABLE 3
ENERGY CONSUMPTION FOR A TYPICAL DAY
Baseball
Field
Lighting
(Winter
Day)
Baseball
Field
Lighting
(Summer
Day)
Basketball
Court
Lighting
(Winter
Day)
Basketball
Court
Lighting
(Summer
Day)
Walkway
Parking
Lighting
(Winter
Day)
Walkway
Parking
Lighting
(Summer
Day)
Total Energy
Consumption
(Winter Day)
Total Energy
Consumption
(Summer Day)
Energy
consumption
(kW)
33.90 kW 33.90 kW 2.16 kW 2.16 kW 3.12 kW 3.12 kW 39.20 kW 39.20 kW Hours of
operation 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2
Total Energy
consumption
(kWH)
169.50
kWH
67.80 kWH 10.80 kWH 4.32 kWH 15.60 kWH 6.24 kWH 196.00 kWH 78.40 kWH Source: Musco Lighting, LLC 2023
As shown in Table 3, the total energy consumption for all of the lighting fixtures would be 196 kWH during a typical winter evening and 78 kWH during a typical summer evening. The baseball field lighting would consume a total of 169 kWH of electricity during a typical winter evening and 68 kWH of electricity during a typical summer evening. Meanwhile, the lighting for the basketball court would consume a total of 11 kWH of electricity during a typical winter evening and 4 kWH of electricity during a typical summer evening. Lastly, the walkways and parking lot lighting would consume a total of 16 kWH of electricity during a typical winter evening and 6 kWH of electricity during a typical summer evening.
Additionally, the Project would comply with the current CALGreen Code and the Energy Efficiency Code regarding energy conservation and green building standards. Electrical demand associated with the Modified Project operations would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary since it supports the use of local recreational facilities. The Project would be required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency, which would substantially reduce energy usage. The Project would not cause or result in the need for additional energy facilities or an additional or expanded delivery system. The Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to energy and no new mitigation measures are required.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project would meet the latest California CALGreen Code, which includes the latest in energy efficiency standards. The Modified Project was analyzed for consistency with the State’s adopted 2022 Integrated Energy Policy Report. The plan calls for the State to embed equity and environmental justice programs agency- wide, expand the State’s analysis of the climate benefits of hydrogen and engage in the federal Hydrogen Hub initiative, and the transition away from petroleum fuels and toward reliable and equitable transportation fuels. In addition, the Integrated Energy Policy Report provides the results Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-24
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION of the California Energy Commission’s (CEC’s) assessments of a variety of energy issues facing California.
Energy usage during construction of the Modi fied Project would be temporary in nature and relatively small in comparison to the overall energy usage in the City. In addition, energy usage associated with operation of the Project would be relatively minimal in comparison to the overall use in Santa Clarita, and the State’s available energy resources. Therefore, energy impacts at the regional level would be negligible. Because California’s energy conservation planning actions are conducted at a regional level, and because the Modified Project’s total impact on regional energy supplies would be minimal, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct California’s energy conservation plans as described in the CEC’s Integrated Energy Policy Report. Evaluate the Project with the IEP Report mentioned above. Additionally, the Project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy, as detailed above. Therefore, the Project would not lead to new or substantially mo re severe significant impacts associated with consistency with plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to energy that was not previously analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are required.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required.
Conclusion
The energy impacts of the Modified Project were not previously analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND.
The Modified Project would not create a new significant impact. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the Modified Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. For these reasons, no significant impacts related to energy would occur due to the Project.
4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
4.7.1 PRIOR ANALYSES IN THE 2002 IS/MND
The 2002 IS/MND concluded that implementation of the Approved Project would not expose people or structures to adverse effects involving rupture of a fault located in an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone. It was determined that there are no Alquist-Priolo zones within the vicinity of the Approved Project site. Additionally, new development would be required to comply with the building design standards of the California Building Code (CBC). Compliance with applicable regulations would ensure that impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking remain at a less than significant level.
The 2002 IS/MND also concluded that the Approved Project would not alter topography within the Project area. The IS/MND states that minimal excavation would occur, and vegetation would be planted after construction; therefore, no significant erosion impacts were expected, and no mitigation was required related to geology and soils.
Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-25
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Additionally, the Approved Project does not involve the development of habitable structures; the restroom/maintenance building associated with the approved Project would be built in compliance with uniform building codes to ensure stable soils before construction. Therefore, no impacts from unstable soils were expected to occur from implementation of the Approved Project.
The 2002 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project site consists of surficial soils, which are classified as non-expansive soils. Therefore, there would be no impact due to expansive soils and no mitigation measures are required.
The Approved Project would not involve the use of septic tanks to handle its wastewater generation. Therefore, no impacts were anticipated to result from project implementation and no mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were required.
4.7.2 MODIFIED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
From
Previous
Analysis
GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly c ause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthqu ake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geolog ist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-26
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Would the Project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The closest fault to the Project Site is the San Gabriel fault, located approximately 1.5 mile southwest of the Project Site. As stated in the 2002 IS/MND, since earthquake-related hazards cannot be avoided in the Southern California region, the Project Site could be subjected to ground motion which could affect structures and/or park facilities. The proposed features of the Modified Project, the lighting fixtures and exercise stairs, would be designed and built in compliance with earthquake-resistant standards required by existing building codes (e.g., Title 24 of the State Building Code). Habitable structures are not included in the Modified Project, and all proposed structures would be constructed in compliance with uniform building codes. Therefore, the Modified Project is not expected to increase the risk of exposure of people to impacts involving fault rupture and seismic ground shaking. Therefore, the Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to rupture of a known earthquake fault that was not previously analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are required.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. ii) Strong seismic groundshaking?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Properties in southern California are subject to seismic hazards of varying degrees depending upon the proximity, degree of activity, and capability of nearby faults. These hazards can be primary (i.e., directly related to the energy release of an earthquake, such as surface rupture and ground shaking) or secondary (i.e., related to the effect of earthquake energy on the physical world, which can cause phenomena such as liquefaction and ground lurching). Since there are no active faults at the site, the potential for primary ground rupture is considered very low. According to the 2002 IS/MND, the primary seismic hazard for this site is ground shaking due to a future earthquake on one of the major regional active faults. However, implementation of current codes and regulations identified in the City’s Municipal Code would ensure that potential impac ts related to seismic ground shaking would be less than significant, and as such no risk of loss, injury, or death would be anticipated. Therefore, the Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to strong seismic ground shaking that was not previously analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are required.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis . Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, granular soils behave similarly to a fluid when subject to high-intensity ground shaking. Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions coexist, shallow groundwater; low density non-cohesive (granular) soils; and high-intensity ground motion. Studies indicate that saturated, loose near surface cohesionless soils exhibit the highest liquefaction potential, while Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-27
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION dry, dense, cohesionless soils and cohesive soils exhibit low to negligible liquefaction potential.
Effects of liquefaction on level ground include settlement, sand boils, and bearing capacity failures below structures. Earthquake-induced landslides o ccur in areas where previous landslides have occurred and in areas where the topographic, geologic, geotechnical, and subsurface groundwater conditions are conducive to permanent ground displacements.
The Modified Project does not consist of habitable structures and would be built in compliance with uniform building codes to ensure stable soils before construction. As such no risk of loss, injury, or death would be anticipated as a result of the Modified Project.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Consistent with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would not substantially alter topography within the Project Site. Minimal excavation would occur for the installation of the light fixtures and exercise stairs. Vegetation would be planted after construction and the Project Site would be stabilized. As such, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to substantial erosion or the loss of topsoil that was not previously analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are required.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Consistent with the analysis for the Approved Project, no habitable structures would be developed as part of the Modified Project. Furthermore, compliance with uniform building codes would ensure stability of soils and the Project Site during and following construction. As such, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to soil instability that was not previously analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are required.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis . Expansive soils are materials that, when subject to a constant load, are prone to expansion when exposed to water. As discussed in the 2002 IS/MND, the Project Site consists of surfic ial soils, which are classified as non-expansive soils. As a result, there would be no impact due to expansive soils and no mitigation measures were required.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required.
Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-28
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis . The Modified Project does not propose the use of any septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. As such, the Modified Project would have no impact related to this threshold.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis . The 2002 IS/MND did not identify any paleontological resources within the Project Site. Given that there are no known paleontological resources within the Project Site, the Modified Project would result in no impact related to this threshold and no mitigation is required.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required.
Conclusion
The geology and soils, including paleontological resources, impacts of the Modified Project would be consistent with the impacts identified for the Approved Project, analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND.
The Modified Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the Modified Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become known that was not pr eviously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. For these reasons, no major revisions to the geology and soils and paleontological resources analysis provided in the 2002 IS/MND are required.
4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.8.1 PRIOR ANALYSES IN THE 2002 IS/MND
Although the topic of greenhouse gas emissions was not part of the Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines at the time the 2002 IS/MND was prepared, the issue of GHG emissions and climate change impacts is not new information that was not known or could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the 2002 IS/MND. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was established in 1992. The regulation of GHG emissions to reduce climate change impacts was extensively deb ated and analyzed throughout the early 1990s. The studies and analyses of this issue resulted in the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. Many IS/MNDs from 2002 and earlier described how climate change (often called global warming) would result in sea-level rise and other environmental changes. At the time of approval of the 2002 IS/MND, the contribution of GHG emissions to climate change was a prominent issue of concern. Therefore, the fact that GHG emissions could have a significant adverse environmental Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-29
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION impact was known at the time the Approved Project was approved and the 2002 IS/MND was adopted. Although the City finds that the issue of GHG impacts and climate change is not “new information” under PRC Section 21166, the following analysis for the Modified Project is provided for informational purposes. However, the 2002 IS/MND did not evaluate the effects of GHG emissions or consistency with GHG reduction plans.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were required.
4.8.2 MODIFIED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
From
Previous
Analysis
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, ei ther directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Would the Project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Demolition and construction activities associated with the Modified Project would produce combustion emissions. For example, during construction GHGs would be emitted through the operation of construction equipment and from worker and builder supply vendor vehicles, each of which typically uses fossil-based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil-based fuels creates GHGs such as carbon dioxide (CO 2),
methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (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.
Construction of the Modified Project would not involve the use of construction equipment beyond the following pieces of equipment, identified in the 2002 IS/MND for the Approved Project: one loader, one dozer, one backhoe, one water pump, one concrete pump, one paver, and one truck crane. Additionally, construction would not extend beyond the sixth month period established in the 2002 IS/MND for the Approved Project.
The Modified Project involves installation of sports field lighting and exercise stairs; as such, development of the Modified Project is not expected to generate new daily trips during operations.
The use of lighting would enable the recreational facilities to be used for a larger portion of the day and greater amount of GHG emissions associated with vehicle trips and energy consumption.
However, the relatively small magnitude of recreational uses for a neighborhood park with a single baseball field, basketball court and other small ameni ties would still not result in a substantial amount of GHG emissions even with greater use of the facilities with nighttime lighting. As such, operation and construction of the Modified Project would not generate significant GHG emissions Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-30
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION that would have a significant effect on the environment. As such, the Modified Project would not lead to new or substantially more severe significant impacts associated with operational GHG emissions, and no new mitigation measures are required.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis . An evaluation of the Modified Project’s consistency with the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP), the 2022 Scoping Plan, and the 2020– 2045 RTP/SCS is provided below.
City of Santa Clarita Climate Action Plan
The City of Santa Clarita has a CAP, which identifies the City’s vision and goals on achieving greenhouse gas emission reductions in the community. As stated in the 2002 IS/MND, the Project site is a neighborhood park facility; as such, many of the park’s visitors would arrive on foot or by alternative means of transportation (bicycle, etc.) from nearby residences. Moreover, operation of the lighting fixtures and exercise stairs would not generate a significant number of new trips and would result in a nominal increase in energy consumption and GHG emissions compared to the uses within the Approved Project. Moreover, the Modified Project would meet the latest California CALGreen Code and Energy Efficiency Code, which include the latest in energy efficiency standards, consistent with the goals of the City’s CAP. As such, the Modified Project would not conflict with the City’s CAP.
