Environmental Impact Report (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) — Santa Clarita City Council, November 26, 2024 (part 3 of 5)

Therefore, impacts related to aesthetic character of the area during construction would be the same as compared to the Proposed Project, where impacts would be considered significant but temporary.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-1 would also be recommended for the Alternative 2 Project.

Long Term Operational Impacts
Upon completion of the Alternative 2 Project the aesthetic character of the Project Site and its immediate surroundings would be permanently altered, but to a lesser extent than the Proposed Project. Views of the hillside on the southeast portion of the Project Site would be similarly altered by grading for the proposed roadway extension.

Views of the Project Site at the intersection of Railroad Avenue and 13th Street would be similar to existing views of the intersection, since the Alternative 2 Project includes the improvement of the at-grade railroad crossing. A visual simulation of the views at the Arch Street/12th Street/Placerita Canyon/Dockweiler Drive Intersection is depicted in Figure 4.1-6 in Section 4.1, Aesthetics. The resulting aesthetic impacts under the Alternative 2 Project would be similar to the proposed project and would be as shown in Figure 4.1-6. As the proposed infrastructure improvements would be made in accordance with the City’s roadway standards and would be attractively landscaped, aesthetic impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, as noted in Section 2.0, Project Description, the loss of the oak tree at this location (See Figure 4.1-6, Before View, Looking South) would require an oak tree permit and would require replacement tree to be planted as part of the permit approval process, aesthetic impacts associated with the loss of oak trees would be reduced to less than significant levels.

City of Santa Clarita August 2017
Lyons Avenue/Dockweiler Drive Extension Project 6.4 Alternative 2 SCH No. 2013082016 Page 6.4-9
As the Alternative 2 Project does not include the roadway extension between Dockweiler Drive and Lyons Avenue, views of this intersection would largely remain unchanged, as compared to the Proposed Project. Like the Proposed Project, the roadway extension would be developed in accordance with the City’s roadway standards and design guidelines to ensure the graded hillsides, medians, and walkways are landscaped in a manner that maintains the visual aesthetic quality and character of the City’s roadway infrastructure. Therefore, impacts related to long-term operation would be the same as compared to the less than significant impact anticipated for the Proposed Project.

Alteration of A Significant Ridgeline
Similar to the Proposed Project, construction of the proposed roadway alignment between Dockweiler Drive and Arch Street would permanently alter a significant ridgeline as designated in the City of Santa Clarita General Plan. However, as noted in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, the eastern segment of the Dockweiler alignment was previously approved under a separate project entitlement for The Master’s University in 2009, which included a Ridgeline Alteration Permit for the eastern segment of this ridgeline.1 As part of the approved entitlements for The Master’s University Master Plan in 2009, the irreversible grading and re-contouring of the ridgeline was approved to the western limit of the Master’s University Campus. As shown in Figure 4.1-1, the grading limits of the Proposed Project (which would be the same under this Alternative) would retain the gradual elevation profile of the base of the ridgeline leading to the Master’s University Campus. Limited views of the altered portion of the ridgeline within the Proposed Project limits would be partially visible from the public rights-of-way along Market Street and Race Street to the south of the Project Site (see Figure 4.1-5 in Section 4.1, Aesthetics). As a project design feature under this Alternative the grading plan would incorporate landform grading practices to blend the manufactured slopes and required drainage benches into the natural topography to the maximum extent feasible. Plant materials will be utilized to protect slopes from slippage and soil erosion and minimize the visual effects of grading and construction on a hillside area. With approval of a Hillside Review Permit, aesthetic impacts associated with the grading of Alternative 2 would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Visual Character
Similar to the Proposed Project, the Alternative 2 Project would not introduce buildings or development that would block existing views or substantially degrade the visual character of the existing site. The Alternative 2 Project also includes pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycle improvements to Dockweiler Drive that would include wide sidewalks, Class II bike lanes on each side, and a multi-purpose trail on the east side. Class II bike routes will provide a striped lane for one-way bike travel and will be marked with signs and pavement striping. Multi-purpose trails are to be unpaved and will be available for equestrian, hiking, and mountain bike use. These project features would increase accessibility to scenic natural resources including the Newhall Creek and surrounding ridgelines and mountains. Therefore, impacts related to visual character would be the less than significant.

1 Ibid.

City of Santa Clarita August 2017
Lyons Avenue/Dockweiler Drive Extension Project 6.4 Alternative 2 SCH No. 2013082016 Page 6.4-10
Roadway Light and Glare
Ambient nighttime lighting for the Alternative 2 Project would be similar to that of the Proposed Project.

The Alternative 2 Project would introduce nighttime lighting to the Project Area, which will include polemounted streetlights at intersections and lighted bollards along Dockweiler Drive, and would contribute to additional light and glare from the headlights of vehicles utilizing the roadway. Compared to the Proposed Project, Alternative 2 would introduce less lighting and glare sources, as Alternative 2 does not include the roadway connection between Dockweiler Drive and Lyons Avenue.

Lighting uses associated with the Alternative 2 Project are not anticipated to substantially impact any surrounding sensitive uses as the streetlights would be installed with downward directional fixtures and would not create light trespass onto any adjacent properties. Light emanating from the Alternative 2 Project would be a relatively low-level indirect source of light illuminating the roadway and pedestrian walkways and would not adversely impact other properties in the immediate area. Additionally, the steep terrain and orientation of the southeastern portion of the Project Site would shield vehicle headlights, signage lighting and streetlights from impacting the residential properties within the Placerita Canyon community to the east and along Market and Race Streets to the west. Overall, the Alternative 2 Project would be expected to slightly increase ambient lighting in the area, but compliance with the design standards and requirements established in the Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 17.51.050 would mitigate lighting impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, impacts related to roadway light and glare would be less than significant.

Air Quality
Construction
Construction of the Alternative 2 Project would occur over an approximately 12-month timeframe and would involve clearing, grading, excavation, trenching, and asphalt paving. Sources of emissions during construction include: stationary and mobile uses of construction equipment, construction vehicles (heavyduty construction vehicles and worker vehicles), and energy use. Additionally, earthwork and construction activities would generate fugitive dust emissions. These construction-related emissions and their associated air quality impacts would be short-term in nature and limited only to the period when construction activity is actively taking place. The Alternative 2 Project’s construction emissions would similar to the emissions generated under the Proposed Project, but slightly reduced as this alternative would involve less mass grading. The increased emissions associated with the Arch Street to 13th Street improvements would be offset by the avoidance of grading associated with the Dockweiler to Lyons connection. As the Proposed Project emissions would be below SCAQMD’s significance thresholds for all criteria pollutants, the Alternative 2 regional construction air quality emissions would be less than significant.

AQMP Consistency
The Alternative 2 Project would not exceed the AQMD’s significance thresholds for regional construction emissions and thus would not increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new air quality violations within the Basin. The Alternative 2 Project is consistent with City of Santa Clarita August 2017
Lyons Avenue/Dockweiler Drive Extension Project 6.4 Alternative 2 SCH No. 2013082016 Page 6.4-11
the AQMP and would not interfere with attainment of air quality levels identified in the AQMP. Similar to the Proposed Project, the Alternative 2 Project would help reduce congestion and vehicles per miles travelled by providing sidewalks and bicycle lanes and by providing direct access from the residential area and Master’s University area to the Jan Heidt Newhall Metrolink Station and Old Town Newhall.

The Alternative 2 Project encourages alternative modes of transportation other than motor vehicles and would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the AQMP to reduce vehicle emissions throughout the Basin.

Localized Construction Emissions
Similar to the Proposed Project, the Alternative 2 Project would result in significant localized air emissions in close proximity to residential land uses within 100 meters of the Project Site on a temporary and intermittent basis during construction. Localized NOx and CO emissions would be below the significance thresholds at all sensitive receptor locations. However, localized thresholds would be exceeded for PM10 and PM2 5 emissions at two locations: (1) the single family residential land uses located immediately north of the Project Site (within a proximity of 100 meters) and (2) the residential land uses within 100 meters south of the Project Site in the vicinity of Market Street and Race Street.

Localized emissions would be below the stated thresholds for any land use located further than 100 meters from the Project Site. Therefore, notwithstanding implementation of mitigation measures 4.2-1 through 4.2-4, localized air quality impacts resulting from construction activities would be considered significant and unavoidable.

Operational Emissions
Although the Alternative 2 Project would not directly generate any new vehicle trips, it would result in changes to the traffic circulation in the vicinity and would alter the average daily traffic volumes and peak hour traffic volumes at local intersections. A CO hotspot analysis was conducted for the Proposed Project, and as the Alternative 2 Project is within the same envelope as the Proposed Project, it was found that, under worst-case conditions, future CO concentrations at each intersection would not exceed the state 1- hour and 8-hour standards with or without the development of the Proposed Project. Therefore, no significant project-related impact would occur relative to future carbon monoxide concentrations of the Alternative 2 Project. The Alternative 2 Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to this criterion.

Biological Resources
Habitat Modification
Vegetation
The Alternative 2 Project Site grading plans for the roadway extension of Dockweiler Drive to the to Arch Street would be similar to the Proposed Project; however, the Alternative 2 Project would not include the roadway extension of Lyons Avenue to Dockweiler Drive. As such, the Alternative 2 Project would be within the envelope of the Project Site analyzed for the Proposed Project; however, less acres of City of Santa Clarita August 2017
Lyons Avenue/Dockweiler Drive Extension Project 6.4 Alternative 2 SCH No. 2013082016 Page 6.4-12
vegetation would be removed as compared to the Proposed Project. Of the vegetation communities impacted by the Alternative 2 Project, Disturbed California Sagebrush-California Buckwheat Scrub would be the dominant plant community present by area and approximately less than 0.63 acre of this habitat would be lost through site grading and project implementation. The loss of less than 2 acres of vegetation is considered adverse; although, due to the Site’s disturbance history, its small size, the lack of sensitive plant communities, the lack of structure for wildlife, and high percentage of invasive and nonnative plant species generally associated with disturbed areas, impacts associated with the loss of less than 2 acres of vegetation present on-site is considered less than significant. The only special-status plants observed during the field investigation were two coast live oaks. No other special-status plants are considered to have a high potential for occurrence within the Project Site. A permit is required for the encroachment into the Protected Zone.

Wildlife
Similar to the Proposed Project, construction activity and grading operations of the Project Site for the Alternative 2 Project would disturb and/or threaten the survival of common wildlife species present onsite. It is expected that species of low mobility, particularly small mammals, amphibians, and reptiles, would be lost during site preparation, grading, and construction. Site grading and project implementation would eliminate approximately less than approximately 2 acres of natural habitat present on-site, and would result in an incremental reduction in native wildlife species abundance and diversity. However, due to nearby urban development and the associated human disturbance, field investigations indicate wildlife diversity and abundance on the Project Site is relatively low. Most the species of mammals, birds, and reptiles observed on-site or thought to occur on-site are relatively common. Project implementation is not expected to cause current wildlife population of common species on or adjacent to the Project Site to drop below self-sustaining levels. Therefore, impacts to common wildlife species are not considered significant.

Project-related activities associated with site preparation and construction could result in the direct loss of individuals of one special-status wildlife species (the silvery legless lizard) and of active nests or the abandonment of active nests by adult birds should grading occur during nesting season. The loss of a California species of special concern and active bird nests would be a considered significant without mitigation. Implementation of mitigation measures 4.3-2 and 4.3-3 would reduce impacts to the silvery legless lizard and nesting birds to a less than significant level.

Federally Protected Wetlands
Based on field investigations, two CDFW jurisdictional features occur within the Project Site for the Proposed Project, the Newhall Creek and a small ephemeral drainage that is a tributary to Newhall Creek.

There is also a small area of narrow-leaf willow thicket, which probably does not qualify as a Federally jurisdictional wetland. As the Alternative 2 Project does not include the extension of Lyons Avenue to Dockweiler Drive, the Alternative 2 Project would not result in either temporary or permanent impacts to the areas of the Newhall Creek and its associated tributary and are classified as “riverine and related City of Santa Clarita August 2017
Lyons Avenue/Dockweiler Drive Extension Project 6.4 Alternative 2 SCH No. 2013082016 Page 6.4-13
permanent water, with continuous flow at least seasonally.” As such no impacts to jurisdictional resources would occur.

Wildlife Movement and Corridors
Similar to the Proposed Project, the Project Site for Alternative 2 is generally surrounded on three sides by development and road networks. Although the Newhall Creek is located to the west of the Project Site for the Alternative 2 Project, the Project would not would not result in any barrier to wildlife movement and would not impede the ability of Newhall Creek to function as a wildlife movement corridor. The Alternative 2 Project as proposed would not result in significant impacts to wildlife movement.

Construction Activity
Similar to the Proposed Project, construction-related activities, particularly site clearing, grading, and the implementation of the road surface, could have adverse effects on plant and wildlife habitat, and together, would be considered a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-4 would reduce these construction-related impacts to a less than significant level.

Operation
Increase in Populations of Non-Native Species
Similar to the Proposed Project, non-native plants and wildlife are expected to increase on-site, because these species are more adapt to urban environments and can out-compete native species. Historical and ongoing development in the vicinity of the Project Site has already supported continual and ongoing increase and proliferation of non-native plant and wildlife species in the vicinity of the Project Site.

Development of the Alternative 2 Project is not expected to substantially increase the distribution of nonnative plants and wildlife. With compliance to Mitigation Measure 4.3-5, Alternative 2 Project impacts would be less than significant.

Increased Light and Glare
Similar to the Proposed Project, it is anticipated that nighttime lighting would increase in areas adjacent to the Project Site, which can disturb breeding and foraging behavior, movement, and can potentially alter breeding cycles of birds, mammals, and nocturnal invertebrates. Because of surrounding development around the Project Site, nearby natural areas already receive some nighttime lighting. The Alterantive 2 Project would increase light and glare effects near to the Newhall Creek corridor. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-6 would decrease this impact to a less than significant level.

Stormwater and Urban Runoff
Similar to the Proposed Project, it is expected that stormwater runoff would be limited to pavement runoff during periodic storm events. It is reasonable to assume runoff could substantially affect special-status species potentially occurring downstream from the Project Site (i.e. Newhall Creek), incrementally diminish habitat, and degrade the quality of the environment. With the compliance to City’s standard City of Santa Clarita August 2017
Lyons Avenue/Dockweiler Drive Extension Project 6.4 Alternative 2 SCH No. 2013082016 Page 6.4-14
stormwater requirements and required design criteria, impacts to Newhall Creek resulting from Stormwater runoff would be less than significant.

Cultural Resources
Cultural and Historic Resources
No cultural or historic habitable structures are located on-site, and as such, similar to the Proposed Project the Alternative 2 Project would not have the potential to adversely impact any historic or cultural resources.

Archaeological Resources
No known archeological sites are identified within the Project Site for the Alternative 2 Project. While, portions of the Project Site are improved with roadways, the Alternative 2 Project will consist of earthwork activities, such as grading and excavation, in areas that are currently undeveloped.

Construction-related earthwork activities may result in the accidental discovery of prehistoric or historic archaeological resources or Native American burial sites. Implementation of mitigation measures 4.4-1 will reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Paleontological Resources
The Alternative 2 Project is within the envelope of the Project Site for the Proposed Project. The records search conducted by the Vertebrate Paleontology Department of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County yielded no known fossil localities within the Project Site for the Proposed Project. The closest vertebrate fossil localities are from the Saugus Formation, located directly north of the Project Site. While it is possible that fossilized materials may be discovered during site preparation and construction, specifically grading and excavation activities, precautionary measures set forth in mitigation measure 4.4-2 would reduce any potential adverse impacts to paleontological resources to a less than significant level.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Similar to the Proposed Project, Alternative 2 would not have a direct impact upon known tribal cultural resources. Nevertheless, provisions for the identification and evaluation of accidentally discovered archeological resources would be implemented in accordance with mitigation measure 4.4-1. With the incorporation of mitigation measure 4.4-1, impacts upon tribal resources would be less than significant.