2022 Scoping Plan
The 2022 Scoping Plan assesses the State’s progress towards achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier through the reduction of emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels. The Scoping Plan takes an aggressive approach to decreasing fossil fuel use and decarbonization of every sector of emissions. Measures include moving to zero-emission transportation, phasing out the use of fossil fuel gas used for heating, reduction in the use of chemicals and refrigerants with high global warming potential, development of sustainable infrastructure that provides opportunities for walking, biking and public transit to reduce reliance on automobiles, and development of renewable energy. As stated previously, and consistent with the 2002 IS/MND, the Project site is a neighborhood park facility; as such, many of the park’s visitors would arrive on foot or by alternative means of transportation (bicycle, etc.) from nearby residences. Moreover, operation of the lighting fixtures and exercise stairs woul d not generate substantially more trips and would result in a nominal increase in energy consumption compared to the uses within the Approved Project. As such, the Modified Project would not conflict with the 2022 Scoping Plan. 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy On September 3, 2020, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) adopted Connect SoCal–The 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020–2045 RTP/SCS).
In general, the SCS outlines a development pattern for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from automobiles and light-duty trucks and thereby reduce GHG emissions from these s ources. For the SCAG region, CARB has set GHG reduction targets at 8 percent below 2005 per capita emissions levels by 2020, and 19 percent below 2005 per capita emissions levels by 2035. The RTP/SCS lays out a strategy for Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-31
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION the region to meet these targets. Overall, the SCS is meant to provide growth strategies that would achieve the regional GHG emissions reduction targets. Land use strategies to achieve the region’s targets include planning for new growth around high-quality transit areas and livable corridors and creating neighborhood mobility areas to integrate land use and transportation and plan for more active lifestyles. As stated previously, and in the 2002 IS/MND, the Project Site is a neighborhood park facility; as such, many of the park’s visitors would arrive on foot or by alternative means of transportation (bicycle, etc.) from nearby residences. Consistent with the RTP/SCS, the Project promotes neighborhood mobility areas and meets local recreation needs such that local residents would not need to commute further for recreational resources. Moreover, the Project would not conflict with any of the goals or strategies within the RTP/SCS.
Overall, the Modified Project would comply with existing State regulations adopted to achieve the overall GHG emissions reduction goals identified in AB 32 and would be consistent with applicable plans and programs designed to reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, the Modified Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. The impacts would be less than significant, and no new mitigation measures are required.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required.
Conclusion
In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the Modified Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. For these reasons, no significant impacts related to GHG emissions would occur due to the Project.
4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.9.1 PRIOR ANALYSES IN THE 2002 IS/MND
As identified in the 2002 IS/MND, implementation of the Approved Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to hazardous materials. The 2002 IS/MND determined that there are no hazardous materials identified within the Project Site. Additionally, oversight by the appropriate federal, State, and local agencies and compliance with applicable regulations related to the handling and storage of hazardous materials would minimize the risk of the public’s potential exposure to these substances. Therefore, impacts were considered less than significant.
Additionally, the 2002 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project Site is located approximately ten miles northeast of Agua Dulce Airport. Accordingly, the Approved Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area or visiting the park. No mitigation measures are required.
The 2002 IS/MND also determined that the Approved Project would not interfere with a current emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan for local, state or federal agencies.
Access to all local roads would be maintained during construction. Any emergency procedures would be implemented within local, state, and federal guidelines during construction and operation Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-32
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION of the Approved project. Therefore, no significant impacts were anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
Furthermore, according to the 2002 IS/MND, implementation of the Approved project would not expose people or structures to fire hazard from flammable brush, grass or trees. Standard safety procedures and best management practices would be employed during construction, minimizing the potential risk for accidents to occur, including fires. Also, on-site landscaping would be maintained and watered regularly so as to reduce fire hazard impacts. Accordingly, implementation of the Approved Project would not pose a long-term fire hazard. No mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were required.
4.9.2 MODIFIED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
From
Previous
Analysis
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emission s or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a signi ficant hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or ph ysically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Would the Project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-33
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Consistent with the Approved Project, there are no hazardous materials identified within the Project Site, or within the immediate vicinity of the Project Site. Additionally, oversight by the appropriate federal, State, and local agencies and compliance with applicable regulations related to the handling and storage of hazardous materials would minimize the risk of the public’s potential exposure to these substances. Therefore, the Modified Project’s impact on creating long-term significant hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant.
The nearest school to the Modified Project Site is Plum Canyon Elementary School, located approximately 0.16 mile east of the Project Site. Operations of the Modified Project would not involve activities that could emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Project construction would not involve the transport of hazardous materials beyond what was identified in the 2002 IS/MND. As such, the Project would have less than significant impacts related to the emission of hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
Additionally, consistent with the findings of the 2002 IS/MND, the Project site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (CalEPA 2023).
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis . The Project Site is not located within an adopted Airport Land Use Plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest airport to the Modified Project site is Agua Dulce Airport, located approximately ten miles northeast of the Project site. As such, the Modified Project would have no impact related to this threshold.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required.
Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-34
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project would not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan, including the California Emergency Management System (SEMS) , adopted by the City, and the City’s 2003 Multihazard Functional Plan.
The Modified Project involves the development of exercise stairs and sports field lighting; as such, the Modified Project would not interfere with implementation of an adopted emergency response plan.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project involves the development of exercise stairs and sports field lighting within a park. As such, the Modified Project would not develop any habitable structures that would be exposed to wildfires.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required.
Conclusion
The hazards and hazardous materials impacts of the Modified Project would be consistent with the impacts identified for the Approved Projec t, analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. The Modified Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the Modified Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become known that was not pr eviously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. For these reasons, no major revisions to the hazards and hazardous materials analysis provided in the 2002 IS/MND are required.
Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-35
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.10.1 PRIOR ANALYSES IN THE 2002 IS/MND
The 2002 IS/MND determined that the implementation of the Approved Project would result in less than significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality. Water quality standards and waste discharge requirements would not be violated with compliance with regulations including, but not limited to, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Construction General Permit and preparation and implementation of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) required for compliance with the National Poll ution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Stormwater Activity Permit. Impacts to violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements were deemed less than significant.
Further, the 2002 IS/MND identified that implementation of the Approved Project would reduce impervious surface area of the site by less than 0.25 acre. As such, it was determined that the Approved Project would not noticeably affect the local groundwater supply and no mitigation measures were required.
Regarding drainage and erosion, the 2002 IS/MND determined that minimal grading would be required to prepare the Approved Project site for construction and, therefore, existing drainage patterns would be maintained, and runoff from the park would be directed to the local storm drain network. Runoff from the Approved Project site would drain to one of two storm drains along the eastern boundary of the site or to the curbside storm drains along Via Joyce Drive or Plum Canyon Road.
The 2002 IS/MND also states that minor improv ements on existing surface drainage structure may be required in the northeast corner of the Project site to avoid drainage problems at the previously proposed tennis court site; however, such issues were determined to be less than significant and would be resolved during the detailed design phase of the project. No erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site was anticipated to occur. Therefore, no significant impacts were expected to occur; no mitigation measures were required.
The 2002 IS/MND states that because no housing was proposed for the Approved Project and the Project site was not located within an area designated as 100-year or 500-year flood plain, implementation of the Approved Project would not subject people or structures to significant flooding impacts. No mitigation measures were required.
The Approved Project site was not located near a body of water; therefore, the 2002 IS/MND determined that potential for inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow is very low, if non-existent.
Accordingly, implementation of the Approved Project would not subject people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No mitigation measures were required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were required.
Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-36
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
4.10.2 MODIFIED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
From
Previous
Analysis
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise subs tantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
b) Substantially decrease grou ndwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;
ii) substantially increase the ra te or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or pl anned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substant ial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct im plementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Would the Project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project involves the development of exercise stairs and sports field lighting. Operation of these facilities would not increase stormwater runoff or stormwater contamination.
Short-term construction impacts from the Modified Project would be minimized through compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit. This permit, which requires filing a notice of intent (NOI) with the State Water Resources Control Board, requires the development and implementation of a SWPPP, which must include (1) erosion and sediment-control BMPs that meet or exceed measures required by the Construction General Permit and (2) BMPs that control other potential construction-related pollutants. A SWPPP would be developed as required by, and in compliance with, the NPDES Construction General Permit.
Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-37
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Therefore, the Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to short- and long- term potential water quality-related impacts that was not previously analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are required.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project would result in a minor increase in impervious surface coverage related to the exercise stairs. However, this minor amount of stormwater would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge. Otherwise, the Modified Project would not involve any groundwater extraction or usage.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project would not result in increased erosion or siltation given that a SW PPP would be implemented during construction to minimize stormwater effects.
The Modified Project would result in a minor increase in impervious surface coverage related to the exercise stairs. However, this minor amount of stormwater would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge. Otherwise, the Modified Project would not involve any groundwater extraction or usage.
The Modified Project does not occur within a floodplain nor does the Project Site contain any major drainages. As such, the Modified Project would have no potential impacts related to impeding or redirecting flood flows.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required.
Environmental Checklist
DAVID MARCH PARK 4-38
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
The Modified Project site is not located near a body of water; therefore, there is minimal potential for inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. Accordingly, implementation of the Modified Project would not subject people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No mitigation measures are required.
Therefore, the Project would not result in new significant impacts pertaining to flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche that would release pollutants due to inundation, that were not previously analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are required.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project would not result in increased erosion or siltation given that a SWPPP would be implemented during construction to minimize stormwater effects. As such, the Modified Project would not impair implementation of a water quality control plan.
The Modified Project would not involve direct withdrawals of groundwater, nor would it interfere with groundwater recharge such that it would result in a net deficit in aquifer volume or lowering of the local groundwater table. As such, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to sustainable groundwater management plan that was not previously analyzed, and no new mitigation measures are required.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required.
Conclusion
The hydrology and water quality impacts of the Modified Project would be consistent with the impacts identified for the Approved Project, analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND . The Modified Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the Modified Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in severity of pr evious effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. For these reasons, no major revisions to the hydrology and water quality analysis provided in the 2002 IS/MND are required.
Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-39
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
4.11.1 PRIOR ANALYSES IN THE 2002 IS/MND
The 2002 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would not physically divide an established community, as the Project site consisted of open space at the time of analysis.
Additionally, at the time of preparation of the 2002 IS/MND the Approved Project site was located in an unincorporated area of Los Angeles County.
Development in this area was governed by local and regional plans including the County of Los Angeles General Plan and the Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan. The general plan land use designation for the site was Urban I, which allows for low-density residential development (1.1 to
3.3 units per acre). The site was zoned as Residential Planned Development (RPD). This land use designation and zoning classification allows for public park uses, such as the Approved Project. As such, it was determined that the Approved Project would not conflict with general plan or zoning designations. No mitigation measures were required.
The California Department of Fish and Game's Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) program incorporates a broad-based ecosystem approach to planning for the protection and perpetuation of biological diversity. The 2002 IS/MND determined that there were no active NCCP areas in the vicinity of the project si te. The nearest such NCCP area was located on the Palos Verdes Peninsula nearly 50 miles south of the Approved Project site. Also, there were no HCP planning areas in the immediate vicinity of the Approved Project site. Therefore, it was concluded that the Approved project would not conflict with any habitat conservation plans or natural communities conservation plans. No mitigation measures were required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were required.
4.11.2 MODIFIED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
From
Previous
Analysis
LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environm ental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-40
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Would the Project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project would result in a minor increase in impervious surface coverage related to the exercise stairs. As such, the Modified Project would not result in any physical division of established communities.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis . The Project Site is designated as a General Plan designation of Open Space (OS) and a Zoning designation of Open Space (OS). Both OS designations allow for active open space uses, including public and private parks. The Modified Project involves the development of exercise stairs and sports field lighting. These additional uses and facilities would be consistent with these land use and planning designations.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required.
Conclusion
The land use and planning impacts of the Modified Pr oject would be consistent with the impacts identified for the Approved Project, analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. The Modified Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the Modified Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. For these reasons, no major revisions to the land use and planning analysis provided in the 2002 IS/MND are required.