Geology And Soils
The Project Site is underlain by Saugus Formation, Pacoima Formation, Quaternary alluvium and artificial fill and has historic high groundwater elevations greater than 50 feet in depth. The Project Site is located in the State of California Seismic Hazard Zone map for the Newhall Quadrangle. Hazards related to seismic-related ground failures (including ground rupture and liquefaction) are considered low.

City of Santa Clarita August 2017
Lyons Avenue/Dockweiler Drive Extension Project 6.4 Alternative 2 SCH No. 2013082016 Page 6.4-15
All slopes should be evaluated by the Project Geotechnical engineer at the planning and design stages.

The hillside area of the site is designated on the State of California Seismic Hazard Zone Map to have earthquake-induced slope instability. No landslides have been mapped on the Project Site. Remedial measures will be required where ascending or descending cut slopes are not stable as determined by geologic or geotechnical stability analyses. The potential for earthquake-induced slope failures is considered low provided that future geologic and geotechnical evaluations and recommendations for slope stability is incorporated into design and construction.

Additionally, specific recommendations for design and construction should be provided to address soil stability, including: hydro-compression, expansive soils, rippability, the handling of oversized material, soil corrosivity, shirking and bulking of materials, and the handling of the need for retaining wall.

No oil wells have been drilled on or immediately adjacent to the Project Site. If any undocumented oil wells are encountered during future construction operations at the site, their location(s) should be surveyed and the current well conditions evaluated. Water wells have been drilled in the vicinity of the proposed road alignments. If one of these water well is within the proposed road alignment, or if a water well is encountered during future construction operations at the site, the location should be surveyed and the potential impacts to well conditions should be evaluated. The implementation of mitigation measure

4.5-1 would insure that potential Alternative 2 Project impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Hydrology And Water Quality
Construction
During the construction phase, the typical pollutants that affect surface water quality are: sediment from soil erosion, petroleum products (gasoline, diesel, kerosene, oil and grease), hydrocarbons from asphalt paving, construction equipment leaks, paints and solvents, detergents, fertilizers, and pesticides. Similar to the Proposed Project, the Alternative 2 Project would be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP prior to earthwork activities that will put best management practices and erosion control measures to prevent pollution in stormwater discharge. All project construction activities would comply with the City’s grading permit regulations, which require the implementation of grading and dust control measures, including a wet weather erosion control plan if construction occurs during rainy season, as well as inspections to ensure that sedimentation and erosion is minimized. Therefore, through compliance with NPDES requirements and City grading regulations, the Alternative 2 Project’s construction impacts related to water quality would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Construction-related impacts to hydrology and water quality would therefore be less than significant.

City of Santa Clarita August 2017
Lyons Avenue/Dockweiler Drive Extension Project 6.4 Alternative 2 SCH No. 2013082016 Page 6.4-16
Operation
Once the Alternative 2 Project has been constructed, urban runoff could include the aforementioned contaminants, trace metals, landscape maintenance debris, dry product spills, and “nuisance flows” from landscape irrigation during the dry-season. In accordance with NPDES requirements, the Project Applicant would be required to have a Project-specific SUSMP in place during the operational life of the Project to address the management of runoff from the proposed roadway extension. The SUSMP would include site design, source control, low-impact development, and best management practices. Therefore, implementation of the storm water quality plan would reduce water quality impacts during the Alternative 2 Project’s operation to less than significant.

Inundation and Flooding
Unlike the Proposed Project, the Alternative 2 Project does include the roadway extension from Lyons Avenue to Dockweiler Drive, which spans a portion of the Newhall Creek. As such, the Alternative 2 Project would not include the development of a new bridge across Newhall Creek or require embankment protection to the roadway and creek and this alternative would not have any impacts upon hydrologic flows within Newhall Creek.

Land Use And Planning
Implementation of the Alternative 2 Project would not disrupt or physically divide an established community. Monument signage will properly guide traffic and identify the entrance to the Placerita Canyon community as a residential community with no through access. Additionally, similar to the Proposed Project, the Alternative 2 Project will provide increased pedestrian and vehicular access in the area.

The Alternative 2 Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations, including: the Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy, City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code, City of Santa Clarita General Plan (including the Circulation Element), the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District and North Newhall Area, Old Town Newhall Specific Plan, and the Compass Blueprint Concept Plan. As such, implementation of Project Alternative 2 would create a less than significant impact with regards to land use and planning.

Similar to the Proposed Project, Alternative 2 would require an oak tree permit for the loss of two oak trees that are located within the proposed grading limits and right-of-way alignment and a Hillside Review Permit for the grading of an existing hillside. Approval of the Oak Tree Permit and Hillside Review Permit would reduce land use impacts to less than significant levels.

City of Santa Clarita August 2017
Lyons Avenue/Dockweiler Drive Extension Project 6.4 Alternative 2 SCH No. 2013082016 Page 6.4-17
Noise
Construction
Similar to the Proposed Project, construction of the Alternative 2 Project would require the use of heavy equipment for ground clearing, site grading, and roadway construction. Several pieces of construction equipment operating simultaneously would generate a noise level of approximately 94.6 dBA. The estimated construction noise levels impacting sensitive receptors are expected to exceed the City’s daytime noise standards for residential uses (see Table 4.8-8). The construction noise levels would therefore constitute a significant impact.

Operational
Similar to the Proposed Project, the Alternative 2 Project is anticipated to alter roadway traffic volumes as the Proposed Project would create a new roadway segment connecting Lyons Avenue to Dockweiler Drive. Locations in the vicinity of the Project Site could experience slight changes in noise levels as a result of the change in traffic patterns. The changes in future noise levels along the study-area roadway segments in the project vicinity are for the Proposed Project’s near term (Year 2019) impacts would increase local noise levels by a maximum of 2.7 dBA CNEL (at the location of Dockweiler Drive (between Sierra Highway and Valle del Oro). This increase would be below the identified thresholds of significance. At all other roadway segments, the resulting noise levels are anticipated to decrease. As such the Alternative 2 Project’s potential to generate a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project would be less than significant.

The Future (2019) With Project noise levels on the new roadway segment from Lyons Avenue to Valle del Oro are expected to be 63.3 dBA (CNEL) within 50 feet of the centerline of the roadway. The resulting noise levels at the three identified sensitive receptors would be below 52.9 dBA. Thus, the anticipated with project noise levels at all off-site receptor locations would be within the “normally acceptable” range of noise for residential areas. Therefore, the Alternative 2 Project’s noise impacts would be less than significant.

The Alternative 2 Project would direct more traffic through Arch Street and 13th Street in lieu of the Dockweiler/Lyons Extension, which would not be constructed as part of this alternative. The land uses along Arch Street and 13th Street are commercial properties and are not considered sensitive land uses for purposes of evaluating noise impacts. Thus noise impacts associated with the change of traffic flows under this alternative would be less than significant.

Transportation and Traffic
Alternative 2 to the Proposed Project utilizes the City of Santa Clarita’s General Plan proposed alignment for Dockweiler Drive, which identifies the connection of Dockweiler Drive to extend to Arch Street. The route will continue along Arch Street to 13th Street to link to Railroad Avenue. Unlike the Proposed Project, Alternative 2 does not include the roadway segment between the Dockweiler extension and Lyons Avenue. Additionally, Alternative 2 proposes to maintain and improve the 13th Street rail crossing.

City of Santa Clarita August 2017
Lyons Avenue/Dockweiler Drive Extension Project 6.4 Alternative 2 SCH No. 2013082016 Page 6.4-18
Compared to the Proposed Project, the Alternative 2 Project includes sixteen study intersections and does not contain Intersection 17, which is Lyons Avenue and Dockweiler Drive. Alternative 2 is illustrated in Figure 6.4-1.

The following section addresses Alternative 2 Project’s impact on transportation and traffic based on the Traffic Study titled, Traffic Impact Analysis: Dockweiler Drive Alignment Project, Santa Clarita, CA, prepared by David Evans and Associates, dated August 8, 2017. The complete Traffic Study is included in Appendix H to this Draft EIR.

Opening Year (2019) Conditions With Alternative 2 Project The Santa Clarita Valley Consolidated Traffic Model (SCVCTM) for Interim Year provided traffic volumes for the Project Year 2019 with Alternative 2 Project Condition. The model plots outlined the distribution of future traffic with the construction of the Alternative 2 Project. The Project Year 2019 Alternative 2 study intersections are provided in Figure 6.4-7, and the volumes provided in Figure 6.4-8.

The analysis for the intersection of Arch Street/Dockweiler Drive and 12th Street/Placerita Canyon Road was conducted as a 5-leg all way stop controlled intersection.

The intersections were analyzed using the capacity analysis methodology. The analysis was conducted with the Project Year 2019 with Alternative 2 Project existing and mitigated study intersection geometrics illustrated in Figure 6.4-9. The LOS for the study intersections presented in Table 6.4-1 represents the LOS for the critical movement. This is typically the stop controlled left turn from the minor street.

As presented in Table 6.4-1 under Year 2019 with Alternative 2 Condition, most of the study intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at LOS E or better. Four intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS F, they are: Sierra Highway and SR-14 Southbound Ramps, Sierra Highway and Placerita Canyon Road, SR-14 Northbound Ramps and Placerita Canyon Road, SR-14 Southbound Ramps and Newhall Avenue. The same mitigation measures presented for the Proposed Project would generally be necessary to accommodate the anticipated Year 2019 traffic and reduce potential impacts for the Alternative 2 Project.

City of Santa Clarita August 2017
Lyons Avenue/Dockweiler Drive Extension Project 6.4 Alternative 2 SCH No. 2013082016 Page 6.4-23
With mitigation, the Sierra Highway and SR-14 Southbound Ramp intersection (Study Intersection 1) levels of service will increase to LOS B and LOS C during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively.

With mitigation, the Sierra Highway and Placerita Canyon Road intersection (Study Intersection 2) level of service will remain the same at LOS C during the AM peak hour and will increase to LOS D during the PM peak hour. With mitigation, the SR-14 Northbound Ramps and Placerita Canyon Road intersection (Study Intersection 3) level of service will remain the same at LOS B during the AM peak hour and will increase to LOS B during the PM peak hour. With mitigation, the SR-14 Southbound Ramps and Newhall Avenue intersection (Study Intersection 5) levels of service will increase to LOS A during both AM and PM peak hours. With the implementation of the mitigation measures summarized in Section 4.9, Traffic and Circulation, Alternative 2 Project’s impacts during the 2019 build-out year would also be less than significant. However, Alternative 2 would not require implementation of mitigation measures 4.92-2. 4.9- 4 and 4.9-5, as compared to the Proposed Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project and the Alternative 2 Project would both result in a less than significant impact after mitigation.

Future (2035) Conditions With Alternative 2 Project
The Santa Clarita Valley Consolidated Traffic Model (SCVCTM) for Build-Out Year provided traffic volumes for the Future Year 2035 with Alternative 2 Condition. The model plots outlined the distribution of future traffic with the construction of the Alternative 2 Project. The analysis of Alternative 2 utilizes the traffic volume projections for the City of Santa Clarita’s traffic model together with the existing traffic flow data. The traffic projections are based on the General Plan Buildout. The buildout includes construction of future roadways Dockweiler Drive between 13th Street and Valle Del Oro, Magic Mountain Parkway from Railroad Avenue to Via Princessa, Via Princessa between Claibourne Lane and Sheldon Avenue, and Santa Clarita Parkway. This also includes the proposed conceptual development of the North Newhall area (809 dwelling unit plus an approximate 11-acre commercial land use). The Future Year 2035 Alternative 2 study intersections provided in Figure 6.4-10, the volumes provided in Figure

6.4-11.

The intersections were analyzed using the capacity analysis methodology. The analysis was conducted with the Future Year 2035 Alternative 2 Project Condition existing and mitigated study intersection geometrics illustrated in Figure 6.4-12. The LOS for the study intersections presented in Table 6.4-2 represents the LOS for the critical movement. This is typically the stop controlled left turn from the minor street.

With mitigation, the Sierra Highway and Placerita Canyon Road intersection (Study Intersection 2) levels of service will increase from a LOS F to LOS D during both AM and PM peak hours. With mitigation, the Sierra Highway and Newhall Avenue intersection (Study Intersection 6) levels of service will increase from LOS E to LOS D during the AM peak hour and LOS F to LOS D during the PM peak hour. With

City of Santa Clarita August 2017
Lyons Avenue/Dockweiler Drive Extension Project 6.4 Alternative 2 SCH No. 2013082016 Page 6.4-29
As presented in Table 6.4-3 under Alternative 2 Year 2019, the total average daily traffic is anticipated to be higher under the No Build Condition as compared to the Proposed Project and Alternative 2.

Alternative 2’s total average daily railroad crossings would result in 6,390 fewer crossings as compared to the No Build condition and 820 fewer railroad crossings as compared to the Proposed Project condition.

For the Year 2035 Condition, the total average daily traffic is anticipated to be highest under the Proposed Project Condition. Alternative 2 would result in 3,370 fewer crossings under Alternative 2 as compared to the No Build condition and 6,230 fewer crossings than the Proposed Project condition. As such, Alternative 2 would be preferable over the No Build and Proposed Project scenarios.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Similar to the Proposed Project, the Alternative 2 would comply with Santa Clarita’s circulation goals and enhancing the circulation system by providing bicycle lanes and accessibility to bicycle paths that are fundamental for a comprehensive transportation network.

MITIGATION MEASURES (ALTERNATIVE 2)
Year 2019 Project Mitigation Measures

6.4-1 Dockweiler Drive extension: Construct to full Secondary Highway Pavement width, from Aden Avenue to west of Valle Del Oro, providing two lanes eastbound (uphill) and one lane westbound (downhill), as necessary. May be striped for parking lane on both sides of roadway in interim condition. Class II Bike lanes and Pedestrian Sidewalks to be provided.

6.4-2 Arch Street (north leg) / Dockweiler Drive (south leg) / 12th Street (east and west legs) / Placerita Canyon Road (southeast leg): Convert intersection to a 5-leg all way stop controlled intersection including Dockweiler Drive as the 5th leg. Arch Street will include a shared left-through-right lane accommodating left turning movements to the west leg (12th Street) and Placerita Canyon Road. Dockweiler Drive will include a shared left-through right lane accommodating right turning movements to Placerita Canyon Road and the west leg (12th Street). The east leg (12th Street) will include a shared left-through-right lane accommodating left turning movements to Placerita Canyon Road and Dockweiler Drive. The west leg (12th Street) will include a shared left-through-right lane accommodating right turning movements to Dockweiler Drive and Placerita Canyon Road. Placerita Canyon Road will include a shared left-right lane accommodating left turning movements to Dockweiler Drive and west leg (12th Street) and right turning movements to the east leg (12th Street) and Arch Street.

Year 2019 Regional Mitigation Measures

6.4-3 Sierra Highway (North-South) and SR-14 Freeway Southbound Ramps (East-West): The intersection modifications include installing a traffic signal and widening the southbound direct to provide an additional left turn lane. The northbound direction will include a through lane, and a shared through-right turn lane. The southbound direction will include two left turn lanes, and two through lanes. The eastbound direction will include a left turn lane and a right turn lane.

City of Santa Clarita August 2017
Lyons Avenue/Dockweiler Drive Extension Project 6.4 Alternative 2 SCH No. 2013082016 Page 6.4-30

6.4-4 Sierra Highway (North-South) and Placerita Canyon Road (East-West): The intersection modifications include lane modifications to provide an exclusive right turn westbound lane and right turn northbound lane. The northbound direction will include a left turn lane, two through lanes, and a right turn lane. The south and eastbound directions will include a left turn lane, a through lane, and a shared through-right turn lane. The westbound direction will include a left turn lane, a through lane, and a right turn lane.

6.4-5 SR-14 Freeway Northbound Ramps (North-South) and Placerita Canyon Road (East-West): The intersection modifications include installing a traffic signal. The northbound direction will include a left turn lane and a right turn lane. The east and westbound directions will include two through lanes.

6.4-6 SR-14 Freeway Southbound Ramps (North-South) and Newhall Avenue (East-West): The intersection modifications include converting the east and southbound right turn lanes to free right turns and signalizing the intersection. The eastbound direction will include two through lanes and a free right turn lane. The southbound direction will include a shared through-left turn lane and a free right turn lane. The westbound direction will include a left turn lane and two through lanes.

6.4-7 Newhall Avenue (North-South) and Lyons Avenue (East-West): The intersection modifications include converting the eastbound through-right lane to a right turn lane. The northbound direction will include two left turn lanes and a shared through-right lane. The southbound direction will include a left turn lane and a shared through-right lane. The east and westbound directions will include a left turn lane, two through lanes, and a right turn lane.

Year 2035 Project Mitigations

6.4-8 Railroad Avenue (North-South) and 13th Street (East-West): The intersection modifications include widening the south and westbound direction to include a left turn lane. The northbound direction will include a left turn lane, two through lanes and a right turn lane. The southbound direction will include two left turn lanes, through lane, and a shared through-right turn lane. The eastbound direction will include a shared left-through-right turn lane. The westbound direction will include a left turn lane, a through, and a right turn lane.

Year 2035 Regional Mitigations

6.4-9 Sierra Highway (North-South) and Placerita Canyon Road (East-West): The Intersection modifications include widening to accommodate lane modifications to all approaches. Widen the northbound direction to accommodate an additional through lane. Widen the east and southbound directions to accommodate two additional through lanes and restripe the shared through-right lane to a right turn only lane. Widen the westbound direction to accommodate two additional through lanes. The north, east, south, and westbound direction will include a left turn lane, three through lanes, and a right turn lane.

City of Santa Clarita August 2017
Lyons Avenue/Dockweiler Drive Extension Project 6.4 Alternative 2 SCH No. 2013082016 Page 6.4-31

6.4-10 Sierra Highway (North-South) and Newhall Avenue (East-West): Intersection modifications include converting the northbound through-right turn lane to a through lane and widening to accommodate a free right turn. The northbound direction will include two left turn lanes, two through lanes, and a free right turn. The southbound direction will include a left turn lane, two through lanes, and a shared through-right turn lane. The east and westbound directions will include two left turn lane, three through lanes, and a right turn lane.

6.4-11 Main Street (north leg) / Newhall Avenue (south leg) / Newhall Avenue (west leg): The intersection modifications include widening the northbound direction to accommodate a left turn lane and the eastbound direction to accommodate a right turn lane. Newhall Avenue (south leg) will include a left turn lane and a shared left-through lane. Main Street will include a shared rightthrough lane. Newhall Avenue (east leg) will include a shared left right lane and a right turn lane.

6. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

5. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Lyons Avenue/Dockweiler Drive Extension Project 6.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative SCH No. 2013082016 Page 6.5-1
Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an “environmentally superior” alternative be selected among the alternatives that are evaluated in the EIR. In general, the environmentally superior alternative is the alternative that would be expected to generate the fewest adverse impacts. The environmentally superior alternative would be the No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative would eliminate the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts related to localized construction emissions, and construction noise and vibration impacts. However, the No Project Alternative would not achieve any of the stated Project Objectives, as it would maintain the status quo.

As required by CEQA, when the No Project Alternative is shown to be environmentally superior over the Proposed Project, a separate Environmentally Superior Project Alternative shall be identified among the alternatives analyzed within the EIR. Based on a review of the project alternatives identified in this EIR, neither of the alternatives would be effective in eliminating the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts. Table 6.5-1, Environmentally Superior Alternative Matrix presents a summary of the impact conclusions for each alternative relative to the impact statements for each impact areas evaluated in the EIR for the Proposed Project.

Of the alternatives evaluated, the Alternative 2 Project would reduce the footprint of the Project Site, as it excludes the Lyons Avenue Extension to Dockweiler Drive, and maintains the at-grade crossing at 13th Street. A comparison of the Alternative 1 Project to the Alternative 2 Project is provided below in Table

6.5-1. As shown in the table below, although both alternatives are very similar with respect to environmental impacts; however, the Alternative 2 Project’s reduced Project Site footprint has the potential to reduce impacts more so than the Alternative 1 Project. For that reason, the Alternative 2 Project is identified as the environmentally superior alternative. A discussion of the changes to impacts between the Alternative 1 Project and the Alternative 2 Project are further discussed below.

Similar to the Proposed Project, the Alternative 1 Project would involve the development of the proposed roadway alignment and associated infrastructure, which would include a new at-grade crossing and a secondary east-west arterial roadway connecting Lyons Avenue to the proposed Dockweiler Drive extension that would connect Dockweiler Drive to a new five-leg intersection at the Arch Street/12th Street/Placerita Canyon intersection. The Alternative 1 Project differs from the Proposed Project by improving the existing at-grade crossing at the intersection of 13th Street and Railroad Avenue instead of removing the crossing, as proposed by the Proposed Project.

City of Santa Clarita August 2017
Lyons Avenue/Dockweiler Drive Extension Project 6.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative SCH No. 2013082016 Page 6.5-3
Ridgeline Alteration Permit for the eastern segment of this ridgeline. 1 As part of the approved entitlements for The Master’s University Master Plan in 2009, the irreversible grading and re-contouring of the ridgeline was approved to the western limit of the Master’s University Campus. However, the Alternative 2 Project would not alter existing views of the Lyons Avenue and Railroad Avenue intersection and would therefore have a slightly reduced impact to existing views as compared to the Proposed Project and Alternative 1. Additionally, while Alternative 2 would still require a Hillside Review Permit and an Oak Tree Permit for the loss of one oak tree that is located within the proposed alignment, this Alternative would require the removal of one less oak tree than the Proposed Project and Alternative 1.

Air Quality
Both the Alternative 1 Project and Alternative 2 Project would result in significant localized air emissions in close proximity to residential land uses within 100 meters of the Project Site on a temporary and intermittent basis during construction. However, notwithstanding implementation of mitigation measures

4.2-1 through 4.2-4, localized air quality impacts resulting from construction activities would be considered significant and unavoidable for all both project alternatives.

With respect to operational Air Quality impacts, although neither project alternatives would directly generate new vehicle trips, both alternatives would result in changes to the traffic circulation in the vicinity and would alter the average daily traffic volumes and peak hour traffic volumes at local intersections. However, as discussed in Section 4.2 Air Quality, under worst-case conditions, future CO concentrations at each intersection of the CO hot spot analysis conducted for the Proposed Project would not exceed the state 1-hour and 8-hour standards with or without the development of the Proposed Project. Therefore, no significant project-related impact would occur relative to future carbon monoxide concentrations. As the both alternative projects are within the envelope of the Proposed Project, the alternative projects would have a less than significant impact with respect to operational air quality impacts.

Biological Resources
As the Alternative 2 Project does not include the extension of Lyons Avenue to Dockweiler Drive, it would not result in either temporary or permanent impacts to the two CDFW jurisdictional features that occur within the Project Site for the Proposed Project and Alternative 1 Project, which includes the Newhall Creek and a small ephemeral drainage that is a tributary to Newhall Creek. As such, the Alternative 2 Project would have no impact with respect to federally protected wetland and implementation of mitigation Measures 4.3-3 would not be applicable to the Alternative 2 Project.

Although all three alternatives would result in a less than significant impact with respect to biological resources with implementation of mitigation measures 4.3-1 through 4.3-6, Alternative 2 would result in slightly reduced impacts, as it would not require implementation of mitigation measure 4.3-3.

1 Ibid.

City of Santa Clarita August 2017
Lyons Avenue/Dockweiler Drive Extension Project 6.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative SCH No. 2013082016 Page 6.5-4
Cultural Resources
No cultural or historic habitable structures are located on-site, and as such, neither Alternative would have the potential to adversely impact any known historic or cultural resources. Additionally, no known archeological or paleontological sites are identified within the Project Site. While, portions of the Project Site are improved with roadways, both alternatives will consist of earthwork activities, such as grading and excavation, in areas that are currently undeveloped. Construction-related earthwork activities may result in the accidental discovery of prehistoric or historic archaeological or paleontological resources or Native American burial sites. Implementation of mitigation measures 4.4-1 and 4.4-2 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level for both alternatives. However, because Alternative 2 would involve less grading, and would avoid grading within the floodplain, it would have a reduced potential for inadvertent finds associated with archaeological, paleontological and tribal cultural resources.

Geology and Soils
The Project Site is underlain by Saugus Formation, Pacoima Formation, Quaternary alluvium and artificial fill and has historic high groundwater elevations greater than 50 feet in depth. The Project Site is located in the State of California Seismic Hazard Zone map for the Newhall Quadrangle. Hazards related to seismic-related ground failures (including ground rupture and liquefaction) are considered low.

Therefore, with implementation of mitigation measure 4.5-1, both alternatives would result in a less than significant impact with respect to geology and soils. However, because Alternative 2 would involve less grading, and would avoid grading within the floodplain, it would have a reduced potential for soil erosion, loss of topsoil and potential for altering natural landforms.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Unlike the Proposed Project and Alternative 1 Project, the Alternative 2 Project does not include the roadway extension from Lyons Avenue to Dockweiler Drive, which spans a portion of the Newhall Creek. As such, the Alternative 2 Project would not include the development of a new bridge across Newhall Creek or require embankment protection to the roadway and creek. Although all three project scenarios would result in a less than significant impacts with respect to hydrology and water quality, as all the three projects would be required to comply with the current regulatory and State permitting agencies, under the Alternative 2 Project, impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be reduced as Alternative 2 would avoid grading within the floodplain. As such the potential to alter existing storm flows through Newhall Creek would be avoided.

Land Use and Planning
Implementation of the both alternative projects would not disrupt or physically divide an established community. Monument signage will properly guide traffic and identify the entrance to the Placerita Canyon community as a residential community with no through access. Additionally, similar to the Proposed Project, both alternative projects will provide increased pedestrian and vehicular access in the area. Both alternatives would not conflict with any applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations, including: the Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy, City of Santa Clarita City of Santa Clarita August 2017
Lyons Avenue/Dockweiler Drive Extension Project 6.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative SCH No. 2013082016 Page 6.5-5
Municipal Code, City of Santa Clarita General Plan (including the Circulation Element), the Placerita Canyon Special Standards District and North Newhall Area, Old Town Newhall Specific Plan, and the Compass Blueprint Concept Plan. As such, implementation of either alternative would create a less than significant impact with regards to land use and planning.

Noise
Construction
Similar to the Proposed Project, construction of both alternatives would require the use of heavy equipment for ground clearing, site grading, and roadway construction. Several pieces of construction equipment operating simultaneously would generate a noise level of approximately 94.6 dBA. The estimated construction noise levels impacting sensitive receptors are expected to exceed the City’s daytime noise standards for residential uses (see Table 4.8-8). The construction noise levels would therefore constitute a significant impact with respect to both alternative projects.

Operational
Similar to the Proposed Project, the Alternative 2 Project is anticipated to alter roadway traffic volumes as the Proposed Project would create a new roadway segment connecting Lyons Avenue to Dockweiler Drive. Locations in the vicinity of the Project Site could experience slight changes in noise levels as a result of the change in traffic patterns. The changes in future noise levels along the study-area roadway segments in the project vicinity are for the Proposed Project’s near term (Year 2019) impacts would increase local noise levels by a maximum of 2.7 dBA CNEL (at the location of Dockweiler Drive (between Sierra Highway and Valle del Oro). This increase would be below the identified thresholds of significance. At all other roadway segments, the resulting noise levels are anticipated to decrease. As such the Proposed Project’s potential to generate a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project would be less than significant.

City of Santa Clarita August 2017
Lyons Avenue/Dockweiler Drive Extension Project 6.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative SCH No. 2013082016 Page 6.5-6
Transportation and Traffic
Opening Year (2019) Conditions
As presented in Table 6.3-1 under Year 2019 with Alternative 1 Condition and Table 6.4-1 under Year 2019 with Alternative 2 Condition, most of the study intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at LOS E or better. Like the Proposed Project, the same four intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS F, they are: Sierra Highway and SR-14 Southbound Ramps, Sierra Highway and Placerita Canyon Road, SR-14 Northbound Ramps and Placerita Canyon Road, SR-14 Southbound Ramps and Newhall Avenue.

The same mitigation measures presented for the Proposed Project would generally be necessary to accommodate the anticipated Year 2019 traffic and reduce potential impacts for the Alternative 1 Project and Alternative 2 Project. Alternative 1 Project would not require implementation of mitigation measures

4.9-5 and 4.9-10, as compared to the Proposed Project. Alternative 2 would not require implementation of mitigation measures 4.9-2. 4.9-4 and 4.9-5, as compared to the Proposed Project.

Future (2035) Conditions
As presented in Table 6.3-2 under Future Year 2035 with Alternative 1 Project Condition, several of the study intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS F. There are four intersections that are anticipated to operate at LOS F, they are: Sierra Highway and Placerita Canyon Road, Sierra Highway and Newhall Avenue, Valle Del Oro and Dockweiler Drive, and Main Street and Newhall Avenue. Similar to the Proposed Project, mitigation measures are necessary to accommodate the anticipated Future Year 2035 traffic and reduce potential Alternative 1 Project impacts.

As presented in Table 6.4-2 under Future Year 2035 with Alternative 2 Project Condition, several of the study intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS F. There are five intersections that are anticipated to operate at LOS F, they are: Sierra Highway and Placerita Canyon Road, Sierra Highway and Newhall Avenue, Valle Del Oro and Dockweiler Drive, Railroad Avenue and 13th Street, and Main Street and Newhall Avenue. Mitigation measures are necessary to accommodate the anticipated Future Year 2035 traffic and reduce potential Alternative 2 Project impacts With the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in Section 6.3 and 6.4, the Alternative 1 Project and Alternative 2 Project’s impacts during the 2035 year will be less than significant. Therefore, the Proposed Project and two alternatives would both result in a less than significant impact after mitigation.

Railroad Crossing Analysis
As presented in Table 6.3-3 under Alternative 1 Year 2019, the total average daily traffic is anticipated to be highest for the No Build Condition. Alternative 1 total average daily traffic is lower than the No Build condition but higher than the Proposed Project condition. As presented in Tables 6.3-3 and 6.4-3, the total average daily railroad crossings is anticipated to be lowest for the Alternative 2 Project condition in Year 2019. In 2019, Alternative 2 would result in 820 fewer crossings than the proposed Project and 3,160 fewer crossings than Alternative 1. For the Year 2035 buildout scenario, the total average daily railroad City of Santa Clarita August 2017
Lyons Avenue/Dockweiler Drive Extension Project 6.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative SCH No. 2013082016 Page 6.5-7
crossings is also anticipated to be lowest for the Alternative 2 Project condition. In 2035, Alternative 2 would result in 6,230 fewer crossings than the proposed Project and 8,740 fewer crossings as compared to Alternative 1. As such the Alternative 2 alignment would minimize railroad crossing events and would therefore be environmentally superior to the proposed Project.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Similar to the Proposed Project, both the Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would comply with Santa Clarita’s circulation goals and enhancing the circulation system by providing bicycle lanes and accessibility to bicycle paths that are fundamental for a comprehensive transportation network.