4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
4.12.1 PRIOR ANALYSES IN THE 2002 IS/MND
Regarding mineral resources, the 2002 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would involve the use of construction materials, which include non-renewable resources. However, the construction of the Approved project would follow industry standards and would not use non- renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. Additionally, it was determined that the Approved Project would not result in the loss of availability of any mineral resource that would be of future value; therefore, it was concluded that there was no potential for significant impacts related to mineral resources.
Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-41
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were required.
4.12.2 MODIFIED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
From
Previous
Analysis
MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of avail ability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availabi lity of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Would the Project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project involves the development of exercise stairs and sports field lighting. These Project features have no potential to result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. Furthermore, the Project Site is located adjacent to residential uses making the Project Site impractical for use for mineral extraction.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required.
Conclusion
The mineral resources impacts of the Modified Project would be consistent with the impacts identified for the Approved Project, analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. The Modified Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the Modified Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. For these reasons, no substantial changes to the mineral resources analysis provided in the 2002 IS/MND are required.
Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-42
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
4.13 NOISE
4.13.1 PRIOR ANALYSES IN THE 2002 IS/MND
The 2002 IS/MND determined that the implementation of the Approved Project would result in less than significant impacts related to construction noise with the implementation of mitigation measures M-XI.1, M-XI.2, and M-XI.3. The 2002 IS/MND also concluded that noise levels associated with traffic generation resulting from the operation of the Modified project is not expected to increase nor affect the ambient noise levels. It is important to note that the 2002 IS/MND did not analyze construction vibration.
The 2002 IS/MND concluded that the Approved Pr oject would not expose people residing or working in the project area or people visiting the project site to excessive noise levels from airports or airstrips since there are no public or private airstrips and airports located within two miles of the Project site.
Mitigation Measures
The 2002 IS/MND determined that the following mi tigation measures would be required to address noise generated during Project construction:
M-XI.l Project construction shall comply with the County .of Los Angeles Noise Code.
Construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Mondays-Fridays; prior written approval shall be obtained to conduct construction activities on Saturdays between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. No construction shall occur on Sundays and legal holidays.
M-XI.2 All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained muffling devices.
M-XI.3 Temporary noise mufflers and noise attenuating devices, particularly along the northern boundary of the project site adjacent to the single-family residences, shall be employed to reduce noise generated during construction.
Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-43
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
4.13.2 MODIFIED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
From
Previous
Analysis
NOISE – Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive gr oundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vi cinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Would the Project:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis.
Temporary Increases in Ambient Noise
Two types of temporary noise impacts would occur during construction (i.e., temporary increases in ambient noise levels): (1) equipment delivery and construction worker commutes; and (2) construction operations. The first type of temporar y (short-term) construction noise would result from transport of construction equipment and materials to the Project site and construction worker commutes. The 2002 IS/MND assumed that construction would consist of one loader, one dozer, one backhoe, one water pump, one concrete pump, one paver, and one truck crane over a six- month timeframe. There would be no substantial change in the number or type of construction equipment from what was contemplated in the 2002 IS/MND.
Permanent Increases in Ambient Noise
Potential sources of noise during operation could include evening sporting events, which may not have been possible without the provision of lighting for the sports fields.
Traffic Noise Impacts to Off-Site Receivers
Consistent with the findings in the 2002 IS/MND, the implementation of the Modified Project would not result in significant changes to traffic generation. Therefore, noise levels associated with traffic generation resulting from the operation of the Modified Project is not expected to increase nor affect the ambient noise levels.
Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-44
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis.
Short-term Vibration Impacts
The 2002 IS/MND did not analyze construction vibration. Nevertheless, ground-borne noise and vibration from construction activity would be mostly low to moderate given the number and type of equipment that would be utilized to implement the Project. Vibration impacts of the Modified Project would be similar to what could have reasonably been assumed for the Approved Project.
Long-term Vibration Impacts
The 2002 IS/MND did not evaluate potential long-term vibration impacts. The streets surrounding the Project Site are paved, smooth, and unlikely to cause significant ground-borne vibration. It is therefore assumed that no such vehicular vibration impacts would occur, and no vibration impact analysis of on-road vehicles is necessary. Additionally, once constructed, the Modified Project would facilitate evening recreational activities such as basketball and little-league baseball games. These type of activities do not typically generate ground-borne vibration. Therefore, the Modified Project would not lead to new or substantially more severe significant impacts associated with long-term vibration impacts, and no new mitigation measures are required.
Conclusion
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis.
The 2002 IS/MND determined that there
would be no impact pertaining to aircraft noise exposure. Since the Project Site is not located within an airport land use plan, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip, the Modified Project would not expose people residing or working in the area or people visiting the Project site to excessive noise levels from airports or airstrips. As such, the Modified Project would have no impact related to this threshold.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required.
Conclusion
The noise impacts of the Modified Project would be consistent with the impacts identified in the 2002 IS/MND. The Modified Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the Modified Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-45
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. For these reasons, no major revisions to the noise analysis provided in the 2002 IS/MND are required.
4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
4.14.1 PRIOR ANALYSES IN THE 2002 IS/MND
The 2002 IS/MND determined that no impacts would occur related to population and housing.
The Approved Project would not have any growth-inducing effects, as it was a response to an existing need for recreational facilities. Additionally, the Approved Project site was vacant at the time the IS/MND was prepared; as such, the Approved Project did not involve the removal of land uses, particularly residential land uses, from the Project site. It was therefore determined that no existing housing or residents would be displaced as a result of the Approved Project. No mitigation measures were required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were required.
4.14.2 MODIFIED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
From
Previous
Analysis
POPULATION AND HOUSING–Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial number of existing people or housing, necessitating the constructi on of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Would the Project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis.
Consistent with the conclusions of the 2002 IS/MND, the Modified Project would not have any growth-inducing effects. The Modified Project invo lves the development of exercise stairs and sports field lighting within a park. Therefore, the Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth.
Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-46
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis . The Project Site does not contain any housing. As such, the Modified Project would have no impact related to this threshold.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required.
Conclusion
The population and housing impacts of the Modified Project would be consistent with the impacts identified for the Approved Project, analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. The Modified Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the Modified Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. For these reasons, no major revisions to the population and housing analysis provided in the 2002 IS/MND are required.
4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
4.15.1 PRIOR ANALYSES IN THE 2002 IS/MND
The 2002 IS/MND found that impacts to fire services from implementation of the Approved Project were less than significant. Because the Approved Project was not anticipated to generate a significant fire hazard, the demand for fire protection services in the area was not expected to increase. Likewise, the Approved Project was not anticipated to generate a significant demand for police protection services in the area because of its size and purpose of use. No mitigation measures were necessary.
Similarly, the 2002 IS/MND concluded that the Approved Project would not have any growth- inducing effects. Most of the visitors of the local park would be from the adjacent residential and neighboring areas; therefore, no impacts on school enrollment, parks, or other public facilities were expected. No mitigation measures were necessary.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were required.
Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-47
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
4.15.2 MODIFIED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
From
Previous
Analysis
PUBLIC SERVICES–Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associat ed with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental fa cilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Would the Project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities (libraries)?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Consistent with the conclusions of the 2002 IS/MND, the Modified Project would not have any grow th-inducing effects. Most of the visitors of the local park would be from the adjacent residential and neighboring areas; therefore, no substantial impacts on fire protection, police protection, school enrollment, parks, or other public facilities were expected. The park would require fire and police emergency response; however, the Project Site already generates demands for these public services. As such, the Modified Project would have a less than significant impact related to this threshold.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required.
Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-48
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Conclusion
The public services impacts of the Modified Project would be consistent with the impacts identified for the Approved Project, analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. The Modified Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the Modified Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impac ts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. For these reasons, no major revisions to the public services analysis provided in the 2002 IS/MND are required.
4.16 RECREATION
4.16.1 PRIOR ANALYSES IN THE 2002 IS/MND
The 2002 IS/MND determined that no impacts would occur related to recreation. The 2002 IS/MND concluded that The Approved Project would not increase demand for neighborhood or regional parks. Conversely, the Approved Project would provide additional recreational opportunities by providing the community with recreational facilities, children's play area, a multi- purpose field, and picnic areas.
Additionally, the 2002 IS/MND determined that, at the time of analysis, the Santa Clarita Valley Regional Planning Area, which includes the Project Site, would have a deficiency of 233.7 acres of local parkland. The Approved Project would involve development of a local park to increase recreational opportunities in the community, sli ghtly alleviating the deficiency in recreation facilities in the area. As such, no impacts would occur and no mitigation measures were necessary related to recreation.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were required.
4.16.2 MODIFIED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
From
Previous
Analysis
RECREATION–Would the project:
(a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational fa cilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-49
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Would the Project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project consists of exercise stairs and sports field lighting, which are being implemented along with a comprehensive redevelopment of David March Park. Any ongoing deterioration would be prevented by the City through the implementation of routine maintenance.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project would include the development of exercise stairs and sports field lighting. The potential environmental effects of the development and operation of these proposed stairs and lighting are evaluated herein within this Addendum and in the 2002 IS/MND.
Since the Modified Project does not involve residential land uses that would increase the demand for recreational facilities, the Modified Project would not result in a substantial increased demand for recreational facilities, requiring the construction of new parks that would adversely affect the environment.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required.
Conclusion
The recreation impacts of the Modified Project would be consistent with the impacts identified for the Approved Project, analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. The Modified Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the Modified Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new informati on has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impac ts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. For these reasons, no major revisions to the recreation analysis provided in the 2002 IS/MND are required.
Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-50
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
4.17 TRANSPORTATION
4.17.1 PRIOR ANALYSES IN THE 2002 IS/MND
The 2002 IS/MND Transportation/Circulation analysis evaluated existing traffic conditions, future traffic conditions with implementation of Phase I of the Approved Project, and traffic conditions following implementation of Phase II of the Approved Project.
The Approved Project is a neighborhood park facility. As such, many of the park’s visitors would arrive on foot or by alternative means of transportation (bicycle, etc.) from nearby residences. On the busiest day of the week, Saturday, the 2002 IS/MND determined that 86 vehicular trips would occur. As such, it was determined that nearby intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service during operation of the Approved Project as no significant increases in average delay times and volume-to capacity ratios would be expected.
Additionally, the 2002 IS/MND concluded that no impacts would occur related to geometric design features. The analysis states that the Approved Project and the parking lot would meet all applicable design and safety requirements; therefore, no hazards associated with a design feature would occur. No mitigation measures were required related to geometric design features and related roadway hazards.
It was determined that no changes in access to emergency facilities or nearby land uses would occur as a result of implementation of the Approved Project, and no mitigation measures were required.
Furthermore, the 2002 IS/MND found that impacts related to parking capacity would be less than significant, as a total of 15 parking spaces would be provided under each phase of park construction (for a total of 30 parking spaces at project buildout). As such, the 2002 IS/MND concluded that peak hour trip generation would not exceed the available parking supply. In the event that additional parking is needed, street parking would be available along Via Joyce Drive.
Impacts related to parking supply were determined to be less 'than significant; therefore, no mitigation measures was required.
The IS/MND concluded that the Approved Project would not conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. As discussed above, many park users would arrive on foot or by other non-vehicular means of transportation. To accommodate bicycle riders, bicycle racks would be provided as part of the Approved Project. No mitigation measures were required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were required.
Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-51
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
4.17.2 MODIFIED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
From
Previous
Analysis
TRANSPORTATION – Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazar ds due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? The Modified Project involves the implementation of exercise stairs and sports field lighting. The Modified Project does not propose any changes to the circulation system, nor is the Modified Project anticipated to increase the number of trips to/from the Project Site.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. On September 27, 2013, Senate Bill (SB) 743 was signed into law and started a process that would change transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA compliance. Accordingly, transportation analyses for CEQA require analysis of transportation impacts using vehicle miles traveled (VMT) metrics instead of level of service (LOS), which was previously the metric used for CEQA transportation analyses. On January 20, 2016, the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released revisions to its proposed State CEQA Guidelines for the implementation of SB 743, and final review and rulemaking for the new guidelines were completed in December 2018. OPR allowed lead agencies an opt-in period to adopt the guidelines before the mandatory date adoption of July 1, 2020. The Modified Project involves the implementation of exercise stairs and sports field lighting. The Modified Project does not propose any changes in land use within the Project Site that would have the potential to increase the number of trips to/from the Project Site, nor would the Modified Project result in any substantial changes to vehicle miles traveled due to the park’s local-serving purpose.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required.
Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-52
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project involves the implementation of exercise stairs and sports field lighting within an entitled public park. The Modified Project does not propose any changes to the circulation system. As such, the Modified Project would not result in any increased hazards due to geometric design features or incompatible uses.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project involves the implementation of exercise stairs and sports field lighting within an entitled public park. The Modified Project does not propose any changes to the circulation system. As such, the Modified Project would not result in the potential for inadequate emergency access.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required.
Conclusion
The transportation impacts of the Modified Project would be consistent with the impacts identified for the Approved Project, analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. The Modified Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the Modified Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impac ts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. For these reasons, no major revisions to the transportation analysis provided in the 2002 IS/MND are required.
4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.18.1 PRIOR ANALYSES IN THE 2002 IS/MND
The Tribal Cultural Resources Section was not included in the CEQA Appendix G Checklist at the time the 2002 IS/MND was adopted. This section was added to the checklist in September 2016 and reflects the requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 52, requiring consultation with the Native American tribal governments on projects that were initiated on or after July 1, 2015. Mitigation measure M.V.1 also applies to tribal cultural resources.
Mitigation Measures
M.V.1 If previously unidentified cultural resources, including a potential feature or intact deposit, are exposed during ground disturbing construction activities, work shall be halted in that area, and the feature will need to be assessed for significance by a qualified archaeologist.
Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-53
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
4.18.2 MODIFIED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
From
Previous
Analysis
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying
the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Would the Project:
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52 pertaining to Native American Tribal Consultation is required for projects with publicly circulated CEQA documents, such as EIRs, MNDs, or NDs filed on or after July 1, 2015. The present Addendum does not require circulation for public review; thus, discussion of the tribal consultation process and analysis of impacts to tribal cultural resources is not required.
Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-54
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION The Modified Project would result in a minor increase of the impact footprint when compared to what was assumed for the Approved Project. As described in the Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, there are no known cultural resources within the Project Site. Therefore, it is unlikely that tribal cultural resources would be encountered within these areas. To minimize impacts, mitigation measure M.V.1, which specified procedures if previously unidentified cultural resources were to be encountered during construction.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required.
Conclusion
The tribal cultural resources impacts of the Modified Project would be consistent with the cultural resource impacts identified for the Approved Project, analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. The Modified Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the Modified Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become known that was not pr eviously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. For these reasons, no major revisions to the tribal cultural resources analysis provided in the IS/MND are required.
4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.19.1 PRIOR ANALYSES IN THE 2002 IS/MND
The 2002 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would not use a significant amount of water as the only uses on-site that would use water would be the restroom buildings and landscaped areas and the multi-purpose field, which would both require irrigation. Similarly, wastewater generation would also be minimal as the only use on-site that would generate wastewater would be the restroom buildings. No new wastewater and water systems would be required. Therefore, impacts to wastewater treatment and water treatment would be less than significant. No mitigation measures were required.
The IS/MND found that the Approved Project would not require new solid waste facilities.
Construction debris would be recycled or transported to the nearest landfill sites and disposed of appropriately. The nearest landfill to the Approved Project site was the Chiquita Canyon Landfill located at 29201 Henry Mayo Drive in Castaic, approximately 15 miles from the project site; other landfills sites within 30 miles of the site were Bradley West Landfill (approximately 25 miles away), Sunshine Canyon Landfill (approximately 26 miles away), and Antelope Valley Landfill (approximately 30 miles away)." The amount of debris generated during project construction and operation was not expected to significantly impact landfill capacities; solid waste generation by the operation of the Approved Project was found to be minimal. The Approved Project would comply with applicable regulations related to solid waste Operation of the Project would be subject to the requirements set forth in the County's Solid Waste Management Program. Although no significant impacts to solid waste facilities were anticipated, the following measures were implemented to further ensure solid waste minimization during project construction and operation.
Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-55
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mitigation Measures
M-XVI.l Prior to completion of plans and specifications, the County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation shall include in the final plans and specifications the requirement for the construction contractor to work with the County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation's recycling coordinator, Mr. Boyd Horan, to ensure that source reduction techniques, procurement of recycled building materials, and tile development of recycling programs during construction and operation of the facility are considered and implemented whenever possible.
The County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation's recycling coordinator shall review the plans and specifications for incorporation of the specified language. The County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works the incorporation of this requirement.
M-XVI.2 Prior to completion of plans and specifications, the County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation shall clearly identify bin enclosures and recycling containers, in accordance with the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycle Access Act of 1991, as amended.
The County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the County of Los Angeles Department of Public works the incorporation of this requirement.
4.19.2 MODIFIED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
From
Previous
Analysis
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project:
a) Require or result in the re location or construction of new or expanded water, or wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, stat e, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Would the Project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water dr ainage, electric power, natural gas, or Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-56
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis.
Water and Wastewater
The Modified Project consists of implementation of new lighting and exercise stairs. These uses would not increase the demand for water or wastewater.
Storm Water Drainage
The Modified Project would result in a minor increase in impervious surface coverage related to the exercise stairs that could result in increas ed stormwater runoff. However, this minor amount of stormwater runoff has been accounted for in the Project’s drainage plans to ensure adequacy of downstream receiving drainage facilities.
Electricity
As described in Section 4.5, Energy, the Modifi ed Project would implement new lighting fixtures that would require electricity. The Project Site is already served by electricity; therefore, no upgrades or relocation of electrical infrastructure would be required for the Modified Project.
Natural Gas
The Modified Project consists of implementation of lighting fixtures and exercise stairs. No natural gas usage is proposed.
Telecommunications
The Modified Project consists of implementation of lighting fixtures and exercise stairs. No telecommunications facilities are proposed.
Conclusion
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple years? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project consists of implementation of new lighting and exercise stairs. These uses would not increase the demand for water.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. c) Result in a determination by the wastewat er treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-57
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project consists of implementation of new lighting and exercise stairs. These uses would not increase the demand for wastewater.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project consists of implementation of new lighting and exercise stairs. These uses would not increase the generation of operational solid waste.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project consists of implementation of new lighting and exercise stairs. The contractor would comply with all applicable regulations related to solid waste.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required.
Conclusion
The utilities and service systems impacts of the Modified Project would be consistent with the impacts identified for the Approved Project, ana lyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. The Modified Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the Modified Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new information has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impacts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. For these reasons, no major revisions to the utilities and service systems analysis provided in the 2002 IS/MND are required.
4.20 WILDFIRE
PRIOR ANALYSES IN THE 2002 IS/MND
Effective December 28, 2018, the State adopted amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines requiring the analysis and mitigation of wildfire as a separate topic in CEQA documents. The 2002 IS/MND was adopted prior to the 2018 State CEQA Guidelines amendments, and as such, responses to wildfire as a separate topic was not addressed.
Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-58
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION However, the 2002 IS/MND addressed exposure of structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, in Section 4.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. According to the 2002 IS/MND, Implementation of the Approved Project would not expose people or structures to fire hazard from flammable brush, grass or trees. Standard safety procedures and best management practices would be employed during c onstruction, minimizing the potential risk for accidents to occur, including fires. Also, on-site landscaping would be maintained and watered regularly so as to reduce fire hazard impacts. The barbecue facilities in the group picnic area would be located over 50 feet from the nearest undeveloped area to the east. Accordingly, it was determined that the siting of the park facilities would not pose a long-term fire hazard, and no mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were required.
4.20.1 MODIFIED PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental Issues
New
Significant
Impact
More
Severe
Impacts
New Ability
to
Substantially
Reduce
Significant
Impact
No
Substantial
Change
From
Previous
Analysis
WILDFIRE– If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project is within a local responsibility area and the southern portion of the site is designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ), as defined by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE). The Modified Project consists of implementation of new lighting and exercise stairs. These uses would have no potential to impair any emergency response or evacuation plans.
Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-59
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project consists of implementation of new lighting and exercise stairs. These uses would not introduce any facilities that would be susceptible to wildfire.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project consists of implementation of new lighting and exercise stairs. These uses would not introduce any facilities that would be susceptible to wildfire, nor would they require any associated infrastructure that could result in ongoing impacts to the environment.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required. d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Modified Project consists of implementation of new lighting and exercise stairs. These uses would not introduce any facilities that would be susceptible to wildfire or to the secondary effects of wildfire.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not create a new significant impact pertaining to this threshold that were not previously analyzed, and no mitigation measures are required.
Conclusion
The wildfire impacts of the Modified Project would be consistent with the impacts identified for the Approved Project in the 2002 IS/MND. The Modified Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. In regard to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (1) no substantial changes are proposed as part of the Modified Project that would result in new significant effects or an increase in severity of previous effects; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred that would result in new significant effects; and (3) no new informati on has become known that was not previously known that would (a) create new significant impac ts, (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects, or (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible; or (4) introduce mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2002 IS/MND. For these reasons, no major revisions to the wildfire analysis provided in the 2002 IS/MND are required.
Environmental Checklist
D AVID MARCH PARK 4-60
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION This page intentionally left blank
D AVID MARCH PARK 5-1
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SECTION 5.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the analysis provided in this Addendum, there is substantial evidence to determine that (1) the Modified Project does not represent a substantial change from the previously approved project evaluated in the 2002 IS/MND; (2) no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Modified Project is undertaken; and (3) the Modified Project has not introduced new information of substantial importance that was not previously known. The Modified Project would not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than what was evaluated in the 2002 IS/MND. No new mitigation measures are recommended in addition to those adopted at the time the 2002 IS/MND was certified that would further reduce Project impacts. The 2002 IS/MND, when considered in conjunction with this Addendum, provides adequate documentation, pursuant to the CEQA for the Approved and Modified Projects.
D AVID MARCH PARK 6-1
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SECTION 6.0 REFERENCES
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan. Sacramento, CA: CARB. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2022- scoping-plan-
documents#:~:text=The%202022%20Scoping%20Plan%20Update%20focuses%20on% 20outcomes%20needed%20to,economic%2C%20environmental%2C%20energy%20se curity%2C
California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). 2022. California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/CALGreen
California Code of Regulations (CCR). 1991. California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycle Act of 1991. https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-public-resources- code/division-30-waste-management/part-3-state-programs/chapter-18-california-solid- waste-reuse-and-recycling-access-act-of
California Department of Conservation (DOC), California Geological Survey (CGS). 2023a.
California Seismic Hazards Zone Mapper. Sacramento, CA: CGS. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/shma
———. 2023b. Landslide Inventory. Sacramento, CA: CGS.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/lsi/
———. 2023c. State Mining and Geology Board. Gui delines For Classification and Designation of Mineral Lands. Sacramento, CA: CGS.
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/smgb/Guidelines/Documents/ClassDesig.pdf. ———. 2023d. CGS Information Waterhouse: Mineral Land Classification. Sacramento, CA:
CGS. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc. ———. 2015 Fault Activity Map of California. Sacramento, CA: CGS. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2023a. Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program.
Sacramento, CA: DOC. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE). 2007. FHSZ Viewer.
Sacramento, CA: CAL FIRE. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2023a. California State Scenic Highways System Map – ArcGIS Online. Sacramento, CA: Caltrans.
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e805711 6f1aacaa.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2023 (February). Final 2022 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR). https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023- 02/Adopted_2022_IEPR_Update_with_errata_ada.pdf
———. 2022 (December). 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Energy Code). https://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/2022/2022-building-energy-efficiency-standards- residential-and-nonresidential
References
D AVID MARCH PARK 6-2
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2023. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Sacramento, CA: CalEPA.
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search?cmd=search&reporttype=CORTESE&s ite_type=CSITES,FUDS&status=ACT,BKLG,COM&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+A ND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST+%28CORTESE%29.
California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2013. Senate Bill (SB) 743.
Sacramento, CA: OPR.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB743 Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Washington, D.C.: FTA.
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no- 0123_0.pdf.
Psomas. 2024a. Biological Technical Memorandum. Santa Ana, CA: Psomas. ———. 2024b. Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum. Pasadena, CA: Psomas.