Lyons Avenue/Dockweiler Drive Extension Project 7. Preparers and Persons Contacted SCH No. 2013082016 Page 7-1

7. PREPARERS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
Lead Agency and Project Applicant
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302
Santa Clarita, California 91355
Mike Hennawy, Assistant City Engineer
Carla Callahan, Senior Engineer
James Chow, Senior Planner
Ian Pari, Senior Traffic Engineer
Environmental Consultant
Parker Environmental Consultants
23822 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 301
Valencia, CA 91355
Shane E. Parker, President
Jennifer Kelley, Environmental Analyst
Mariana Zimmermann, Associate Environmental Planner
Elise Lorenzana, Assistant Planner
Civil Engineer
Hall and Foreman / David Evans and Associates, Inc.
25152 Springfield Court, Suite 350
Santa Clarita CA 91355
Gabriel Rodriguez, Road and Highway Regional Manager
Biology Consultant
Impact Sciences, Inc.
803 Camarillo Springs Road, Suite C
Camarillo, California 93012
Dave Crawford, Biologist
Cultural Resources
South Central Coastal Information Center
California State University, Fullerton
Department of Anthropology
City of Santa Clarita August 2017
Lyons Avenue/Dockweiler Drive Extension Project 7. Preparers and Persons Contacted SCH No. 2013082016 Page 7-2
800 North State College Boulevard
Fullerton, CA 92834
Stacy St. James, Coordinator
Lindsey Noyes, Lead Staff Researcher
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
900 Exposition Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90007
Samuel A. McLeod, Ph.D., Vertebrate Paleontology
Geological and Geotechnical Consultants
Allen E. Seward Engineering Geology, Inc.
27825 Smyth Drive
Valencia, California 91355
Eric J. Seward, Principal Engineering Geologist
Kevin P. Callahan, Associate Geotechnical Engineer
Hydrology Consultant
Rivertech, Inc.

PO Box 3397,
Laguna Hills, CA 92654
Alex Moore, Senior Planner
Traffic Consultant
David Evans and Associates
25152 Springfield Court, Suite 350
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Robert A. Kilpatrick, Project Director/Associate
VIII. REFERENCES AND ACRONYMS
Lyons Avenue/Dockweiler Drive Extension Project 8. References and Acronyms SCH No. 2013082016 Page 8-1

1. REFERENCES
California Air Resources Board, Almanac Emission Projection Data, website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/emissiondata.htm, accessed: May 2015.

California Air Resources Board, Ambient Air Quality Standards, website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf, accessed May 2015.

California Air Resources Board, Final Supplement to the AB 32 Scoping Plan Functional Equivalent Document (FED), Attachment D, August 19, 2011.

California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Los Angeles County Important Farmland Map, 2002 Los Angeles Area Map, 2002.

California Department of Transportation, Representative Environmental Noise Levels, 1998.

Caltrans, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (2013) at page 23.

City of Santa Clarita, Beautification Master Plan, 2001.

City of Santa Clarita, City of Santa Clarita General Plan, June 2011.

City of Santa Clarita, Climate Action Plan (CAP), August 2012.

City of Santa Clarita, Compass Blue Concept Plan: City of Santa Clarita, April 2011.

City of Santa Clarita, City Floodplain Management Ordinance.

City of Santa Clarita, Hillside Development Ordinance.

City of Santa Clarita, Municipal Code.

City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code, Section 14.44.040, Noise Limits (Ord. 89-29, 1/23/90).

City of Santa Clarita, Oak Tree Ordinance No. 89-10, April 1989.

City of Santa Clarita, Old Town Newhall Specific Plan, May 2014.

City of Santa Clarita, Santa Clarita Municipal Code, 2014.

City of Santa Clarita, Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan – One Valley, One Vision, 2012.

City of Santa Clarita, Unified Development Code.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Flood Insurance Program, Flood Insurance Rate Maps, Los Angeles County, California and Incorporated Areas, Map Number 06037C0820F, September 26, 2008.

City of Santa Clarita August 2017
Lyons Avenue/Dockweiler Drive Extension Project 8. References and Acronyms SCH No. 2013082016 Page 8-2
Federal Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, Public Law 96-95, 1979.

Federal Transit Administration (Harris Miller Miller & Hanson), Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006.

Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual – 9th Edition, 2012.

Los Angeles County Congestion Management Plan (CMP), 2010.

Master’s College, Master’s College Master Plan, 2009.

Native American Heritage Act, 1984 and 1992.

National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 117, Highway Noise: A Design Guide for Highway Engineers, 1971.

National Register of Historic Places, Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations.

National Register of Historic Places, National Register Bulletin #15, revised 2002.

National Register of Historic Places, National Register Bulletin #16A.

National Register of Historic Places, National Register Bulletin #21, revised 1997.

Omnibus Public Land Management Act, Public Law 111-011, Title VI, Subtitle D on Paleontological Resources Preservation, 2009.

Palmer, Christine, Downtown Newhall Historic Survey And Specific Plan Impact Analysis 2005.

Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 7.1.5.1. Sacramento Air Quality Management District, updated 12/11/13.

South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2016 Air Quality Management Plan, March 3, 2017.

South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Significance Thresholds, website:
http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/signthres.pdf, Revision March 2011; accessed March 2015.

South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993, page 5-1.

South Coast Air Quality Management District, Historical Data by Year, website:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/air-quality/historical-data-by-year/, accessed January 2015.

South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Draft Report, Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study IV Model Estimated Carcinogenic Risk.

City of Santa Clarita August 2017
Lyons Avenue/Dockweiler Drive Extension Project 8. References and Acronyms SCH No. 2013082016 Page 8-3
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, June 2003, Revised July 2008.

South Coast Air Quality Management District, Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning, 2005.

South Coast Air Quality Management District, Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES IV Study), April 2015.

South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 1470 –Requirements for Stationary Diesel-Fueled Internal Combustion and Other Compression Ignition Engines, amended May 4, 2012.

Southern California Association of Governments, 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities, April 2012.

Southern California Association of Governments, Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide.

State of California, Alquist-Priolo Act (Public Resources Code § 2621 et seq.).

State of California Assembly Bill (AB 32), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, 2006.

State of California, California Code of Regulations, Title 14 and Title 23.

State of California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, State of California Seismic Hazard Zones Newhall Quadrangle, February 1, 1998.

State of California, Fish and Game Code of California, Sections 1600 to 1619.

State of California Public Resources Code 4852 and 5024.1.

State of California, Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (Public Resources Code §§ 2690-2699.6).

State of California, State CEQA Guidelines.

Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10 Waters of the United States, 1899.

United States, Federal Clean Water Act, 1972.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances, PB 206717, 1971.

White Paper on Regulatory Options for Addressing Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution Emissions, SCAQMD Board Meeting, September 5, 2003, Agenda No. 29, Appendix D, p. D-3.

City of Santa Clarita August 2017
Lyons Avenue/Dockweiler Drive Extension Project 8. References and Acronyms SCH No. 2013082016 Page 8-4

2. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AAM Annual Arithmetic Mean
AB Assembly Bill
ACM Asbestos-containing materials
AEP Association of Environmental Professionals
AFY Acre-feet per year
APN Assessor Parcel Number
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials
ASTs above-ground storage tanks
ATCS Adaptive Traffic Control System
Basin South Coast Air Basin
BMPs Best Management Practices
C/D construction/demolition
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAQS California ambient air quality standards
Cal/EPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board
CAT Climate Action Team
CBC California Building Code (2007)
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCAR California Climate Action Registry
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CDMG California Division of Mines and Geology
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
Cf Cubic feet
CFC Chlorofluorocarbons
CGS California Geological Survey
CH4 Methane
CHMIRS California Hazardous Material Incident Report System CMP Congestion Management Plan
CNEL Community Noise Exposure Level
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
COHb carboxyhemoglobin
City of Santa Clarita August 2017
Lyons Avenue/Dockweiler Drive Extension Project 8. References and Acronyms SCH No. 2013082016 Page 8-5
COPC Chemical of Potential Concern
CORRACTS Corrective Action Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities CPT cone penetrometer test
CWA Clean Water Act
CWC California Water Code
cy cubic yards
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel scale
d/D flow level
DHS California Department of Health and Services
DWR California Department of Water Resources
du dwelling unit
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EMS Emergency Medical Service
EOO Emergency Operations Organization
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERNS Emergency Response Notification System
FAR Floor Area Ratio
FCAA Federal Clean Air Act
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
GBCI Green Building Certification Institute
GHG greenhouse gas
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
GWP Global Warming Potential
HFC hydrofluorocarbons
HSA Hyperion Service Area
HTP Hyperion Treatment Plant
HVAC Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning
I-10 Santa Monica Freeway
I-101 Hollywood Freeway
ISO Interim Control Ordinance
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
km kilometers
kV kilovolt
kWh kilowatt-hours
LAA Los Angeles Aqueduct
LBP Lead-based paint
lbs/day pounds per day
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Ldn day-night average noise level
City of Santa Clarita August 2017
Lyons Avenue/Dockweiler Drive Extension Project 8. References and Acronyms SCH No. 2013082016 Page 8-6
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
Leq equivalent energy noise level/ambient noise level
LOS Level of Service
LST localized significance thresholds
LUST leaking underground storage tank
LUTP Land Use/Transportation Policy
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MCE Maximum Considered Earthquake
MEP maximum extent practicable
Metro Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority mgd million gallons per day
mi miles
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MS4 medium and large municipal separate storm sewer systems msl mean sea level
mm millimeters
Mmax maximum moment magnitude
MWD Metropolitan Water District
MWh Mega-Watt hours
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National ambient air quality standards
NFRAP No Further Remedial Action Planned Sites
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOP Notice of Preparation
NOx nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPL National Priorities List
O3 Ozone
OAL California Office of Administrative Law
OPR Office of Planning and Research
Pb lead
PEC Potential environmental concern
PFC perfluorocarbons
PGA peak horizontal ground acceleration
PM particulate matter
PM10 respirable particulate matter
PM2.5 fine particulate matter
ppd pounds per day
ppm parts per million
PRC Public Resources Code
psi pounds per square inch
RCP Regional Comprehensive Plan
City of Santa Clarita August 2017
Lyons Avenue/Dockweiler Drive Extension Project 8. References and Acronyms SCH No. 2013082016 Page 8-7
RCPG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide
RCRA Resource Conservation Recovery Act
RD Reporting District
REC Recognized Environmental Condition
ROG Reactive Organic Gases
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCG Southern California Gas Company
SCH State Clearinghouse
sf square feet
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SIP State Implementation Plan
SLIC Spills, Leaks, Investigation and Cleanup
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SO4 sulfates
SOx sulfur oxides
SOPA Society of Professional Archeologist
SPT Standard Penetration Test
SR-110 Harbor Freeway
SRA source receptor area
SRRE Source Reduction and Recycling Element
SWAT Solid Waste Assessment Test
SWF/LF Solid Waste Information System
SWFP Solid Waste Facility Permit
SWMP stormwater management plan
SWP State Water Project
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resource Control Board
TAC Toxic Air Contaminants
TOD Transit Oriented District
TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons
TSD Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
TSP Transportation Specific Plan
ULSD Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel
US-101 Hollywood Freeway
USEPA/ U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGBC United States Green Building Council
City of Santa Clarita August 2017
Lyons Avenue/Dockweiler Drive Extension Project 8. References and Acronyms SCH No. 2013082016 Page 8-8
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UST underground storage tank
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
V/C Volume-to-Capacity
VCP Voluntary Cleanup Plan
VdB Vibration decibels
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
WMA Watershed Management Area
WMUDS Waste Management Unit Database System
WSA Water Supply Assessment
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
Lyons Avenue/Dockweiler Road Extension Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Appendix A
Notice of Preparation and
CEQA Initial Study Checklist (July 2013)

Lyons
Avenue/Dockweiler
Drive
Extension Page
1 of
22 CITY
OF
SANTA

CLARITA

CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY
ACT
(CEQA)

INITIAL
STUDY

CHECKLIST
CEQA
Guidelines

Project
Title: Proposed
Lyons
Avenue/Dockweiler
Drive
Extension

Lead
Agency: City
of
Santa
Clarita
23920
Valencia
Boulevard,
Suite
300
Santa
Clarita,
CA
91355
Contact
Person:

Mike
Hennawy,
Senior
Engineer
mhennawy@santa-‐clarita.com
Phone:
(661)
286-‐4056
Fax:
(661)
259-‐8125
Project
Location: The
Project
is
located
in
the
City
of
Santa
Clarita,
California
located
about
35 miles
from

Downtown
Los
Angeles.

The
Project is
located
at
the
intersection
of
Lyons
Avenue
and

Railroad
Avenue
and
extends eastward
towards
the
General
Plan
alignment
for

Dockweiler
Drive
towards
The
Master’s
College.

The
Project
also
includes
the
potential

upgrade
or
closure
of
an
at-‐grade
crossing
at
the
intersection
of
Railroad
Avenue
and
13th
Street.

The
limits
for
the
Lyons
Avenue/Dockweiler
Drive
extension
(“Project
Site”)
are

from
Railroad
Avenue
on
the
west
to
the
future
Master’s College
Master
Plan
Dockweiler

extension
to
the
east
(see
Figure
1,
Project
Location
Map).

Project
Proponent:

City
of
Santa
Clarita
General
Plan
Designation:

Specific
Plan
(SP)
and
Mixed
Use
Neighborhood
(MXN)

Zoning
Designation: SP
and
MXN
Project
Description:

The
Lyons
Avenue/Dockweiler
Drive
extension
is
proposed
to
be
one
of
the
primary
east-‐west

arterials
through
the
City
of
Santa
Clarita
that
would
provide
a
through
connection
from
Sierra

Highway
to Railroad
Avenue.

The
Lyons
Avenue
and
Dockweiler
Drive
extension
is
being
coordinated
by
the
City
of
Santa
Clarita

to
improve
circulation
and
access
to
the
Placerita
Canyon
and
Newhall
Community.

The
Project

includes
the
extension
of
Lyons
Avenue
from
Railroad
Avenue
to
the
future
connection
with

Dockweiler
Drive at
the
Master’s
College
site
(The
Master’s
College
extension
of
Dockweiler
Drive

through
the
Master’s
College
property
was evaluated
under
a
separate
EIR).

The
Project
will

include
reprofiling
the
intersection
of
Lyons
Avenue
and
Railroad
Avenue
to
allow
the
construction

of
a
new

SCRRA/UP
railroad
grade
crossing
east
of
Railroad
Avenue.

The
new
Lyons
Avenue

railroad
grade
crossing
will
improve
traffic
movements
and
safety
at
the
railroad
crossing.

The
City

anticipates
the Project
may
also
include
the
potential
upgrade
or
closure
of
an
at-‐grade
crossing
at

the
intersection
of
Railroad
Avenue
and
13th Street.

The
Lyons
Avenue/Dockweiler
Road
Extension
Project
will
span
the
Newhall
Creek.

The
roadway

construction
will
construct
a
new
bridge
across
Newhall
Creek
and
provide
embankment

protection
to
the
roadway
and
creek
to
allow
the
design
flood
to
pass
Lyons
Avenue.

The
Newhall

Creek
improvements
will
be
designed
in
accordance
with
current
regulatory
and
State
permitting

agencies.

The
extension
of
the
proposed
roadway
(Lyons
Avenue)
was
previously
designated
as
a
Major

City
of
Santa
Clarita August
2013
Lyons
Avenue/Dockweiler
Drive
Extension Page
3 of
22 EVALUATION
OF

ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS:
1) A
brief
explanation
is
required
for
all
answers
except
“No
Impact”
answers
that
are
adequately
supported

by
the
information
sources
a
lead
agency
cites
in
the
parentheses
following
each
question.

A
“No
Impact”

answer
is
adequately
supported
if
the
referenced
information
sources
show
that
the
impact
simply
does

not
apply
to
projects
like
the
one
involved
(e.g.,
the
project
falls
outside
a
fault
rupture
zone).

A “No

Impact”
answer
should
be
explained
where
it
is
based
on
project-‐specific
factors
as
well
as
general

standards
(e.g.,
the
project
will
not
expose
sensitive
receptors
to
pollutants
based
on
a
project-‐specific

screening
analysis).
2) All
answers
must
take
account
of
the
whole
action
involved,
including
off-‐site
as
well
as
on-‐site,

cumulative
as
well
as
project-‐level,
indirect
as
well
as
direct,
and
construction
as
well
as
operational

impacts.
3) Once
the
lead
agency
has
determined
that
a
particular
physical
impact
may
occur,
then
the
checklist

answers
must
indicate
whether
the
impact
is
potentially
significant,
less
that
significant
with
mitigation,
or

less
than
significant.

“Potentially
Significant
Impact”
is
appropriate
if
there
is
substantial
evidence
that
an

effect
may
be
significant.