Santa Clarita, City of. 2023a. City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code. Santa Clarita, CA: City of Santa Clarita. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaClarita/ ———. 2023b. David March Park. Santa Clarita, CA: City of Santa Clarita. https://santaclarita.gov/parks-division/blog/2023/06/07/david-march-park/. ———. 2023c. Zoning Map. Santa Clarita, CA: City of Santa Clarita. https://santaclarita.gov/wp- content/uploads/sites/42/migration/UDC_zoning_Feb2023.pdf. ———. 2015. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Sant a Clarita, CA: City of Santa Clarita. https://bof.fire.ca.gov/media/rqbeiqzt/rpc-4-a-iii-city-of-santa-clarita-local-hazard- mitigation-plan-supplemental-_ada.pdf
———. 2012a. Climate Action Plan. Santa Clarita, CA: City of Santa Clarita. chrome- extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://greensantaclarita.com/files/2012/1 0/APPROVED-CAP-AUGUST-2012.pdf
———. 2011a. General Plan Land Use Element. Santa Clarita, CA: City of Santa Clarita. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaClarita/html/SantaClaritaGP/2%20- %20Land%20Use%20Element.pdf.
———. 2011b. General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element. Santa Clarita, CA: City of Santa Clarita.
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaClarita/html/SantaClaritaGP/6%20- %20Conservation%20and%20Open%20Space%20Element.pdf
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020. Connect SoCal 2020 – The 2020- 2024 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) of the Southern California Association of Governments. Los Angeles, CA: SCAG. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal- plan_0.pdf?1606001176
References
D AVID MARCH PARK 6-3
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Southern California Edison (SCE). 2023. Our Service Territory. Rosemead, CA: SCE. https://www.sce.com/about-us/who-we-are/leadership/our-service-territory Southern California Gas Company (SCGC). 2023. Company Profile. http://www.socalgas.com/about-us/company-info.shtml. San Diego, CA: SCGC.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2023a (March, Revision). SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air-quality- significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=25.
———. 2022. Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management- plans/2022-air-quality-management-plan/final-2022-aqmp/final-2022- aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=16.
———. 2016 (February). National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) Attainment Status for South Coast Air Basin.
Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air- plans/air-quality-management-plans/naaqs-caaqs-feb2016.pdf?sfvrsn=2. ———. 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993). SCAQMD. Diamond Bar, CA.
Appendix A
Biological Resources Memorandum
225 South Lake Avenue
Suite 1000
Pasadena, CA 91101
Tel 626.351.2000
Fax 626.351.2030
www.Psomas.com
January 30, 2024
Julia Regan VIA EMAIL
City of Santa Clarita [email protected]
23920 Valencia Blvd # 302
Valencia, California 91355
Subject: Results of a Biological Resources Update fo r the David March Park Project, City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California
Dear Julia Regan:
This Letter Report presents the findings of a biological resources update for the David March Park project site (hereinafter referred to as the “project site”) located in the City of Santa Clarita. Los Angeles County, California (Exhibit 1). The purpose of the survey was to evaluate current biological conditions on the project site and to analyze whether conditions were consistent with the 2002 Plum Canyon County Park Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) (EDAW 2002).
PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
David March Park is located in the north-central portion of Los Angeles County, approximately 0.60 mile south of Bouquet Canyon Creek, 1.30 miles north of the Santa Clara River, and 3.84 miles east of San Francisquito Canyon. The biological survey area for the project is roughly bound by Plum Canyon Road on the south, Via Joyce Drive on the west, residential lots north of the developed portion of David March Park on the north, and by an easement for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power powerlines on the east.
The biological survey area occurs on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Mint Canyon 7.5-minute quadrangle at Section 7 of Township 4 North, Range 15 West (Exhibit 2). Topography in the survey area is relatively flat in the west with elevations ranging from approximately 1,512 to 1,430 feet above mean sea level (msl) from north to south, while topography in the east consist of undulating hills with elevations ranging from approximately 1,500 to 1,580 feet above msl. There are no blueline streams mapped in the biological survey area; however, there is one small drainage that occurs in the northern portion of the biological survey area, outside of any proposed improvement areas. Land uses in the vicinity of the biological survey area consist of a mix of residential, transportation, and open space.
Representative site photographs are included in Attachment A.
Soils in the biological survey area consist of Ojai loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes; Ojai loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes; and Hanford sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes (USDA NRCS 2024). The Ojai series consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in alluvium derived from material weathering from mostly sandstone or related sedimentary rocks. The Hanford series consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in moderately coarse textured alluvium dominantly from granite (USDA NRCS 2024).
Julia Regan
January 30, 2024
The purpose of the biological survey is to analyze the impact of additional project features that were not included in the Final IS/MND. These additional project features consist of the installation of lighting improvements, including two basketball lights and six baseball lights, and a new stairway (Exhibit 3).
SURVEY METHODS
As mentioned above, the Final IS/MND was prepared for the project in 2002. The 2002 Final IS/MND summarized general and focused surveys conducted between 2000 and 2001 (EDAW 2002). Two biological reconnaissance surveys were conducted by EDAW, Inc. on November 15, 2000, and April 4, 2001. In addition, protocol focused surveys were conducted in 2001 for the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), a federally listed Threatened species, based on a recommendation from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (EDAW 2002).
Prior to the 2023 reconnaissance survey, Psomas conducted a literature review to identify special status plants, wildlife, and habitats that have been reported to occur in the vicinity of the biological survey area.
Resources reviewed included the California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2023) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW’s) California Natural Diversity Database (CDFW 2023a). Database searches included the USGS’ Mint Canyon, Green Valley, Sleepy Valley, Agua Dulce, Sunland, San Fernando, Oat Mountain, Newhall, and Warm Springs Mountain 7.5-minute quadrangles; these quadrangles constitute the “project region”.
Psomas Senior Biologist Sarah Thomas performed a general survey of the biological survey area on December 28, 2023, to document current conditions and assess the suitability of the habitat to support special status plant and wildlife species. All plant and wildlife species detected during the survey were documented in field notes. Nomenclature of plant taxa conform to the Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List (CDFW 2024a) for special status species and the Jepson eFlora (Jepson Flora Project 2024) for all other taxa.
Active searches for reptiles and amphibians included lifting, overturning, and carefully replacing rocks and debris. Birds were identified by visual and auditory recognition. Surveys for mammals were conducted during the day and included searching for and identifying diagnostic sign, including scat, footprints, scratch-outs, dust bowls, burrows, and trails. Taxonomy and nomenclature for wildlife follows the Special Animals List (CDFW 2024b) for special status species. Taxonomy and nomenclature for other species follows Crother (2017) for amphibians and reptiles, the American Ornithological Society (AOS 2023) for birds, and the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History (SNMNH 2011) for mammals.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Vegetation
Vegetation in the biological survey area is consistent with conditions described in the 2002 Final IS/MND. Vegetation throughout the majority of the biological survey area largely consists of disturbed coastal sage scrub dominated by deer weed (Acmispon glaber) and California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) with scattered individuals of California sagebrush (Artemisia californica) and black sage (Salvia mellifera). Herbaceous species scattered throughout the disturbed sage scrub include tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), horehound (Marrubium vulgare), red-stem filaree (Erodium cicutarium), popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys sp.), pectocarya (Pectocarya sp.), cudweed (Gnaphaltum sp.), and black mustard (Brassica nigra).
Ornamental vegetation such as turf grass and London plane trees (Platanus ×hispanica) occurs in the existing park.
Julia Regan
January 30, 2024
A circular access road, comprised of bare ground (no vegetative cover), various walking trails, and vehicle tracks occur in the western portion of the biological survey area. A disturbed area that appears to be used as a dirt bike track was noted in the northeastern portion of the biological survey area.
Wildlife
A drainage consisting of a concrete lined v-ditch and underground culvert occurs in the northern portion of the biological survey area. No standing water was present at the time of the survey. Fish are not expected to occur in the biological survey area since the drainage is small and appears to only drain park run-off. If standing water occurs for extended periods of time, amphibians such as western toad (Anaxyrus boreas) and Baja California tree frog (Pseudacris hypochondriaca) may occur.
One reptile species, the western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), was observed during the 2023 survey. Other common species that may occur include common side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer), and southern Pacific rattlesnake (Crotalus oreganus helleri).
Common bird species observed during the 2023 survey included Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), Cassin’s kingbird (Tyrannus vociferans), California scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes bewickii), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), California towhee (Melozone crissalis), and yellow-rumped warbler (Setophaga coronata).
Two mammals, the domestic dog (Canis familiaris) and desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), were observed in the biological survey area during the survey. Other common mammal species that may occur in the biological survey area include, but are not limited to, the California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida), and coyote (Canis latrans).
Special Status Resources
Special Status Vegetation Types
CDFW provides a list of vegetation alliances, associations, and special stands that are considered “Sensitive Natural Communities” based on their rarity and threat. Vegetation that occurs in the biological survey area would be consistent with the Eriogonum fasciculatum Alliance and the Acmispon glaber [Lotus scoparius] Association; neither of these are considered sensitive natural communities (CDFW 2023b). In some cases, coastal sage scrub habitats are commonly considered “locally sensitive” due to their ability to support listed species (e.g., coastal California gnatcatcher). The additional proposed project features would impact a very small quantity of coastal sage scrub habitat; the limited loss of this vegetation would not be considered a significant impact to this vegetation community. (See discussion of California gnatcatcher below.)
Jurisdictional Areas
One drainage occurs in the northern portion of the biological survey area. The proposed additional project features would not impact this drainage.
Julia Regan
January 30, 2024
Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species
Plant or wildlife species may be considered to have “special status” due to declining populations, vulnerability to habitat change, or restricted distributions. Certain special status species have been listed as Rare, Threatened, or Endangered under State and/or Federal Endangered Species Acts.
Special Status Plants
Four federally and/or State listed Endangered, Threatened, or Rare plant species or Candidate were reported from the project region: Nevin’s barberry (Berberis nevinii; federal Endangered, California Endangered, CRPR 1B.1), San Fernando Valley spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina; California Endangered, CRPR 1B.1), slender-horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras; federal Endangered, California Endangered, CRPR 1B.1), and California Orcutt grass (Orcuttia californica; federal Endangered, California Endangered, CRPR 1B.1). Nevin’s barberry is not expected to occur because it was not observed; this species is a perennial that is observable year-round. California Orcutt grass is not expected to occur due to lack of suitable vernal pool habitat. Slender-horned spineflower is not expected to occur due to lack of suitable alluvial sage scrub wash habitat. However, San Fernando Valley spineflower has potential to occur.
At the time of the 2002 Final IS/MND, all the records for San Fernando spineflower were historic; the species was believed to be extirpated from the project region. However, this species was rediscovered in the project vicinity in 2011; several locations have been reported from southwest-facing slopes of coastal sage scrub in the Newhall area (CDFW 2023a). No focused plant surveys were conducted on the project site because the 2002 Final IS/MND did not consider that this species had potential to occur (EDAW 2002). A focused survey would be needed to determine the presence or absence of this species in the biological survey area. Any loss of a State listed Endangered species would be considered regionally significant. If San Fernando Valley spineflower is present, it would need to be avoided or mitigation would be required.
Several California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 1B
1 or 2B2 have been reported from the project region
based on the 2023 literature review. One CRPR 1B species has potential to occur on the project site, the slender mariposa-lily (Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis). Several locations of this species occur in the project region; one California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) record occurs approximately one mile northeast of the biological survey area in similar habitat (CDFW 2023a). No focused plant surveys were conducted for the 2002 Final IS/MND. A focused survey would be needed to determine the presence or absence of these species in the biological survey area. This species tends to occur as scattered individuals across a hillside. Each of the additional proposed project features would impact a very small extent of habitat for this species. Therefore, it is expected that if this species occurs, the impact would be considered less than significant. However, the significance would depend on the size of the population that would be impacted in relation to the number of individuals recently reported in the project region.
Special Status Wildlife
Thirteen federally and/or State listed Endangered or Threatened species, or those proposed for listing, were reported from the project region in the 2023 literature review: vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi; federally Threatened), quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino; federally Endangered), unarmored threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni; federally Endangered, California Endangered), arroyo toad (Anaxyrus californicus; federally Endangered,
1 CRPR 1B: Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere 2 CRPR 2B: Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California but more common elsewhere
Julia Regan
January 30, 2024
California Species of Special Concern), southern mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa; federally Endangered, California Endangered), California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii; federally Threatened, California Species of Special Concern), western pond turtle (Emys marmorata; proposed federally Threatened, California Species of Special Concern), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni; California Threatened), western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis; federally Threatened, California Endangered), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus; federally Endangered, California Endangered), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus; federally Endangered, California Endangered), coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica; federally Threatened, California Species of Special Concern), and tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor; California Threatened). The vernal pool fairy shrimp is not expected to occur due to lack of suitable vernal pool habitat. The quino checkerspot butterfly is not expected to occur because it is believed to be extirpated from northern Los Angeles County. The unarmored threespine stickleback, arroyo toad, southern mountain yellow-legged frog, California red-legged frog, western pond turtle, western yellow-billed cuckoo, southwestern willow flycatcher, least Bell’s vireo, and tricolored blackbird are not expected to occur due to lack of suitable aquatic, riparian, or freshwater marsh habitat. The Swainson’s hawk could forage over the area during migration but is not expected to occur in the project region for nesting. Of these species, only the coastal California gnatcatcher has potential to occur in the biological survey area. Additionally, one state Candidate species also has potential to occur in the biological survey area, Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii; proposed California Endangered). These species are discussed below.
Coastal California Gnatcatcher
The coastal California gnatcatcher is a federally Threatened species and a California Species of Special Concern. This species occurs in most of Baja California, Mexico’s arid regions, but this subspecies is extremely localized in the United States, where it predominantly occurs in coastal regions of highly urbanized Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Diego Counties (Atwood 1992). In California, this subspecies is a resident of coastal sage scrub vegetation types. The breeding season for the coastal California gnatcatcher ranges from late February to August. Nests are generally placed in a shrub about three feet above ground. Santa Clarita is thought to be at the northern range of the species’ distribution, and it is hypothesized that there is a small but reliable breeding population in the Santa Clarita region (Cooper et. al 2017). The coastal California gnatcatcher has been observed at several locations around Santa Clarita, including multiple locations where previous protocol focused surveys determined them to be absent but more recent surveys found them to be present (CDFW 2023a). Breeding California gnatcatchers were observed in 2018 and 2019 in Santa Clarita approximately 3.5 miles southwest of the project site (CDFW 2023a). A protocol focused survey for coastal California gnatcatcher as conducted to support the Final IS/MND in 2001; no coastal California gnatcatchers were observed during the surveys (EDAW 2002). However, given the observation of multiple coastal California gnatcatcher observations in the vicinity in recent years, and the presence of suitable coastal sage scrub habitat, the coastal California gnatcatcher has potential to occur. A focused survey would be needed to determine the presence or absence of this species in the biological survey area. Any loss of habitat for a federally Threatened species would be considered potentially significant. Therefore, a focused survey would need to be conducted to confirm the absence of this species. If coastal California gnatcatcher is present, its habitat would need to be avoided or mitigation would be required.
The USFWS published a Revised Final Rule designating Critical Habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher in 2007 (USFWS 2007). This Revised Critical Habitat designates 197,303 acres in San Diego, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Ventura Counties. The biological survey area is not located within the designated Revised Critical Habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher.
Julia Regan
January 30, 2024
Crotch Bumble Bee
Crotch bumble bee is proposed as a Candidate to be State listed as Endangered. This species was not addressed in the 2002 Final IS/MND due to it not being special status at the time of publication. Crotch bumble bee is a ground nester and often makes its nest in abandoned mammal burrows; it can be found in most native habitat types, although it prefers grassland and scrub habitats. It is primarily associated with plants from the following families: Fabaceae, Apocynaceae, Asteraceae, Lamiaceae, and Boraginaceae (Richardson 2017; Thorp et. al. 1983). A historic observation (1978) is located approximately 3.3 miles to the southeast. The nearest recent observations (2023) of Crotch bumble bee is approximately 2 miles east (iNaturalist 2024). The biological survey area would be considered potentially suitable habitat. A focused survey would be needed to determine the presence or absence of this species in the biological survey area.
Any loss of habitat for a state Candidate Endangered species would be considered potentially significant.
Therefore, a focused survey would need to be conducted to confirm the absence of this species. If Crotch’s bumble bee is present, its habitat would need to be avoided or mitigation would be required.
Other Considerations
Wildlife Movement
Landscape features or travel routes that connect the larger open space areas would be considered “wildlife corridors” if they provide adequate space, cover, food, and water and do not contain obstacles or distractions (e.g., man-made noise, lighting) that would generally hinder wildlife movement.
The biological survey area is located in an area that is undeveloped with additional undeveloped areas to the north (across Via Joyce Drive) and south (across Plum Canyon Road), but is constrained by residential development to the east and west. Therefore, the biological survey area is located in an area that would be regarded as a wildlife corridor that could be used to access larger areas of open space along ridgelines and canyons to the northwest and south. The additional proposed project features would impact a very small quantity of habitat; the limited loss of vegetation would be considered a less than significant impact to wildlife movement. Therefore, the additional project features’ impact on wildlife movement would be considered less than significant, and no new mitigation would be needed.
Nesting Birds/Raptors
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) protects the taking of migratory birds and their nests and eggs.
Bird species protected under the provisions of the MBTA are identified by the List of Migratory Birds (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, §10.13). Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any bird’s nest or any bird’s eggs. Section 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits the take and possession of any migratory nongame bird, as designated in the MBTA. Birds have potential to nest throughout the biological survey area in vegetation, on bare ground, and on adjacent structures (i.e., transmission towers). If construction would be initiated during the nesting season (generally between February 1 and August 31), a pre-construction survey would be required to ensure that no nests are impacted. If an active nest is present, construction may be restricted in the immediate vicinity of the nest until nesting is complete. The 2002 Final IS/MND includes a mitigation measure that requires a pre-construction survey for nesting birds and a protective buffer of 300 feet if any active nests are observed (i.e., M-IV.2). No new mitigation would be required.
Structures adjacent to the biological survey area have potential to be used for nesting by raptors.
Regulations prohibit activities that “take, possess, or destroy” any raptor nest or egg (California Fish and Game Code §3503, 3503.5, and 3513). Additionally, the noise and disturbance associated with construction may disturb a nesting raptor adjacent to the proposed project. If construction would be
Julia Regan
January 30, 2024
initiated during the raptor nesting season (generally between February 1 and August 31), a pre-construction survey would be required to ensure that no raptor nests are impacted. If an active nest is present, construction may be temporarily restricted in the immediate vicinity of the nest until nesting is complete. The 2002 Final IS/MND includes a mitigation measure that requires a pre-construction survey for nesting birds, which would also include nesting raptors, and a protective buffer of 300 feet if any active nests are observed (i.e., M-IV.2). No new mitigation would be required.
Indirect Impacts
Noise Impacts
Noise levels would increase over present levels during construction of the additional project features.
During construction, temporary noise impacts have the potential to disrupt foraging, nesting, roosting, and denning activities for a variety of wildlife species. Construction activities would likely occur during the day; thus, construction noise would not affect nocturnal species (i.e., those active at night). Diurnal species (i.e., those active during the day) would be deterred from the area during active construction. This impact would be relatively short-term in nature and limited in extent as each additional project feature is limited to a small area. Additionally, the area is already expected to have a moderate amount of noise due to the existing park and adjacent residential development. Wildlife would be expected to disperse from the immediate area during construction but would be expected to return to habitat areas following completion of construction. Therefore, the noise of constructing the additional project features would be considered less than significant.
Increased Dust and Urban Pollutants
Grading activities would disturb soils and could result in the accumulation of dust on the surface of the leave of trees, shrubs, and herbs. The respiratory function of the plants in the area could be impaired if dust accumulation is excessive. However, the impact area is limited in extent as each additional project feature is limited to a small area; therefore, dust from constructing the additional project features would be considered less than significant.
Drainages in the vicinity of the project could be impacted as a result of changes in water quality. During construction, runoff carrying excessive silt or petroleum residues from construction equipment could potentially impact water quality and, in turn, affect plant and wildlife species using habitat adjacent to the project. The 2002 Final IS/MND (Hydrology section) states that the Project would be required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit (EDAW 2002). Assuming compliance with this permit during construction of the additional project features, impacts on water quality would be considered less than significant.
Invasive Exotic Plant Species
The additional project features do not include landscaping. Therefore, there would be no impact by invasive exotic plant species.
Night Lighting
Night lighting may impact the behavioral patterns of nocturnal and crepuscular (i.e., active at dawn and dusk) wildlife adjacent to the night lighting. Of greatest concern is the effect on small, ground-dwelling animals that use the darkness to hide from predators and/or owls, which are specialized night forages. The additional project features include new night lighting, which would generally be limited to lighting developed portions of the park, including the existing basketball court and the future baseball field. These
Julia Regan
January 30, 2024
areas are not expected to be used extensively by wildlife because developed and ornamental areas are generally considered low biological value to wildlife; therefore, adding night lighting in these areas would be considered less than significant.
The additional project feature of stairs would also be lit, which would illuminate adjacent coastal sage scrub habitat areas adjacent to the proposed stairs. These additional light sources may negatively affect wildlife in the surrounding open space on the slope. Increased night lighting in the vicinity of the stairs would be limited in extent and would therefore be considered less than significant for most wildlife species because the loss of habitat would not be expected to reduce wildlife in the region below self-sustaining levels. However, if coastal California gnatcatcher were present, the night lighting in the vicinity of the stairs would incrementally impact additional habitat for this species. As discussed above, any loss of habitat for a federally Threatened species would be considered potentially significant.
Therefore, a focused survey would need to be conducted to confirm the absence of coastal California gnatcatcher. If coastal California gnatcatcher is present, indirect lighting on its habitat would need to be avoided or mitigation would be required.
Human Activity
During construction of the additional project features, human activity is expected to increase. This could disrupt the normal foraging and breeding behavior of wildlife during construction. This impact would be relatively short-term in nature and limited in extent as each additional project feature is limited to a small area. Additionally, the area is already expected to have a moderate amount of human activity due to the existing park and adjacent residential development. Wildlife would be expected to disperse from the immediate area during construction but would be expected to return to habitat areas following completion of construction. Therefore, the human activity associated with constructing the additional project features would be considered less than significant.
COMPARISON TO 2002 FINAL IS/MND
Since the 2002 Final IS/MND was approved, various changes have occurred that may affect the document’s conclusions. For example, regulations or their interpretations may have changed (e.g., the definition of waters of the U.S. has undergone numerous revisions); and the status designation of plant or wildlife species have changed (e.g., Crotch bumble bee is now a Candidate for State listing). This section addresses whether the project would have any new impacts not previously addressed in the 2002 Final IS/MND.
Special Status Vegetation Types
The 2002 Final IS/MND did not consider the disturbed sage scrub habitat to be a potentially sensitive natural community; therefore, impacts to this vegetation type were not considered significant, and no mitigation was included. The project will impact a small quantity of sage scrub habitat which would not be considered a significant impact.
Conclusion: No mitigation would be required for the loss of coastal sage scrub vegetation to construct the additional project features.
Julia Regan
January 30, 2024
Jurisdictional Areas
The 2002 Final IS/MND identified two narrow drainages on the project site. The additional project features would not impact any potentially jurisdictional areas.
Conclusion: The additional project features would not impact any jurisdictional resources. No mitigation would be required.
Special Status Plants
The 2002 Final IS/MND determined that the only notable special status plant species with potential to occur on the project site was the slender-horned spineflower. Because the potential habitat for this species was being avoided (i.e. wash habitat), no focused surveys were conducted. Since the previous document was completed, the San Fernando Valley spineflower has been rediscovered in the project region. The additional project features (i.e., baseball field lights and the stairs) would impact potential habitat for this species. A focused survey would be needed to determine the presence or absence of this species in the impact area for the additional project features. A focused survey would also be needed to determine the presence or absence of slender mariposa lily, and the significance of the impact if it were present in the additional project features impact area.