If
there
are
one
or
more
“Potentially
Significant
Impact”
entries
when
the

determination
is
made,
an
EIR
is
required.
4) “Negative
Declaration:

Less
Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated”
applies
where
the

incorporation
of
a
mitigation
measure
has
reduced
an
effect
from
“Potentially
Significant
Impact”
to
“Less

Than
Significant
Impact.”

The
lead
agency
must
describe
the
mitigation
measures,
and
briefly
explain
how

they
reduce
the
effect
to
a
less
than
significant
level
(mitigation
measures
from
Section
XVII,
“Earlier

Analysis,”
cross
referenced).
5) Earlier
analysis
must
be
used
where,
pursuant
to
the
tiering,
program
EIR,
or
other
CEQA
process,
an

effect
has
been
adequately
analyzed
in
an
earlier
EIR,
or
negative
declaration.

Section
15063
(c)(3)(D).

In
this
case,
a
brief
discussion
should
identify
the
following:
1) Earlier
Analyses
Used.

Identify
and
state
where
they
are
available
for
review.

2) Impacts
Adequately
Addressed.

Identify
which
effects
from
the
checklist
below
were
within
the

scope
of
and
adequately
analyzed
in
an
earlier
document
pursuant
to
applicable
legal
standards,

and
state
whether
such
effects
were
addressed
by
mitigation
measures
based
on
the
earlier

analysis.
3) Mitigation
Measures.

For
effects
that
are
“Less
Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Measures

Incorporated,”
describe
the
mitigation
measures
which
were
incorporated
or
refined
from
the

earlier
document
and
the
extent
to
which
they
address
site-‐specific
conditions
for
the
project.
6) Lead
agencies
are
encouraged
to
incorporate
into
the
checklist
references
to
information
sources
for

potential
impacts
(e.g.,
general
plans,
zoning
ordinances).

Reference
to
a
previously
prepared
or
outside

document
should,
where
appropriate,
include
a
reference
to
the
page
or
pages
where
the
statement
is

substantiated

7) Supporting
Information
Sources:

A
sources
list
should
be
attached,
and
other
sources
used
or
individuals

contacted
should
be
cited
in
the
discussion.
8) This
is
only
a
suggested
form,
and lead
agencies
are
free
to
use
different
formats;
however,
lead
agencies

should
normally
address
the
questions
from
this
checklist
that
are
relevant
to
a
project’s
environmental

effects
in
whichever
format
is
selected.
9) The
explanation
of
each
issue
should
identify:

City
of
Santa
Clarita August
2013
Lyons
Avenue/Dockweiler
Drive
Extension Page
4 of
22 1) The
significance
criteria
or
threshold,
if
any,
used
to
evaluate
each
question;
and
2) The
mitigation
measure
identified,
if
any,
to
reduce
the
impact
to
less
than
significance.

ENVIRONMENTAL

FACTORS

POTENTIALLY
AFFECTED:

The
environmental
factors
checked
below
would
be
potentially
affected
by
this
project,
involving
at
least
one

impact
that
is
a
“Potentially
Significant
Impact”
as
indicated
by
the
checklist
on
the
following
pages.
þ

Aesthetics q

Greenhouse
Gas
Emissions q

Population/Housing
q

Agricultural
and
Forestry

Resources
q

Hazards
&
Hazardous
Materials q

Public
Services
þ

Air
Quality þ

Hydrology/Water
Quality q

Recreation
þ

Biological
Resources þ

Land
Use/Planning þ Transportation/Traffic
þ

Cultural
Resources q

Mineral
Resources q

Utilities/Service
Systems
þ

Geology/Soils þ

Noise þ

Mandatory
Findings
of

Significance

ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACTS (A
brief
explanation
of
all
answers
is
required
except
“No
Impact”

answers
that
are
adequately
supported
by
the
information
sources

cited.)
I.

AESTHETICS.

Would
the
project:

Potentially

Significant

Impact
Less
Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated
Less
Than

Significant

Impact No
Impact
a.

Have
a
substantial
adverse
effect
on
a
scenic
vista? q q q þ
b.

Substantially
damage
scenic
resources,
including,
but
not

limited
to,
trees,
rock
outcroppings,
and
historic
buildings,
or

other
locally
recognized
desirable
aesthetic
natural
feature
within

a
city-‐designated
scenic
highway?
þ q q q
c.

Substantially
degrade
the
existing
visual
character
or
quality
of

the
site
and
its
surroundings?
þ q q q
d.

Create
a
new
source
of
substantial
light
or
glare
which
would

adversely
affect
day
or
nighttime
views
in
the
area?
þ q q q
City
of
Santa
Clarita August
2013
Lyons
Avenue/Dockweiler
Drive
Extension Page
5 of
22 Responses
a-‐d:

Potentially
Significant
Impact.

The
Project
will
involve
grading
and
re-‐contouring
of
undeveloped
land
that is
over
and
east
of
Newhall
Creek at
Lyons
Avenue.

The
Project
will
include
the
development
of
a
new
roadway
connection

with
street
lighting.

The
Project
would
not
affect
a
designated
scenic
area.

However,
the
Project
site is
visible
from
the

downtown
Newhall
area
from
Lyons
Avenue
and
along
Railroad
Avenue
and
from
several
residential
properties
within

Placerita
Canyon.

As
such, the
Project
has the
potential
to
alter
the
aesthetic
character
of
a
currently
undeveloped
area,

including
a
ridgeline.

The
ridgeline
located
to
the
east
of
the Project
limits
is designated
as
a
Significant
Ridgeline in
the
City’s

General
Plan.
1 A
Ridgeline
Alteration
Permit
was
granted
by
the
City
Council
in
2009
as
a
part
of
the
Master’s
College
Master

Plan
approval.

Thus,
the
Project’s
potential
impacts
upon
views,
aesthetics,
and
light
and
glare
will
be
evaluated
in
greater

detail
within
the
scope
of
the
EIR.

II.

AGRICULTURAL
RESOURCES.

In
determining
whether
impacts

to
agricultural
resources
are
significant
environmental
effects,

lead
agencies
may
refer
to
the
California
Agricultural
Land

Evaluation
and
Site
Assessment
Model
(1997)
prepared
by
the

California
Department
of
Conservation
as
an
optional
model
to

use
in
assessing
impacts
on
agriculture
and
farmland.

determining
whether
impacts
to
forest
resources,
including

timberland,
are
significant
environmental
effects,
lead
agencies

may
refer
to
information
compiled
by
the
California
Department

of
Forestry
and
Fire
Protection
regarding
the
state’s
inventory
of

forest land,
including
the
Forest
Range
and
Assessment
Project

and
Forest
Legacy
Assessment
project;
and
forest
carbon

measurement
methodology
provided
in
Forest
Protocols
adopted

by
the
California
Air
Resources
Board.

Would
the
project:

Potentially

Significant

Impact
Less
Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated
Less
Than

Significant

Impact No
Impact
a.

Convert
Prime
Farmland,
Unique
Farmland,
or
Farmland
of

Statewide
Importance,
as
shown
on
the
maps
prepared
pursuant

to
the
Farmland
Mapping
and
Monitoring
Program
of
the

California
Resources
Agency,
to
non-‐agricultural
use?
q q q þ
b.

Conflict
the
existing
zoning
for
agricultural
use,
or
a
Williamson

Act
Contract?
q q q þ
c.

Conflict
with
existing
zoning
for,
or
cause
rezoning
of,
forest

land
(as
defined
by
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)?
q q q þ
d.

Result
in
the
loss
of
forest
land
or
conversion
of
forest
land
to

non-‐forest
use?
q q q þ
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?
q q q þ
Responses
a-‐e.

No
Impact.

A
significant
impact
may
occur
if
the
Project
were
to
result
in
the
conversion
of
state-‐designated

agricultural
land
from
agricultural
use
to
another
non-‐agricultural
use,
the
conversion
of
land
zoned
for
agricultural use
or

under
a
Williamson
Act
contract
from
agricultural
use
to
another
non-‐agricultural
use,
results
in
the
rezoning
of
forest
land

1 Data
Source:

Ridgelines,
City
of
Santa
Clarita
Planning,
1991.

USGS
30m
DEMs
Description:

Map showing
Significant

Ridgelines
as
identified
by
the
1991
General
Plan.

City
of
Santa
Clarita August
2013
Lyons
Avenue/Dockweiler
Drive
Extension Page
6 of
22 or
timberland,
or
involves
other
changes
in
the
existing
environment
which,
could
result
in
conversion
of
Farmland,
to
non-‐
agricultural
use.

The
Project
Area
contains
the
following
land
use
and
zoning
designations:
“SP(3)”
(Downtown
Newhall

Specific
Plan)
and MXN
(Mixed
Use
Neighborhood).

Therefore,
the
Project
site would
have
no
impact
associated
with
the

conversion
of
agricultural
uses
or
forested
lands.

No
further
analysis
of
this
issue
is
required.

III.

AIR
QUALITY.

Where
applicable,
the
significance
criteria

established
by
the
South
Coast
Air
Quality
Management
District

(SCAQMD)
may
be
relied
upon
to
make
the
following

determinations.

Would
the
project
result
in:

Potentially

Significant

Impact
Less
Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated
Less
Than

Significant

Impact No
Impact
a.

Conflict
with
or
obstruct
implementation
of
the
SCAQMD
Air

Quality
Management
Plan
or
Congestion
Management
Plan?
þ q q q
b.

Violate
any
air
quality
standard
or
contribute
substantially
to

an
existing
or
projected
air
quality
violation?
þ q q q
c.

Result
in
a
cumulatively
considerable
net
increase
of any

criteria
pollutant
for
which
the
air
basin
is
non-‐attainment under

an
applicable
federal
or
state
ambient
air
quality
standard

(including
releasing
emissions
which
exceed
quantitative

thresholds
for
ozone
precursors)?
þ q q q
d.

Expose
sensitive
receptors
to
substantial
pollutant

concentrations?
þ q q q
e.

Create
objectionable
odors
affecting
a
substantial
number
of

people?
q q þ q
Responses a-‐d.

Potentially
Significant
Impact.

A
significant
impact
could
occur
if
the
Project
is
not
consistent
with
the

applicable
Air
Quality
Management
Plan
(AQMP)
and/or
if
implementation
of
the
Project
creates
a
substantial
hindrance
to

the
policies
or
goals
of
the
AQMP.

The
project
will
involve
the
use
of
heavy
construction
equipment
for
grading
and

excavation
and,
as
such,
has
the
potential
to
generate
air
pollution
from
combustible
gas
and
diesel
engines.

Operation
of

the
Project
would
not
increase
the
number
of
vehicle
trips
of
the
road,
but
will
alter
the
pattern
of
traffic
flow
within
the

City.

Therefore,
the
construction
and
operational
air
quality
emissions
will
be
quantified
and
analyzed
in
the
EIR.

Response e.

Less
Than
Significant
Impact.

A
significant
impact
may
occur
if
objectionable
odors
occur
which
would

adversely
impact
sensitive
receptors.

Odors
are
typically
associated
with
the
use
of
chemicals,
solvents,
petroleum
products,

and
other
strong-‐smelling
elements
used
in
manufacturing
processes.

The
Project
involves
the
expansion
of
a
roadway
and

the
potential
upgrade
or
closure
of
a
railroad
crossing.

No
activities
with
the
potential
for
generating
odors
would
be

involved
with
the
long-‐term
operation
of
the
Project.

Therefore,
the
potential
for
the
Project
to
result
in
objectionable
odors

is
less
than
significant and
no
further
analysis
is
this
issue
is
warranted.

IV.

BIOLOGICAL
RESOURCES.

Would
the
project:

Potentially

Significant

Impact
Less
Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated
Less
Than

Significant

Impact No
Impact
a.

Have
a
substantial
adverse
effect,
either
directly
or
through

habitat
modification,
on
any
species
identified
as
a
candidate,

sensitive,
or
special
status
species
in
local
or
regional
plans,

policies,
or
regulations
by
the
California
Department
of
Fish
and

Game
or
U.S.

Fish
and
Wildlife
Service?
þ q q q
City
of
Santa
Clarita August
2013
Lyons
Avenue/Dockweiler
Drive
Extension Page
7 of
22 b.

Have
a
substantial
adverse
effect
on
any
riparian
habitat
or

other
sensitive
natural
community
identified
in
the
City
or

regional
plans,
policies,
regulations
by
the
California
Department

of
Fish
and
Game
or
U.S.

Fish
and
Wildlife
Service?
þ q q q
c.

Have
a
substantial
adverse
effect
on
federally
protected

wetlands
as
defined
by
Section
404
of
the
Clean
Water
Act

(including,
but
not
limited
to,
marsh
vernal
pool,
coastal,
etc.)

Through
direct
removal,
filling,
hydrological
interruption,
or
other

means?

þ q q q
d.

Interfere
substantially
with
the
movement
of
any
native

resident
or
migratory
fish
or
wildlife
species
or
with
established

native
resident
or
migratory
wildlife
corridors,
or
impede
the
use

of
native
wildlife
nursery
sites?

þ q q q
e.

Conflict
with
any
local
policies
or
ordinances
protecting

biological
resources,
such
as
tree
preservation
policy
or

ordinance?
þ q q q
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?
þ q q q
g.

Affect
a
Significant
Ecological
Area
(SEA)
or
Significant
Natural

Area
(SNA)
as
identified
on
the
City
of
Santa
Clarita
ESA

Delineation
Map?
q q q þ
Response
a-‐f:

Potentially
Significant
Impact.

The
existing
Project
site consists
of
improved
segments
of
Lyons
Avenue
and

Railroad
Avenue
roadways
and
undeveloped
land
to
the
east
extending
towards
Dockweiler
Drive.

The
Project
Area

encompasses
portions
of
Newhall
Creek
and
the
proposed
Project
would
include
the
construction
of
a
structural
bridge

crossing
over
Newhall
Creek.

Accordingly,
the
EIR
will
include
a
detailed
biological
assessment
of
the
vegetation
and
species
that
are
known
and
presumed
to occur
within
the
Project’s
area
of
impact.

The
biological
assessment
will
determine
the

extent
of
jurisdictional
lands
present
on
site
that
are
subject
to
the
permitting
authority
of
the
Army
Corps.
of
Engineers

(ACOE),
U.S.

Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
(USFWS),
and/or
the
California
Department
of
Fish
and
Game
(CDFG).

Thus,
the

Project’s
potential
to
result
in
a
substantial
adverse
effect,
either
directly
or
through
habitat
modification,
on
any
species

identified
as
a
candidate,
sensitive,
or
special
status
species
in
local
or
regional
plans,
policies,
or
regulations
by
the
CDFG or

USFWS
will
be
evaluated
within
the
scope
of
the
EIR.

Response
to
g:

No
Impact.

A
significant
impact
may
occur
if
a
project
is
located
within
the
Significant
Ecological
Area
or

Significant
Natural
Area
as
identified
on
the
City
of
Santa
Clarita
ESA
Delineation
Map.

The
Project
site is
not
located
within

the
Significant
Ecological
Area
or
Significant
Natural
Area as
identified
on
Exhibit
CO-‐5
of
the
City’s
General
Plan,
and

therefore,
no
impact
would
occur.

CULTURAL
RESOURCES: Would
the
project:

Potentially

Significant

Impact
Less
Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated
Less
Than

Significant

Impact No
Impact
a.

Cause
a
substantial
adverse
change
in
significance
of
a

historical
resource
as
defined
in State
CEQA §15064.5?
q q q þ
City
of
Santa
Clarita August
2013
Lyons
Avenue/Dockweiler
Drive
Extension Page
8 of
22 b.

Cause
a
substantial
adverse
change
in
significance
of
an

archaeological
resource
pursuant
to
State
CEQA
§15064.5?
þ q q q
c.

Directly
or
indirectly
destroy
a
unique
paleontological
resource

or
site
or
unique
geologic
feature?
þ q q q
d.