Conclusion: A focused survey would be needed to confirm the absence of San Fernando Valley spineflower and slender mariposa lily in the impact area for the additional project features. If present, San Fernando Valley spineflower would need to be avoided or mitigation would need to be included. If slender mariposa lily is present, a significance determination would need to be made depending on the number of individuals that would be impacted; the species would need to be avoided or mitigation would need to be included if the impacts were determined to be significant.
Special Status Wildlife
Coastal California gnatcatcher was addressed in the 2002 Final IS/MND; protocol focused surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher conducted in 2001 found the species to be absent. However, multiple records of breeding coastal California gnatcatchers have been observed in the project vicinity in recent years (CDFW 2023a). The focused gnatcatcher surveys conducted for the project would no longer be considered valid because of their age (23 years); these focused surveys would need to be updated to confirm absence of this species. If this species is absent, no impact would occur, and no mitigation would be needed. If this species is present, the impacts would be considered potentially significant, and a new mitigation measure would be needed.
Conclusion: A protocol focused survey would be needed to confirm the absence of coastal California gnatcatcher in the impact area for the additional project features. If present, habitat for this species (i.e., coastal sage scrub) would need to be avoided or mitigation would need to be included.
Crotch bumble bee is a State Candidate for listing. It was not addressed in the 2002 Final IS/MND. A focused survey would be needed to determine the presence or absence of this species. If this species is absent, no impact would occur, and no mitigation would be needed. If this species is present, the impacts would be considered potentially significant, and a new mitigation measure would be needed.
Julia Regan
January 30, 2024
Conclusion: A focused survey would be needed to confirm the absence of Crotch bumble bee in the impact area for the additional project features. If present, this species would need to be avoided or mitigation would need to be included.
Wildlife Movement
The additional proposed project features would impact a very small quantity of habitat; the limited loss of vegetation would be considered a less than significant impact to wildlife movement.
Conclusion: No mitigation would be required for impacts to wildlife movement.
Nesting Birds/Raptors
The 2002 Final IS/MND included mitigation measure M-IV.2, which requires pre-construction nesting bird surveys and protection of active nests.
Conclusion: Mitigation Measure M-IV.2 from the 2002 Final IS/MND is adequate to protect nesting birds and raptors. No new mitigation would be required.
Indirect Impacts
The indirect impacts related to construction of the additional project features would be relatively short-term in nature and limited in extent as each additional project feature is limited to a small area.
However, if coastal California gnatcatcher is determined to be present during focused surveys, the night lighting in the vicinity of the stairs would incrementally impact additional habitat for this species. As discussed above, any loss of habitat for a federally Threatened species would be considered potentially significant. If coastal California gnatcatcher is present, indirect lighting on its habitat would need to be avoided or mitigation would be required.
Conclusion: Night lighting has the potential to incrementally impact additional habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher. If present, night lighting of habitat for this species (i.e., coastal sage scrub) would need to be avoided or mitigation would need to be included.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Psomas recommends the following:
A focused survey for San Fernando Valley spineflower and slender mariposa lily should be conducted during the blooming period of these species to confirm the absence of these species in the impact areas for the additional project features.
An updated protocol focused survey should be conducted for the coastal California gnatcatcher to confirm the absence of this species in the biological survey area. A focused survey for Crotch bumble bee should be conducted to determine the presence or absence of this species in the biological survey area.
Julia Regan
January 30, 2024
Thank you for the opportunity to prepare this letter report. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Amber Heredia at [email protected] or 714.481.8049.
Sincerely,
Amber O. Heredia Sarah Thomas
Senior Project Manager, Resource Management Biologist
Enclosures: Exhibit 1 – Project Location
Exhibit 2 – USGS 7.5-Minute Digital Quadrangle
Exhibit 3 – Project Improvements
Attachment A – Representative Site Photographs
R:\Projects\1SAN-Clarita\1SAN272300\Technical Reports\David March Park-Bio Report-013024.docx
Julia Regan
January 30, 2024
REFERENCES
American Ornithological Society (AOS). 2023. Check-list of North and Middle American Birds (7 th ed.,
as revised through 64th Supplement). Washington, D.C.: AOU. https://checklist.americanornithology.org/.
Atwood, J.L. 1992. Rare, Local, Little-Known, and Declining North American Breeders – A Closer Look.
Birding 25: 228-233.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2024a (January). Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. Sacramento, CA: CDFW, Natural Heritage Division. _____. 2024b (January). Special Animals. Sacramento, CA: CDFW, Natural Heritage Division. _____. 2023a (accessed in December). California Natural Diversity Database. Records of Occurrence for the USGS Mint Canyon, Green Valley, Sleepy Valley, Agua Dulce, Sunland, San Fernando, Oat Mountain, Newhall, and Warm Springs Mountain 7.5-minute quadrangle maps. Sacramento, CA:
CDFW, Natural Heritage Division.
_____. 2023b (June 2). California Natural Communities List. Natural Communities List Arranged Alphabetically by Life Form (PDF). Sacramento, CA: CDFW Biogeographic Data Branch. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153398&inline.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2023. Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Records of Occurrence for the USGS Mint Canyon, Green Valley, Sleepy Valley, Agua Dulce, Sunland, San Fernando, Oat Mountain, Newhall, and Warm Springs Mountain 7.5-minute quadrangles. Sacramento, CA: CNPS. http://www.cnps.org/inventory.
Cooper, D.S, J. Mongolo, and C. Dellith. 2017. Western Birds. Western Field Ornithologists 48:124–140.
Crother, B.I. (Ed.). September 2017. Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North American North of Mexico, with Comments Regarding Confidence in our Understanding (Edition 8). Shoreview, MN: Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. https://ssarherps.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/8th-Ed-2017-Scientific-and-Standard-English- Names.pdf.
EDAW, Inc. 2002 (January). Plum Canyon County Park Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Los Angeles, CA: EDAW, Inc.
iNaturalist. 2024. Observations of Crotch’s bumblebee from Los Angeles County, United States observed to date. Exported from https://www.inaturalist.org on [January 19].
Jepson Flora Project. 2024 (January 19, Revision 12). Jepson eFlora (Records for common species taxonomy). Berkeley, CA: The Jepson Herbarium. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/.
Richardson, L. 2017. Unpublished database. Information on database and data contributors Available from: http://www.leifrichardson.org/bbna.html [Accessed 22 February 2017).
Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History (SNMNH). 2011. Mammal Species of the World (3 rd ed.) (a database based on Wilson, D.E., and D. M. Reeder’s 2005 publication entitled Mammal Species of the World, A Taxonom ic and Geographic Reference , 3 rd ed.). Washington, D.C.:
SNMNH. http://www.vertebrates.si.edu/msw/mswcfapp/msw/ index.cfm.
Julia Regan
January 30, 2024
Thorp, R. W., D. S. Horning, Jr., and L. L. Dunning. 1983. Bumble bees and cuckoo bumble bees of California. Bulletin of the California Insect Survey 23: 1–79.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resour ces Conservation Service (USDA NRCS). 2024 (January 22, access date). Web Soil Survey [Information for the Project Site, Survey Area Data v. 15, August 30, 2023. Lincoln, NE: USDA NRCS.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. (December 19). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica ); Final Rule. Federal Register 72(243): 72009–72213.
Washington, D.C.: USFWS.
²
0 1,000500
Feet
D:\Projects\1SAN\David_March_Park\PRO\David_March_Park\David_March_Park.aprx\ex_LV Exhibit 1Project Location
David March Park Project
(Rev: 1-30-2024 PLO) R:\Projects\1SAN-Clarita\1SAN272300\Graphics\Bio Report\ex_Project_Location.pdf Bou
quet Canyon Rd
Plum Canyon Rd
Rodgers Dr
Heller Cir
SantaCatarinaRd
Golden Valley Rd
Biological Survey Area
Aerial Source: Esri, Maxar 2022
²
0 2,0001,000
Feet
D:\Projects\1SAN\David_March_Park\PRO\David_March_Park\David_March_Park.aprx\ex_USGS Exhibit 2USGS 7.5-Minute Digital Quadrangle
David March Park Project
(Rev: 1-30-2024 PLO) R:\Projects\1SAN-Clarita\1SAN272300\Graphics\Bio Report\ex_USGS.pdf Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle
Mint Canyon, Santa Clarita
Township: 04N
Range: 15W
Section: 5, 6, 7, 8
Biological Survey Area
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle
Mint Canyon
Santa Clarita
Township: 04N
Range: 15W
Section: 05, 06, 07, 08
²
0 200100
Feet
D:\Projects\1SAN\David_March_Park\PRO\David_March_Park\David_March_Park.aprx\ex_Project Improvements Exhibit 3Project Improvements
David March Park Project
(Rev: 1-30-2024 PLO) R:\Projects\1SAN-Clarita\1SAN272300\Graphics\Bio Report\ex_Project Improvements.pdf Plum Canyon Rd
Ro
dger
s D
r
Via Joyce Dr
Alfred
sWa
y
Jay Carroll Dr
Ebb Ct
Celleste Pl
Werren Pl
Chris Pl
Gina Ct
Arthur Ct
Jerry Pl
Adriene Way
12 1
3 5
26 4
Biological Survey Area
Proposed
Additional Project Features
Proposed Stairway
Proposed Baseball Light
Proposed Basketball Light
Aerial Source: Nearmap 2023
ATTACHMENT A
REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
Representative Photographs Attachment A-1
David March Park Project
Photo 2. Close up of Baseball Light improvement area showing scrub habitat and existing disturbance consisting of vehicle tracks, facing south. (01/22/2024 JMC) R:\Projects\1SAN-Clarita\1SAN272300\Graphics\Bio Report\Attachment A-1_20240122.pdf.pdf D:\Projects\1SAN\David_March_Park\Graphics\DavidMarchPark_Att A-1.ai Photo 1. Overview of Baseball Light improvement area located in the western portion of the survey area, facing south.
Representative Photographs Attachment A-2
David March Park Project
Photo 4. Overview of Baseball Light 2 area, facing north. (01/22/2024 JMC) R:\Projects\1SAN-Clarita\1SAN272300\Graphics\Bio Report\Attachment A-1_20240122.pdf.pdf D:\Projects\1SAN\David_March_Park\Graphics\DavidMarchPark_Att A-2.ai Photo 3. Overview of Baseball Light 1 area, facing north.
Representative Photographs
David March Park Project
Photo 6. Overview of Baseball Light 3 area, facing south. (01/22/2024 JMC) R:\Projects\1SAN-Clarita\1SAN272300\Graphics\Bio Report\Attachment A-1_20240122.pdf.pdf D:\Projects\1SAN\David_March_Park\Graphics\DavidMarchPark_Att A-3.ai Photo 5. Overview of the northeastern portion of the survey area showing a dirtbike track in the background and v-ditch drainage in the foreground, facing northeast.
Attachment A-3
Representative Photographs
David March Park Project
Attachment A-4
(Rev: 01/22/2024 JMC) R:\Projects\1SAN-Clarita\1SAN272300\Graphics\Bio Report\AttA_SP.pdf D:\Projects\1SAN\David_March_Park\PRO\David_March_Park\David_March_Park.aprx Photo 8. Overview of Baseball Light 5 area, facing northwest.
Photo 7. Overview of Baseball Light 4 area, facing south.
Representative Photographs
David March Park Project
Attachment A-5
(Rev: 01/22/2024 JMC) R:\Projects\1SAN-Clarita\1SAN272300\Graphics\Bio Report\AttA_SP.pdf D:\Projects\1SAN\David_March_Park\PRO\David_March_Park\David_March_Park.aprx Photo 10. View of the northern portion of the Stair Location, facing southeast.
Photo 9. Overview of Baseball Light 6 area, facing north.
Representative Photographs
David March Park Project
Photo 12. View of Basketball Light 2, facing southeast. (01/22/2024 JMC) R:\Projects\1SAN-Clarita\1SAN272300\Graphics\Bio Report\Attachment A-1_20240122.pdf.pdf D:\Projects\1SAN\David_March_Park\Graphics\DavidMarchPark_Att A-6.ai Photo 11. Overview of the southern portion of the Stair Location, facing southeast.
Attachment A-6
Representative Photographs
David March Park Project
Attachment A-7
(Rev: 01/22/2024 JMC) R:\Projects\1SAN-Clarita\1SAN272300\Graphics\Bio Report\AttA_SP.pdf D:\Projects\1SAN\David_March_Park\PRO\David_March_Park\David_March_Park.aprx Photo 13. V iew of Basketball Light 1, facing northeast.
Appendix B
Cultural Resources Memorandum
225 South Lake Avenue
Suite 1000
Pasadena, CA 91101
Tel 626.351.2000
Fax 626.351.2030
www.Psomas.com
January 30, 2024
Julia Regan VIA EMAIL
Senior Project Manager [email protected]
Capital Improvement Projects
City of Santa Clarita
Subject: Cultural Resources and Archaeological Resources Research for an Addendum to the Plum Canyon County Park Adopted Final Mitigated Negative Declaration, Santa Clarita, California Dear Julia Regan:
This Technical Memorandum (memo) summarizes the Cultural Resources Literature Review and Records Searches that was conducted for the 2023 Addendum to the 2002 Plum Canyon County Park Adopted Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (2002 IS/MND). Specifically, this memo analyzes whether the design changes would constitute a substantial change to the analysis provided in the Cultural Resources of the 2002 IS/MND, or whether the Project substantially conforms to the prior analyses prepared in the 2002 IS/MND.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PROJECT LOCATION
Project Description
The Project consists of the instillation of new outdoor lighting, comprised of six individual light fixtures, and new exercise stairs. The new stadium lights would consist of three 70-foot high power LED flood lights and one 16-foot area light single pole mounted light fixture associated with the baseball field, a 50- foot flood light twin pole mounted light fixture associated with the basketball court, and one 16-foot area light single pole mounted light fixture associated with the parking lot and walkway.
METHODS
The analysis contained in this memo is based on the 2002 IS/MND Cultural Resources analysis and a 2023 South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) Literature Review and Records Search. 2002 IS/MND Cultural Resources Analysis
Archaeologists from EDAW, Inc (presently AECOM) conducted cultural resources investigations for the 2002 IS/MND at the SCCIC in 2000. The results from the 2000 SCCIC search identified six archaeological sites consisting of one precontact archaeological site (prior to the arrival of Europeans) and five historic-era sites (after the arrival of Europeans). None of the six archaeological sites identified by EDAW were located within the 2002 IS/MND Project site.
Additionally, an archaeological field survey was conducted for the Project site on November 20, 2000. No cultural resources, including archaeological sites were identified during the field survey. Therefore, the conclusion for the 2002 cultural resources study discussed in the 2002
Cultural Resources Evaluation for David March Park Project January 2024
IS/MND is that the Project would not impact cultural resources and recommended no further archaeological studies. However, given that the 2002 project boundaries have changed to include additional impact areas, there is a need to prepare an updated analysis incorporating both the results from the 2002 EDAW study and an updated SCCIC Literature Review and Records Search.
2023 SCCIC Literature Review and Records Search Results The updated 2023 literature review and records search conducted in November 29, 2023 revealed that seven cultural resource studies have been conducted within ½-mile of the Project site. These studies are described below in Table 1. The studies consisted primarily of archaeological surveys and field studies, and evaluations. None of the cultural resource studies occurred within the Project site.
TABLE 1
CULTURAL RESOURCE STUDIES WITHIN ½-MILE OF THE PROJECT SITE Report No. Author(s) (Year) Title
LA-00904 Wlodarski (1979)
An Evaluation of the Impact Upon Cultural Resources
by the Proposed Development of Tentative Tracts:
30546, 30562, and 30599 Located in Bouquet Canyon,
Los Angeles County, California
LA-01114 Toren (1976)
Assessment of the Archaeological Impact by the
Proposed Development of Tract No. 32615 in Valencia,
California
LA-02590 Rasson and Greenwood
(1992)
An Archaeological Reconnaissance of Tract 31803, a
220 Acre Parcel in Plum Canyon, Los Angeles County
LA-03690 Wlodarski (1997) Cultural Resources Evaluation, City of Santa Clarita Circulation Element EIR
LA-04843 Allen (1999) Addendum to Cultural Resources Reassessment of the Camp Joseph Scott Project
LA-05137 Anonymous (1999)
Archaeological and Paleontological Resources
Reassessment of the Bouquet Canyon Project, County of
Los Angeles (VTT 52192, 52193, and 52194)
LA-12691 Simon (2010)
Class III Inventory/Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Fire Station 128 Alternate Site, Los Angeles County,
California
Source: SCCIC 2023.
Eight cultural resources (e.g., archaeological sites) were identified within the ½-mile search radius of the Project, as shown in Table 2. One of the cultural resources (P-30-000295) is a precontact rock shelter. The remaining seven cultural resources include six historic-era archaeological and one historic-era built environment (structure). None of the eight cultural resources are located within the Project site.
TABLE 2
CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN ½-MILE OF THE PROJECT SITE
Primary
Number
Trinomial Recorder (Year) Description
P-19-000295 CA-LAN-295 Riddell (1963) Precontact: rock shelter P-19-002040 CA-LAN-002040H Rasson and LeCount (1992) Historic: refuse scatter
Cultural Resources Evaluation for David March Park Project January 2024
Primary
Number
Trinomial Recorder (Year) Description
P-19-002041 CA-LAN-002041H Rasson and LeCount (1992) Historic: refuse scatter P-19-002042 CA-LAN-002042H Rasson and LeCount (1992) Historic: refuse scatter P-19-002043 CA-LAN-002043H Rasson and LeCount Historic: refuse scatter; structural remains
P-19-002044 CA-LAN-002044H Rasson and LeCount (1992) Historic: refuse scatter P-19-004853 – Roy (2018) Historic: structural
remains
P-19-004854 CA-LAN-004854H Roy (2018) Historic: structural remains; water
conveyance system;
remnants of wall
Source: SCCIC 2023.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDAIONS
Based on the cultural resources information from the 2002 IS/MND and 2023 SCCIC literature review and records search discussed above, Psomas did not identify any new cultural resources within the Project site that would be impacted from the Project. However, it is possible that during the Project disturbance, intact cultural resources may be encountered below the surface if ground disturbing activities occur within previously undisturbed soil. Impacts to such resources would be significant under CEQA. Therefore, it is recommended that the City ensure that mitigation measure M.V.1 from the 2002 IS/MND be implemented during Project construction to monitor, salvage, and curate any recovered cultural resources associated with the Project to satisfy the requirements of CEQA.
Cultural Resources Evaluation for David March Park Project January 2024
Mitigation Measure
M.V.1 If previously unidentified cultural resources, including a potential feature or intact deposit, are exposed during ground disturbing construction activities, work shall be halted in that area, and the feature will need to be assessed for significance by a qualified archaeologist.
Sincerely,
Charles Cisneros, M.S., RPA
Cultural Resources Manager
Attachments: Attachment 1 – SCCIC Records Search Results Exhibits: Exhibit 1 – Project Vicinity Map
Exhibit 2 – Project U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 – Minute Quadrangle
R:\Projects\NAJ\3NAJ010100\Techincal Reports\Paleo\Paleontological Resources Assessment-040523.docx
Cultural Resources Evaluation for David March Park Project January 2024
REFERENCES CITED
EDAW, Inc. 2002. Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: Plum Canyon Park. Prepared for the Locs Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation. Prepared by EDAW, Inc.
²
0 1,000500
Feet
D:\Projects\1SAN\David_March_Park\PRO\David_March_Park\David_March_Park.aprx\ex_LV Exhibit 1Project Location
David March Park Project
(Rev: 1-30-2024 PLO) R:\Projects\1SAN-Clarita\1SAN272300\Graphics\Bio Report\ex_Project_Location.pdf B
o
u
q
u
e
t
C
a
n
y o n R d
P l u m
C
a n y o n
R d
R o d g e r s D
r
H e l l e r C i r
S
a
n
t
a
C
a
t
a
r
i
n
a
R
d
G o l d e n V a l l e y R d
Biological Survey Area
Aerial Source: Esri, Maxar 2022
²
0 2,0001,000
Feet
D:\Projects\1SAN\David_March_Park\PRO\David_March_Park\David_March_Park.aprx\ex_USGS Exhibit 2USGS 7.5-Minute Digital Quadrangle
David March Park Project
(Rev: 1-30-2024 PLO) R:\Projects\1SAN-Clarita\1SAN272300\Graphics\Bio Report\ex_USGS.pdf Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle
Mint Canyon, Santa Clarita
Township: 04N
Range: 15W
Section: 5, 6, 7, 8
Biological Survey Area
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle
Mint Canyon
Santa Clarita
Township: 04N
Range: 15W
Section: 05, 06, 07, 08
ATTACHMENT 1
SOUTH CENTRAL COASTAL INFORMATION CENTER RECORDS SEARCH
RESULTS
Report List
Report No. Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s) ResourcesOther IDs LA-00904 1979 An Evaluation of the Impact Upon Cultural Resources by the Proposed Development of
Tentative Tracts; 30546, 30562 and 30599
Located in Bouquet Canyon, Los Angeles
County, California
Pence Archaeological
Consulting
Wlodarski, Robert J.
LA-01114 1976 Assessment of the Archaeological Impact by the Proposed Development of Tract No.
32615 in Valencia, California
Northridge Archaeological
Research Center, CSUN
Toren, George A. 19-000295
LA-02590 1992 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of Tract 31803, a 220 Acre Parcel in Plum Canyon,
Los Angeles County
Greenwood and AssociatesRasson, Judith and
Roberta S. Greenwood
19-002040, 19-002041, 19-002042,
19-002043, 19-002044
LA-03690 1997 Cultural Resources Evaluation City of Santa Clarita Circulation Element Eir
Historical, Environmental,
Archaeological, Research,
Team
Wlodarski, Robert J. 19-000065, 19-000951
LA-04843 1999 Addendum to Cultural Resources Re-
assessment of the Bouquet Canyon Project,
County of Los Angeles (vtt 52192, 52193, and
52194)
Archaeological Resource
Management Corp.
Allen, Kathleen C.
LA-05137 1999 Archaeological and Paleontological
Resources Assessment of the Camp Joseph
Scott Project
Applied Earth Works, Inc.UnknownPaleo -
LA-12691 2010 Class III Inventory/Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Fire Station 128 Alternate Site,
Los Angeles County, California
W & S ConsultantsSimon, Joseph 19-000295, 19-002040, 19-002041, 19-002042, 19-002043
Primary No. Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs ReportsType Age Attribute codes Recorded by
P-19-000295 CA-LAN-000295 Resource Name - Small
rockshelter
LA-01114, LA-
02503, LA-08555,
LA-10503, LA-12691
Site Prehistoric AP14 1963 (RIDDELL)
P-19-002040 CA-LAN-002040H Resource Name - Locus 1 LA-02590, LA- 10503, LA-12691
Site Historic AH04 1992 (Judith Rasson, Lisa LeCount,
Greenwood & Associates)
P-19-002041 CA-LAN-002041H Resource Name - Locus 2 LA-02590, LA- 10503, LA-12691
Site Historic AH04 1992 (Judith Rasson, Lisa LeCount,
Greenwood & Associates)
P-19-002042 CA-LAN-002042H Resource Name - Locus 3 LA-02590, LA- 10503, LA-12691
Site Historic AH04 1992 (Judth Rasson, Lisa LeCount,
Greenwood & Associates)
P-19-002043 CA-LAN-002043H Resource Name - Locus 4 LA-02590, LA- 10503, LA-11701,
LA-12691
Site Historic AH02; AH04; AH11 1992 (Judith Rasson, Lisa LeCount, Greenwood & Associates)
P-19-002044 CA-LAN-002044H Resource Name - Locus 5 LA-02590, LA- 09037, LA-10503,
LA-11701
Site Historic AH04 1992 (Judith Rasson, Lisa LeCount,
Greenwood & Associates)
P-19-004853 Resource Name - IPQ25-H-001;
Resource Name - New Era School
Site Historic AH02 2018 (Julie Roy, HELIX)
P-19-004854 CA-LAN-004854H Resource Name - IPQ25-H-002 Site Historic AH02; AH06; AH11 2018 (Julie Roy, HELIX)