Disturb
any
human
remains,
including
those
interred
outside

of
formal
cemeteries?
þ q q q
Response
a.

No
Impact.

A
project
that
may
cause
a
substantial
adverse
change
in
the
significance
of
a
historical
resource
is

a
project
that
may
have
a
significant
effect
on
the
environment.

There
are
no
habitable
structures
located
within
the
Project

site.

The
Project
site consists
of
improved
roadway
segments
and
undeveloped
open
space
areas.

Therefore,
the
Project

would
not
have
the
potential
to
adversely
impact
any
historic
resources.

Response
b-‐d.

Potentially
Significant
Impact.

Section
15064.5
of
the
State
CEQA
Guidelines
defines
significant

archaeological
resources
as
resources
that
meet
the
criteria
for
historical
resources,
as
discussed
above,
or
resources
that

constitute
unique
archaeological
resources.

A
project-‐related
significant
adverse
effect
could
occur
if
the
Project
were
to

affect
archaeological
or
paleontological
resources,
which
fall
under
either
of
these
categories.

A
significant
adverse
effect

could
also
occur
if
grading
or
excavation
activities
associated
with
the
Project
were
to
disturb
previously interred
human

remains.

Although
portions
of
the
Project
site are
improved
with
roadways,
the
Project
will
include
earthwork
activities
in

areas
that
are
currently
undeveloped.

As
such,
it
is
likely
that
the
Project’s
earthwork
activities
may
result
in the
accidental

discovery
of prehistoric
or
historic
archaeological
resources
that
may
be
located
within
the
Project
limits.

The
EIR
will

include
a records
search
to
determine
whether
any
archaeological resources,
paleontological
resources,
or
native
American

burial
sites occur
within
the
project
area.

Precautionary
mitigation
measures will
be
recommended,
as
appropriate,
to

ensure
that
if
such
resources
are
encountered,
proper
procedures
would
be
implemented
to
mitigate
any
potential
adverse

impacts.

VI.

GEOLOGY
AND
SOILS.

Would
the
project:

Potentially

Significant

Impact
Less
Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated
Less
Than

Significant

Impact No
Impact
a.

Exposure
of
people
or
structures
to
potential
substantial

adverse
effects,
including
the
risk
of
loss,
injury
or
death

involving:
i.

Rupture
of
a
known
earthquake
fault,
as
delineated
on
the

most
recent
Alquist-‐Priolo
Earthquake
Fault
Zoning
Map
issued
by

the
State
Geologist
for
the
area
or
based
on
other
substantial

evidence
of
a
known
fault?

Refer
to
Division
of
Mines
and

Geology
Special
Publication

42. þ q q q
ii.

Strong
seismic
ground
shaking? þ q q q
City
of
Santa
Clarita August
2013
Lyons
Avenue/Dockweiler
Drive
Extension Page
9 of
22 iii.

Seismic-‐related
ground
failure,
including
liquefaction? þ q q q
iv.

Landslides? þ q q q
b.

Result
in
substantial
soil
erosion
or
the
loss
of
topsoil? þ q q q
c.

Be
located
on
a
geologic
unit
or
soil
that
is
unstable,
or
that

would
become
unstable
as
a
result
of
the
project,
and
potential

result
in
on-‐ or
off-‐site
landslide,
lateral
spreading,
subsidence,

liquefaction,
or
collapse?
þ q q q
d.

Be
located
on
expansive
soil,
as
defined
in
Table
18-‐1-‐B
of
the

Uniform
Building
Code
(1994),
creating
substantial
risks
to
life
or

property?
þ q q q
e.

Have
soils
incapable
of
adequately
supporting
the
use
of
septic

tanks
or
alternative
waste
water
disposal
systems
where
sewers

are
not
available
for
the
disposal
of
waste
water?

q q q þ
f.

Change
in
topography
or
ground
surface
relief
features? þ q q q
g.

Earth
movement
(cut
and/or
fill)
of
10,000
cubic
yards
or

more?
þ q q q
h.

Development
and/or
grading
on
a
slope
greater
than
10%

natural
grade?
þ q q q
i.

The
destruction,
covering
or
modification
of
any
unique

geological
or
physical
feature?
þ q q q
Response
a-‐d:

Potentially
Significant
Impact.

A
significant
impact
may
occur
if
the
Project
is
located
within
a
State-‐
designated
Alquist-‐Priolo
Zone
or
other
designated
fault
zone,
and
appropriate
building
practices
are
not
employed.

Based

on
the
City
of
Santa
Clarita,
Seismic
Hazards
Zone
Map,
the
Project
site is
not
located
on
or
adjacent
to
a
known
mapped

fault
line
or
within
a
designated
Alquist-‐Priolo
Zone.2 The
Project
site
is
located
within
the
vicinity
of
a
mapped
Earthquake

Induced
Landslide
Hazard
Zone.3

The
Project
will
include
a
substantial
amount
of
earthwork
and
grading
activities
to
realign

and
extend
an
existing
roadway
through
a
currently
undeveloped
area.

The
Project
would
also
include
a
bridge
crossing
over

the
Newhall
Creek.

As
such,
a
site-‐specific
soils
and
geotechnical
investigation
will
be
prepared
to
evaluate
the
suitability
of

the
site
to
support
the
roadway
infrastructure
being
planned.

Further
detailed
analysis
to
address
geotechnical
engineering

and
safety
issues
will
be
included
within
the
scope
of
the
EIR.

Response
e:

No
Impact.

This
question
would
apply
to
the
Project
only
if
it
generated
a
demand
for
sewer
conveyance
or

treatment
systems.

The
Project
consists
of
a
roadway
infrastructure
project
and
will
not
generate
any
wastewater
effluent.

No
habitable
structures
are
proposed.

Therefore,
no
impact
would
occur
and
no
further
analysis
is
required.

2 Data
Source:

City
of
Santa
Clarita,
Seismic
Hazard
Zones
Map,
map
update
as
of
September
2012. 3 Ibid.

City
of
Santa
Clarita August
2013
Lyons
Avenue/Dockweiler
Drive
Extension Page
10 of
22 Response
f-‐i:

Potentially
Significant
Impact.

A
significant
impact
may
occur
if
the
Project results
in
a
change
in
topography,

requires
earth
movement
of
10,000
cubic
yards
or
more,
development
or
grading
on
a
slope
greater
than
10%,
or
the

disturbance
of
unique
geological
or
physical
features.

The
Project
will
include
a
substantial
amount
of
earthwork
and
grading

activities
to
realign
and
extend
an
existing
roadway
through
a
currently
undeveloped
area.

The
Project
would
also
include
a

bridge
crossing
over
the
Newhall
Creek.

Accordingly,
further
detailed
analysis
to
address
topography,
earth
movement,

grading
and
disturbance
of
unique
geological
and
physical
features
issues
will
be
included
within
the
scope
of
the
EIR.

VII.

GREENHOUSE
GAS

EMISSIONS

Would
the
project:

Potentially

Significant

Impact
Less
Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated
Less
Than

Significant

Impact No
Impact
a.

Generate
greenhouse
gas
emissions,
either
directly
or

indirectly,
that
may
have
a
significant
impact
upon
the

environment?
q q þ q
b.

Conflict
with
an
applicable
plan,
policy
or
regulation
adopted

for
the
purpose
of
reducing
the
emissions
of
greenhouse
gasses?

q q þ q
Responses
a-‐b:

Less
than
Significant
Impact.

On
August
28,
2012,
the
City
of
Santa
Clarita
adopted
a Climate
Action
Plan

(CAP), which
provides
policies
and
identifies
actions
intended
to
reduce
GHG
emissions
within
the
City
and
assist
in
the
fight

against Climate
Change.

Overall
the
goal
of
the
CAP
is
to
reduce
Santa
Clarita’s
community-‐wide
GHG
emissions
below
the

2005
baseline
emissions
by
2020.

The
CAP
includes
a
set
of strategies
the
City
can
use
to
reduce
the
amount
of
greenhouse

gas
emissions
produced
in
the community.

Implementation
of
the
measures
proposed
in
the
Proposed
CAP
would
result
in

an
annual
community-‐wide
reduction
in
GHG
emissions
of
approximately
193,000
MTCO2e
by
2020
from
local
measures
and

an
additional
reduction
of
approximately
148,952
MTCO2e
by
2020
from
statewide
measures.

This
would
reduce
GHG

emissions
from
the
Business-‐as-‐usual
projections
for
2020
by
17 percent and
would
exceed
the
GHG
reduction
targets
of
16 percent
established
by
CARB
in
its
revised
scoping
plan.

Implementation
of
the
strategies
identified
in
the
CAP
would
also

exceed
the
City’s
goal
to
reduce
2020
GHG
emissions
to
a
level
below
the
2005
GHG
emissions
baseline
by
4 percent.

The
CAP
defines
a
local
threshold
of
significance
for
green
house
gas
emissions
(GHG) for
project
level
submittals
that are

subject
to
environmental
review
under
CEQA.

Goals,
objectives
and
policies approved
under
the
General
Plan
are
forecast
to

meet
the
GHG
emission
reduction
targets mandated
by
AB

32. Therefore,
development
projects
that
are
able
to

demonstrate
consistency
with
the General
Plan
and
zoning
ordinance
are
by
association consistent
with
the
CAP and
are
not

subject
to
further
environmental
review.

Development
proposals
that
are
not
consistent
with
the
City's
General
Plan
and/or

Unified
Development
Code
(Zone
Changes/General
Plan
Amendments)
must
demonstrate
a
12 percent
reduction
in
the
GHG

emissions
from
the
Controlled
2020
Business
as
Usual
Scenario,
to
be
deemed
consistent
with
the
CAP.

Development

proposals
that
are
not
consistent
with
the
City's
General
Plan
and/or
Unified
Development
Code
and
that
can
not

demonstrate a
12 percent
reduction
in
GHG
emissions
from
the
Controlled
Business
as
Usual
Scenario
shall
be
deemed
to

have
a
significant
impact
on
GHG
emissions.

The
Project
is consistent
with
the
Circulation
Element
of
the
General
Plan
and
will
not
require
a
zone
change or
General
Plan

amendment.

As
such,
the
Project’s
potential
to
generate
GHGs
will
be less
than
significant
with
respect
to
consistency
with

all
applicable
plans,
policies
or
regulations
adopted
for
the
purpose
of
reducing
the
emissions
of
greenhouse gases,
and
no

further
analysis
of
this
issue
is
warranted.

City
of
Santa
Clarita August
2013
Lyons
Avenue/Dockweiler
Drive
Extension Page
11 of
22 VIII.

HAZARDS
AND

HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS
Would
the
project:

Potentially

Significant

Impact
Less
Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated
Less
Than

Significant

Impact No
Impact
a. Create
a
significant
hazard
to
the
public
or
the
environment

through
the
routine
transport,
use,
or
disposal
of
hazardous

materials?
q q þ q
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?

q q þ q
c.

Emit
hazardous
emissions
or
handle
hazardous
or
acutely

hazardous
materials,
substances,
or
waste
within
one-‐quarter

mile
of
an
existing
or
proposed
school?

q q þ q
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?
q q þ q
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
for
people
residing
or
working
in
the
project
area?
q q q þ
f.

For
a
project
within
the
vicinity
of
a
private
airstrip,
would
the

project
result
in
a
safety
hazard
for
the
people
residing
or
working

in
the
area?
q q q þ
g.

Impair
implementation
of
or
physically
interfere
with
an

adopted
emergency
response
plan
or
emergency
evacuation

plan?

q q þ q
h.

Expose
people
or
structures
to
a
significant
risk
of
loss,
injury

or
death
involving
wildland
fires,
including
where
wildlands
are

adjacent
to
urbanized
areas
or
where
residences
are
intermixed

with
wildlands?
q q þ q
i.

Exposure
of
people
to
existing
sources
of
potential
health

hazards
(e.g.
electrical
transmission
lines,
gas
lines,
oil
pipelines)? q q q þ
Response
a-‐c:

Less
Than
Significant
Impact.

A
significant
impact
may
occur
if
a
project
involves
the
use
or
disposal
of

hazardous
materials
as
part
of
its
routine
operations
which
may
have
the
potential
to
generate
toxic
or
otherwise
hazardous

emissions
that
could
adversely
affect
sensitive
receptors.

Since
the
Project
would
not
require
the
transport,
use,
and/or
disposal
of
potentially
hazardous
materials,
the
potential
for
an
impact
to
occur
is
considered
low.

Therefore,
further

analysis
of
this
issue
in
an
EIR
is
not
warranted.

City
of
Santa
Clarita August
2013
Lyons
Avenue/Dockweiler
Drive
Extension Page
12 of
22 Response
d: Less
Than
Significant
Impact.

California
Government
Code
Section
65962.5
requires
various
state
agencies
to

compile
lists
of
hazardous
waste
disposal
facilities,
unauthorized
releases
from
underground
storage
tanks,
contaminated

drinking
water
wells
and
solid
waste
facilities
from
which
there
is
known
migration
of
hazardous
waste
and
submit
such

information
to
the
Secretary
for
Environmental
Protection
on
at
least
an
annual
basis.

No
properties
within
or
immediately

adjacent
to
the
Project
site
appear
on
the
State’s
list
of
hazardous
materials
sites.

Therefore,
further
analysis
of
this
issue
is

not
warranted.

Responses
e
&
f:

No
Impact.

The
Project
is
not
located
near
a
private
airstrip.

No
impacts
involving
airports
would
occur,

and
no
further
analysis
is
required.

Response
g:

Less
Than
Significant
Impact.

A
significant
impact
may
occur
if
a
project
were
to
interfere
with
roadway

operations
used
in
conjunction
with
an
emergency
response
plan
or
emergency
evacuation
plan
or
would
generate
traffic

congestion
that
would
interfere
with
the
execution
of
such
a
plan.

Construction
of
the
Project
involves
buildout
of
a

roadway
extension
that
was
identified
in
the
City’s
Circulation
Element
of
the
General
Plan.

As
the
proposed
Project
would

be
consistent
with
the
City’s
adopted
Circulation
Element,
the
Project
would
not
impair
implementation
of
or
physically

interfere
with
an
adopted
emergency
response
plan
or
emergency
evacuation
plan.

Impacts
would
be
less
than
significant.

Response
h:

Less
Than
Significant
Impact.

A
significant
impact
may
occur
if
a
project
is
located
in
proximity
to
wildland

areas
and
poses
a
potential
fire
hazard,
which
could
affect
persons
or
structures
in
the
area
in
the
event
of
a
fire.

The

Project
does
not
include
the
construction
of
any
habitable
structures.

Therefore,
no
further
analysis
of
this
issue
is

warranted.

Response
i:

No
Impact.

The
site
is
not
known
or
expected
to
contain
any
electrical
transmission
lines,
gas
lines,
oil
lines,
or

other
hazardous
material
conduits
or
storage
facilities.

Therefore,
the
proposed
project
would
not
expose
people
to
existing

sources
of
potential
health
hazards,
and
the
project
would
have
no
related
impacts.

Therefore,
no
further
analysis
of
this

issue
is
warranted.

IX.

HYDROLOGY
AND
WATER
QUALITY.

Would
the
proposal

result
in:

Potentially

Significant

Impact
Less
Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated
Less
Than

Significant

Impact No
Impact
a.

Violate
any
water
quality
standards
or
waste
discharge

requirements?
þ q q q
b.

Substantially
deplete
groundwater
supplies
or
interfere
with

groundwater
recharge
such
that
there
would
be
a
net
deficit
in

aquifer
volume
or
a
lowering
of
the
local
groundwater
table
level

(e.g.,
the
production
rate
of
pre-‐existing
nearby
wells
would
drop
to
a
level
which
would
not
support
existing
land
uses
or
planned

land
uses
for
which
permits
have
been
granted)?
þ q q q
c.

Substantially
alter
the
existing
drainage
pattern
of
the
site
or

area,
including
through
the
alteration
of
the
course
of
a
stream or

river,
in
a
manner
which
would
result
in
substantial
erosion
or

siltation
on-‐ or
off-‐site?
þ q q q
City
of
Santa
Clarita August
2013
Lyons
Avenue/Dockweiler
Drive
Extension Page
13 of
22 d.

Substantially
alter
the
existing
drainage
pattern
of
the
site
or

area,
including
through
the
alteration
of
the
course
of
a
stream
or

river,
or
substantially
increase
the
rate
or
amount
of
surface

runoff
in
an
manner
which
would
result
in
flooding
on-‐ or
off
site?
þ q q q
e.

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?
þ q q q
f.

Otherwise
substantially
degrade
water
quality? þ q q q
g.

Place
housing
within
a
100-‐year
flood
plain
as
mapped
on

federal
Flood
Hazard
Boundary
or
Flood
Insurance
Rate
Map
or

other flood
hazard
delineation
map?
q q q þ
h.

Place
within
a
100-‐year
flood
plain
structures
which
would

impede
or
redirect
flood
flows?
q q q þ
j.

Inundation
by
seiche,
tsunami,
or
mudflow? þ q q q
k.

Changes
in
the
rate
of
flows
currents,
or
the
course of
direction

of
surface
water
and/or
ground
water?
þ q q q
l.

Other
modifications
of
a
wash,
channel
creek
or
river? þ q q q
m.

Impact
Stormwater
Management
in
any
of
the
following
ways:
i,

Potential
impact
of
project
construction
and
project
post-‐
construction
activity
on
storm
water
runoff?
þ q q q
ii,

Potential
discharges
from
areas
for
materials
storage, vehicle

or
equipment
fueling,
vehicle
or
equipment maintenance

(including
washing),
waste
handling,
hazardous materials
handling

or
storage,
delivery
areas
or
loading
docks, or
other
outdoor
work

areas?

þ q q q
iii,

Significant
environmentally
harmful
increase
in
the
flow
velocity
or
volume
of
storm
water
runoff?

þ q q q
iv,

Significant
and
environmentally
harmful
increases
in erosion

of
the
project
site
or
surrounding
areas?

þ q q q
v,

Storm
water
discharges
that
would
significantly
impair
or
contribute
to
the
impairment
of
the
beneficial
uses
of
receiving
waters
or
areas
that
provide
water
quality
benefits
(e.g. riparian

þ q q q
City
of
Santa
Clarita August
2013
Lyons
Avenue/Dockweiler
Drive
Extension Page
14 of
22 corridors,
wetlands,
etc.)

vi,

Cause
harm
to
the
biological
integrity
of
drainage
systems,
watersheds,
and/or
water
bodies?

þ q q q
vii,
Does
the
proposed
project
include
provisions
for
the

separation,
recycling,
and
reuse
of
materials
both
during

construction
and
after
project
occupancy?

þ q q q
Response
a-‐f:

Potentially
Significant
Impact.

A
significant
impact
may
occur
if
a
project
discharges
water
which
does
not

meet
the
quality
standards
of
agencies
that
regulate
surface
water
quality
and
water
discharge
into
storm
water
drainage

systems.

Significant
impacts
would
also
occur
if
a
project does
not
comply
with
all
applicable
regulations
with
regard
to

surface
water
quality
as
governed
by
the
State
Water
Resources
Control
Board
(SWRCB).

The
Project
involves
the

development
of
a
roadway
extension
and
bridge
alignment
over
Newhall
Creek.

The Project
will
involve
a
substantial

amount
of
earthwork
and
grading
which
has
the
potential
to
alter
the
hydrological
conditions
within
the
Project
Area
and

downstream
from
the
Project
site.

The
project’s
potential
to
violate
any
water
quality
standards
or
waste
discharge

requirements
will
be
further
analyzed
in
an
EIR.

Response
g-‐i:

No
Impact.

The
Project
does
not
involve
the
construction
of
any
habitable
structures.

Therefore,
the
Project

would
not
place
housing
within
an
area
susceptible
to
flooding
or
mudflows.

No
impact
would
occur
and
no
further
analysis

of
this
issue
is
required.

Response
j:

Potentially
Significant
Impact.

The
Project
includes
a
planned
roadway
extension
with
a
bridge
crossing
over

Newhall
Creek.

As
such,
detailed
hydrologic
studies
will
be
included
in
the
EIR
to
determine
the
potential
risk
of
mudflow

both
upstream
and
downstream
of
the
Project
site.

Response
k-‐m:

Potentially
Significant
Impact.

A
significant
impact
may
occur
if
a
project
changes
the
flow,
current,
course,
or
direction
of
surface
or
groundwater,
modifies
a
wash,
channel
creek
or
river,
or
impacts
Stormwater
Management.

The

Project
includes
a
planned
roadway
extension
with
a
bridge
crossing
over
Newhall
Creek.

As
such,
detailed
hydrologic

studies
will
be
included
in
the
EIR
to
determine
the
potential
impacts
associated
with
the
hydrology
of
the
Project
site.

LAND
USE
AND
PLANNING.

Would
the
project:

Potentially

Significant

Impact
Less
Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated
Less
Than

Significant

Impact No
Impact
a.

Physically
divide
an
established
community? þ q q q
b.

Conflict
with
applicable
land
use
plan,
policy
or
regulation
of

an
agency
with
jurisdiction
over
the
project
(including
but
not

limited
to
the
general
plan,
specific
plan,
coastal
program,
or

zoning
ordinance)
adopted
for
the
purpose
of
avoiding
or

mitigating
an
environmental
effect?
þ q q q
c.

Conflict
with
any
applicable
habitat
conservation
plan
or

natural
community
conservation
plan?

þ q q q
City
of
Santa
Clarita August
2013
Lyons
Avenue/Dockweiler
Drive
Extension Page
15 of
22 Response
a:

Potentially
Significant
Impact.

A
significant
impact
may
occur
if
a
project
were
sufficiently
large
enough
or

otherwise
configured
in
such
a
way
as
to
create
a
physical
barrier
within
an
established
community
(a
typical
example
would

be
a
project
that
involved
a
continuous
right-‐of-‐way
such
as
a
roadway
which
would
divide
a
community
and
impede
access

between
parts
of
the
community).

The
proposed
roadway
extension,
addition
of
a
CPUC
railroad
crossing
and
the
potential

upgrade
or
closure
of
an
existing
at grade
crossing
at
13th Street
will
alter
the
access
and
circulation
system
affecting
the

Placerita
Canyon
homeowners.

Accordingly
,
this
issue
will
be
further
evaluated
within
the
EIR.

Response
b:

Potentially
Significant
Impact.

A
significant
impact
may
occur
if
a
project
is
inconsistent
with
the
Circulation

Element
of
the
General
Plan.

The
proposed
Dockweiler
Drive
extension
to
Lyons
Avenue
was
identified
in
the
City’s

Circulation
Element
of
the
General
Plan. Nevertheless,
the
EIR
will
provide
additional
analysis
to
assess
the
Project's

consistency
with
applicable
General
Plan
policies,
zoning
code
restrictions,
Southern
California
Association
of
Governments

(SCAG)
policies,
any
other
applicable
City
or
County
plans,
and
any
required
mitigation
measures.

Response
c:

Potentially
Significant
Impact.

As
discussed
in
Question
IV(f)
above,
the
Project’s
potential
to
conflict
with
any

applicable
habitat
conservation
plan
or
natural
community
conservation
plan will
be
evaluated
within the
EIR.

XI. MINERAL
RESOURCES.

Would
the
project:

Potentially

Significant

Impact
Less
Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated
Less
Than

Significant

Impact No
Impact
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?
q q þ q
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?
q q þ q
c.

Use
nonrenewable
resources
in
a
wasteful
and
inefficient
manner?

q q þ q
Response
a-‐b: Less
Than
Significant
Impact.

The
Project
is
not
located
near
any
oil
fields
and
no
oil
extraction
activities

have
historically
occurred
on
or
are
presently
conducted
at
the
Project
site.

Furthermore,
the
Project
site is
not
in
an
area

identified
by
the
City
of
Santa
Clarita as
containing
a
significant
mineral
deposits
site
that
would
be
of
value
to
the
region
and

the
residents
of
the
state.

Therefore,
no
impact
would
occur
to
mineral
resources
and
no
further
analysis
of
this
issue
is

required.

Response
c:

Less
Than
Significant
Impact.

Nonrenewable
resources
associated
with
building
materials
will
be
utilized

during
the
construction
and
operational
phases
of
the
Project.

The
project
would
utilize
building
materials
and

nonrenewable
resources
for
construction
of
the
proposed
bridge
and
roadway
alignment.

Many
of
the
resources
utilized
for

construction
are
nonrenewable,
including
sand,
gravel,
earth,
iron,
steel,
and
hardscape
materials.

Other
construction

resources that
are
expected
to
be
used,
such
as
lumber,
are
slowly
renewable resources.

In
addition,
the
Project
would

commit
energy
and
water
resources
as
a
result
of
the
construction,
operation,
and
maintenance
of
the
proposed

development.

Much
of
the
energy
that
will
be
utilized
on-‐site
will
be
generated
through
combustion
of
fossil
fuels,
which

are
nonrenewable
resources.

Market-‐rate
conditions
encourage
the
efficient
use
of
raw
materials
and
non-‐renewable

City
of
Santa
Clarita August
2013
Lyons
Avenue/Dockweiler
Drive
Extension Page
16 of
22 resources
during
construction.

Similarly,
the
energy
and
water
resources
that
would
be
utilized
by
the
Project
would
be

minimal
and
would
be
supplied
by
the
regional
utility
purveyors,
which
participate
in
various
conservation
programs.

Water

would
only
be
used
during
construction.

The
Project
would
utilize
a
minimal
amount
energy
as
needed
for
roadway
lighting.

Therefore,
the
proposed
project
would
not
use
nonrenewable
resources
in
a
wasteful
and
inefficient
manner,
and
the

project
would
have
no
related
significant
impacts.

XII.

NOISE.

Would
the
project:

Potentially

Significant

Impact
Less
Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated
Less
Than

Significant

Impact No
Impact
a.

Exposure
of
persons
to
or
generation
of
noise
in
level
in
excess

of
standards
established
in
the
local
general
plan
or
noise

ordinance,
or
applicable
standards
of
other
agencies?
þ q q q
b.

Exposure
of
people
to
or
generation
of
excessive
groundborne

vibration
or
groundborne
noise
levels?

þ q q q
c.

A
substantial
permanent
increase
in
ambient
noise
levels
in
the

project
vicinity
above
levels
existing
without
the
project?
þ q q q
d.

A
substantial
temporary
or
periodic
increase
in
ambient
noise

levels
in
the
project
vicinity
above
levels
existing
without
the

project?
þ q q q
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
expose
people

residing
or
working
in
the
project
area
to
excessive
noise
levels?
q q q þ
f.

For
a
project
within
the
vicinity
of
a
private
airstrip,
would
the

project
expose
people
residing
or
working
in
the
project
area
to

excessive
noise
levels?
q q q þ
Response
a-‐d: Potentially
Significant
Impact.

A
significant
impact
would
occur
if
the
Project
exposes people
to
or

generated
excessive
groundborne
vibration
or
groundborne
noise
levels.

Construction
of
the
Project
would
require
the
use

of
construction
equipment
during
grading,
hauling,
establishing
structural
foundations,
installation
of
utility
lines
and

services,
and
other
construction
activities.

Construction
of
the
Project
has
the
potential
to
generate
groundborne
vibration
that
could
impact
surrounding
uses
and
sensitive
receptors,
specifically
with
respect
to
the
neighboring
Placerita
Canyon
and

Downtown
Newhall
communities.

The
Project's
potential
to
generate
both
short-‐term
construction
related
impacts
and

long-‐term
operational
noise
impacts to
the
surrounding
land
uses
will
be
evaluated
within
the
EIR.

Response
e-‐f:

No
Impact.

A
significant
impact
may
occur
if
the
Project
were
located
within
an
airport
land
use
plan
and

would
introduce
substantial
new
sources
of
noise
or
substantially
add
to
existing
sources
of
noise
within
or
near
the
Project

site.

The
Project
site is
not
located
within
two miles
of
a
public
or
private
airport
or
airstrip.

Therefore,
no
impact
would

occur
and
no
further
analysis
of
this
issue
is
required.

City
of
Santa
Clarita August
2013
Lyons
Avenue/Dockweiler
Drive
Extension Page
17 of
22 XIII.

POPULATION
AND
HOUSING.

Would
the
project:

Potentially

Significant

Impact
Less
Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated
Less
Than

Significant

Impact No
Impact
a.

Induce
substantial
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)?
q q q þ
b.

Displace
substantial
numbers
of
existing
housing
necessitating

the
construction
of
replacement
housing
elsewhere?
q q q þ
c.

Displace
substantial
numbers
of
people
necessitating
the

construction
of
replacement
housing
elsewhere?
q q q þ
Response
a:

No
Impact.

A
significant
impact
may
occur
if
a
project
were
to
locate
new
development
such
as
homes,

businesses,
or
infrastructure,
with
the
effect
of
substantially
inducing
population
growth
that
would
otherwise
not
have

occurred
as
rapidly
or
in
as
great
a
magnitude.

The
Project
involved
the
buildout
of
a
proposed
roadway
alignment
that
was

identified
within
the
City’s
Circulation
Element
of
the
General
Plan.

No
residential,
commercial
,or
industrial
land
uses
are

proposed.

Therefore,
the
Project
would
not
have
the
potential
to
induce
substantial
population
growth
in
an
area
either

directly.

Response
b-‐c: No
Impact.

A
significant
impact
may
occur
if
a
project
would
result
in
displacement
of
existing
housing,

necessitating
construction
of
replacement
housing
elsewhere.

The
Project
would
not
displace
any
existing
housing units,

necessitating
the
construction
of
replacement
housing
elsewhere.

Therefore,
no
impact
would
occur
and
no
further
analysis

is
required.

XIV.

PUBLIC
SERVICES.

Would
the
project
result
in
substantial
adverse
physical

impacts
associated
with
the
provision
of
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:

Potentially

Significant

Impact
Less
Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated
Less
Than

Significant

Impact No
Impact
Fire
protection? q q þ q
Police
protection? q q þ q
Schools? q q q þ
City
of
Santa
Clarita August
2013
Lyons
Avenue/Dockweiler
Drive
Extension Page
18 of
22 Parks? q q q þ
Other
Public
facilities? q q q þ
Response

Fire
and
Police
Protection: Less
Than
Significant
Impact.

A
significant
impact
may
occur
if
the
County
of
Los
Angeles
Fire

Department
(LACoFD)
and
Los
Angeles
County
Sherriff’s
Department
(LASD)
could
not
adequately
serve
the
areas
affected
by

the
Project’s
circulation
plan
based
upon
response
time,
access,
or
fire
hydrant/water
availability.

The
Project
would
not

directly
increase
the
demands
for
fire
and
police
protection as
the
Project
does
not
include
any
new
housing
units or

commercial
uses.

Emergency
access
to
the
Placerita
Canyon
community
would
be
facilitated
through
the
Project’s

alignment,
which
is
consistent
with
the
City’s
adopted
Circulation
Element.

The
Project’s
alignment
would
be
an

improvement
to
the
current
access
route
into
the
Placerita
Canyon
community
via
13th Street.

The
potential
upgrade
or

closure
of
the
13th Street
at-‐grade
crossing
is
a
proposed
safety
feature
aimed
at
reducing
potential
conflicts
between

pedestrians,
vehicles
and
trains.

The
Project’s impact
upon
fire
and
police
services
would
be
less
than
significant
and
no

further
analysis
is
warranted.

Schools:

No
Impact.

A
significant
impact
may
occur
if
a
project
includes
substantial
employment
or
population
growth,

which
could
generate
a
demand
for
school
facilities
that
would
exceed
the
capacity
of
the
local
school
District.

The
Project

would
not
directly
impact
any
local
schools
as
the
Project
does
not
include
any
new
housing
units.

The
Project
would
not

have
any
impact
upon
schools.

Thus,
no
further
analysis
of
school
capacity
is
warranted.

Parks:

No
Impact.

A
significant
impact
may
occur
if
a
project
includes
substantial
employment
or
population
growth,
which

could
generate
a
demand
for
park
and
recreation
facilities
that
would
result
in
the
need
to
construct
park
and
recreation

facilities
to
accommodate
the
Project.

The
Project
would
not
directly
impact
any
local
park
and/or
recreational
facility, as
the

Project
does
not
include
any
new
housing
units
or
commercial
uses.

Thus,
no further
analysis
of
park
and
recreation
is

warranted.

XV.

RECREATION.

Potentially

Significant

Impact
Less
Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated
Less
Than

Significant

Impact No
Impact
a.

Would
the
project
increase
the
use
of
existing
neighborhood

and
regional
parks
or
other
recreational
facilities
such
that

substantial
physical
deterioration
of
the
facility
would
occur
or
be

accelerated?
q q q þ
b.

Does
the
project
include
recreational
facilities
or
require
the

construction
or
expansion
of
recreational
facilities
which
might

have
an
adverse
physical
effect
on
the
environment?
q q q þ
Response
a-‐b:

No
Impact.

A
significant
impact
may
occur
if
the
Project
would
include
substantial
employment
or

population
growth
that
could
generate
an
increased
demand
for
public
park
facilities
which
exceeds
the
capacities
of
existing
parks
and/or
causes
premature
deterioration
of
the
park
facilities.

The
Project
would
not
directly
impact
any
local
park

and/or
recreational
facility, as
the
Project
does
not
include
any
new
housing
units
or
commercial
uses.

Thus,
no
further

analysis
of
park
and
recreation
is
warranted.

City
of
Santa
Clarita August
2013
Lyons
Avenue/Dockweiler
Drive
Extension Page
19 of
22 XVI.

TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.

Would
the
project:

Potentially

Significant

Impact
Less
Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated
Less
Than

Significant

Impact No
Impact
a.

Conflict
with
an
applicable
plan,
ordinance
or
policy

establishing
measures
of effectiveness
for
the
performance
of
the

circulation
system,
taking
into
account
all
modes
of

transportation
including
mass
transit
and
non-‐motorized
travel

and
relevant
components
of
the
circulation
system,
including
but

not
limited
to
intersections,
streets,
highways,
and
freeways,

pedestrian
and
bicycle
paths,
and
mass
transit?
þ q q q
b.

Conflict
with
an
applicable
congestion
management
program,

including
but
not
limited
to
level
of
service
standards
and
travel

demand
measures,
or
other
standards
established
by
the
county

congestion
management
agency
for
designated
roads
or

highways?
þ q q q
c.

Result
in
a
change
in
air
traffic
patterns,
including
either
an

increase
in
traffic
levels
or
a
change
in
location
that
results
in

substantial
safety
risks?
q q q þ
d.

Substantially
increase
hazards
to
a
design
feature
(e.g.,
sharp

curves
or
dangerous
intersections)
or
incompatible
uses
(e.g.,

farm
equipment)?
þ q q q
e.

Result
in
inadequate
emergency
access? þ q q q
f.

Conflict
with
adopted
policies,
plans,
or
programs
regarding

public
transit,
bicycle,
or
pedestrian
facilities,
or
otherwise

decrease
the
performance
or
safety
of
such
facilities?
þ q q q
g.

Hazards
or
barriers
for
pedestrians
or
bicyclists?
þ q q q
Response
a-‐g:

Potentially
Significant
Impact.

A
significant
impact
may
occur
if
the
project
were
to
conflict
with
an

applicable
plan,
ordinance
or
policy
establishing
measures
of
effectiveness
for
the
performance
of
the
circulation
system,

taking
into
account
all
modes
of
transportation
including
mass
transit
and
non-‐motorized
travel
and
relevant
components
of

the
circulation
system,
including
but
not
limited
to
intersections,
streets,
highways,
and
freeways,
pedestrian
and
bicycle

paths,
and
mass
transit.

Construction
of
the
Project
involves
buildout
of
a
roadway
extension
that
was
identified
in
the
City’s

Circulation
Element
of
the
General
Plan.

The
potential
of
the
Project
to
cause
a
substantial
change
in
traffic
patterns
in

relation
to
existing
traffic
loads
and
capacity
on
local
streets
will
be
analyzed
in
the
EIR.

City
of
Santa
Clarita August
2013
Lyons
Avenue/Dockweiler
Drive
Extension Page
20 of
22 XVII.

UTILITIES.

Would
the
project
Potentially

Significant

Impact
Less
Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated
Less
Than

Significant

Impact No
Impact
a.

Exceed
wastewater
treatment
requirements
of
the
applicable

Regional
Water
Quality
Control
Board?
q q q þ
b.

Require
or
result
in
the
construction
of
new
water
or

wastewater
treatment
facilities
or
expansion
of
existing
facilities,

the
construction
of
which
could
cause
significant
environmental

effects?
q q q þ
c.

Require
or
result
in
the
construction
of
new
stormwater

drainage
facilities
or
expansion
of
existing
facilities,
the

construction
of
which
could
cause
significant
environmental

effects?
q q þ q
d.

Have
sufficient
water
supplies
available
to
serve
the
project

from
existing
entitlements
and
resource,
or
are
new
or
expanded

entitlements
needed?
q q q þ
e.

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?

q q q þ
f.

Be
served
by
a
landfill
with
sufficient
permitted
capacity
to

accommodate
the
project’s
solid
waste
disposal
needs?
q q þ q
g.

Comply
with
federal,
state,
and
local
statutes
and
regulations

related
to
solid
waste?
q q q þ
Response
a-‐b:

No
Impact.

A
significant
impact
would
occur
if
a
project
exceeds
wastewater
treatment
requirements
of
the

applicable
Regional
Water
Quality
Control
Board or
increase
water
consumption
or
wastewater
generation
to
such
a
degree

that
the
capacities
of
facilities
currently
serving
the
Project
site would
be
exceeded.

The
Project
does
not
include
the

construction
of
any
habitable
uses
and
would
not
require
any
connections
to
a
sanitary
sewer.

Thus,
no
impact
to

wastewater
treatment
facilities
would
be
created
and
no
further
analysis
of
this
issue
is
warranted.

Response
c:

Less
Than
Significant
Impact.

The
drainage
system
of
the
Project
will
be
developed
so
that
post
development

peak
runoff
discharge
rates are
equal
or
less
than
pre
development
peak
runoff
rates,
as
required
by
the
City
of
Santa
Clarita

and
the
Countywide
MS4
Permit.

As
such,
the
Project
would
not
result
in
the
construction
of
new
stormwater
drainage

facilities
or
expansion
of
existing
facilities
and
no
further
analysis
is
warranted.

Response d:

No
Impact.

A
significant
impact
may
occur
if
a
project
were
to
increase
water
consumption
to
such
a
degree

City
of
Santa
Clarita August
2013
Lyons
Avenue/Dockweiler
Drive
Extension Page
21 of
22 that
new
water
sources would
need
to
be
identified,
or
that
existing
resources
would
be
consumed
at
a
pace
greater
than

planned
for
by
purveyors,
distributors,
and
service
providers.

The
Project
does
not
include
the
construction
f
any
habitable

uses
and
would
not
create
a
demand
for
potable
water.

Thus,
no
impact
to
water
resources
would
occur
and
no
further

analysis
of
this
issue
is
warranted.

Response
e:

No
Impact.

A
significant
impact
may
occur
if
a
project
would
increase
wastewater
generation
to
such
a
degree

that
the
capacity
of
facilities
currently
serving
the
Project
site would
be
exceeded.

The
Project
does
not
include
the

construction
of
any
habitable
uses
and
would
not
require
any
connections
to
a
sanitary
sewer.

Thus,
no
impact
to

wastewater
treatment
facilities
would
be
created
and
no
further
analysis
of
this
issue
is
warranted.

Response
f:

Less
Than
Significant
Impact.

A
significant
impact
may
occur
if
a
project
were
to
increase
solid
waste
generation

to
a
degree
such
that
the
existing
and
projected
landfill
capacity
would
be
insufficient
to
accommodate
the
additional
solid

waste.

The
Project
does
not
include
the
construction
of
any
habitable
uses
and
would
not
generate
a
demand
for
solid

waste
resources.

No
further
analysis
of
this
issue
is
warranted.

Response
g:

No
Impact.

A
significant
impact
may
occur
if
a
project
would
generate
solid
waste
that
was
not
disposed
of
in

accordance
with
applicable
regulations.

The
Project will
comply
with
all
federal,
State,
and
local
statutes
and
regulations

related
to
solid
waste
generated
during
the
construction
phase.

The
Project
does
not
include
the
construction
of
any

habitable
uses
and
would
not
generate
a
demand
for
solid
waste
resources
on
an
ongoing
basis
during
the
life
of
the
Project.

No
further
analysis
of this
issue
is
warranted.

XVIII.

MANDATORY

FINDINGS
OF
SIGNIFICANCE.

Potentially

Significant

Impact
Less
Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated
Less
Than

Significant

Impact No
Impact
a.

Does
the
project
have
the
potential
to
degrade
the
quality
of

the
environment,
substantially
reduce
the
habitat
of
fish
or

wildlife
species,
cause
a
fish
or
wildlife
population
to
drop
below

self-‐sustaining
levels,
threaten
to
eliminate
a
plant
or
animal

community,
reduce
the
number
or
restrict
the
range
of
a
rare
or

endangered
plant
or
animal
or
eliminate
important
examples
of

the
major
periods
of
California
history
or
prehistory?
þ q q q
b.

Does
the
project
have
impacts
which
are
individually
limited,

but
cumulatively
considerable?

(“Cumulatively
considerable”

means
that
the
incremental
effects
of
an
individual
project
are

considerable
when
viewed
in
connection
with
the
effects
of
past

projects,
the
effects
of
other
current
projects,
and
the
effects
of

probable
future
projects).
þ q q q
c.

Does
the
project
have
environmental
effects,
which
cause

substantial
adverse
effects
on
human
beings,
either
directly
or

indirectly?
þ q q q
Responses a-‐c: Potentially
Significant
Impact.

A
significant
impact
may
occur
if
a
project
would
degrade
the
quality
of
the

environment,
substantially
reduce
the
habitat
of
a
fish
or
wildlife
species,
cause
a
fish
or
wildlife
population
to
drop
below

City
of
Santa
Clarita August
2013
Lyons
Avenue/Dockweiler
Drive
Extension Page
22 of
22 self-‐sustaining
levels,
threaten
to
eliminate
a
plant
or
animal
community,
reduce
the
number
or
restrict
the
range
of
a
rare

or
endangered
plant
or
animal
or
eliminate
important
examples
of
the
major
periods
of
California
history
or
prehistory.

The

Project
will
involve
the
grading
and
disturbance
of
land
that
is
currently
undeveloped.

The
planned
roadway
extension
will

cross
Newhall
Creek,
which
is
an
intermittent
streambed.

Thus
the
Project
has
the
potential
to
impact
riparian
and
upland

habitat
and sensitive
species.

Accordingly,
the
Project’s
potential
to
substantially
reduce
the
habitat
of
a
fish
or
wildlife

species,
cause
a
fish
or
wildlife
population
to
drop
below
self-‐sustaining
levels,
threaten
to
eliminate
a
plant
or
animal

community,
reduce
the
number
or
restrict
the
range
of
a
rare
or
endangered
plant
or
animal
or
eliminate
important

examples
of
the
major
periods
of
California
history
or
prehistory
will
be
evaluated
within
the
scope
of
the
EIR.

Lyons Avenue/Dockweiler Road Extension Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Appendix B
Public and Agency Comment Letters on the NOP

SUMMARY OF RESPONSE LETTERS TO THE

NOTICE OF PREPARATION
Dockweiler Extension Project Draft EIR Responses to the NOP State Clearinghouse No. 2013082016 Page 1 of 14
SCREENCHECK DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW

SUMMARY OF NOP COMMENT

LETTERS

DOCKWEILER EXTENSION

PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT
I. AestheticsII. Agricultural ResourcesIII. Air QualityIV. Biological ResourcesV. Cultural ResourcesVI. Geology and SoilsVII. Greenhouse Gas EmissionsVIII. Hazardous MaterialsIX. Hydrology and Water QualityX. Land Use PlanningXI. Mineral ResourcesXII. NoiseXIII. Population and HousingXIV. Public ServicesXV. RecreationXVI. Transportation/CirculationXVII. Utilities Other
Comments and
Concerns
State Agencies

1. State of California
Governor’s Office of Planning
and Research
State Clearinghouse and
Planning Unit
Scott Morgan, Director
1400 10th Street P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, CA 95812
Date: August 5, 2013
n n n n n n
• No comment
• NOP distribution list of
reviewing agencies

2. State of California
Native American Heritage
Commission
Dave Singleton,
Program Analyst
1550 Harbor Boulevard
West Sacramento, CA 95691
Date: August 20, 2013
n
City of Santa Clarita September 2013
Dockweiler Extension Project Draft EIR Responses to the NOP State Clearinghouse No. 2013082016 Page 2 of 14
SCREENCHECK DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW

SUMMARY OF NOP COMMENT

LETTERS

DOCKWEILER EXTENSION

PROJECT

3. State of California
Natural Resources Agency
Department of Fish and Wildlife
South Coast Region
Betty Courtney
Environmental Program
Manager
3883 Ruffin Road
San Diego, CA 92123
Date: September 6, 2013
n

4. State of California
Public Utilities Commission
Ken Chiang, P.E.

Utilities Engineer
Rail Crossings Engineering
Section; Safety and Enforcement
Division
320 West 4th Street, Suite 500
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Date: August 29, 2013
n
City of Santa Clarita September 2013
Dockweiler Extension Project Draft EIR Responses to the NOP State Clearinghouse No. 2013082016 Page 3 of 14
SCREENCHECK DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW

SUMMARY OF NOP COMMENT

LETTERS

DOCKWEILER EXTENSION

PROJECT

5. County of Los Angeles
Chief Executive Office
Kenneth Hahn Hall of
Administration
Rita L. Robinson, Deputy Chief
Executive Officer, Community
Services Cluster
500 West Temple Street, Room
713, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Date: September 3, 2013
n n n n

6. Metropolitan Transportation
Authority
Nick Saponara, CEQA Review
Manager, Countywide Planning
One Gateway Plaza
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Date: September 3, 2013
n
City of Santa Clarita September 2013
Dockweiler Extension Project Draft EIR Responses to the NOP State Clearinghouse No. 2013082016 Page 4 of 14
SCREENCHECK DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW

SUMMARY OF NOP COMMENT

LETTERS

DOCKWEILER EXTENSION

PROJECT

7. Southern California Gas
Company
John Curran
Planning Associate
North Region Technical
Services
9400 Oakdale Avenue
Chatsworth, CA 91311
(Mailing Address: P.O. Box
2300 Chatsworth, CA 91313)
Date: August 13, 2013
n

8. Southern California Regional
Rail Authority
Metrolink
William Doran, PE
Director, Engineering and
Construction
One Gateway Plaza, 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90012
(Mailing Address: P.O. Box
531776 Los Angeles, CA 90053)
Date: September 4, 2013
n
Organizations
City of Santa Clarita September 2013
Dockweiler Extension Project Draft EIR Responses to the NOP State Clearinghouse No. 2013082016 Page 5 of 14
SCREENCHECK DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW

SUMMARY OF NOP COMMENT

LETTERS

DOCKWEILER EXTENSION

PROJECT

9. Eclipse Farms
Julie Conner-Daniels
24808 Aden Avenue,
21333 Oak Orchard Road and
24730 Hacienda Lane
Newhall, CA 91321
Date: August 21, 2013
n
• Opposes project
• Disliked format of NOP
meeting
• Concerns over financing of
the project
• Concerns over purpose of
project
• Concerns over benefits of
the project to residents

10. Golden Oaks Apartments
Larry L. Bird
24877-109 Walnut Street
Newhall, CA 91321
Date: August 27, 2013
n n
• Opposes project
• Concerns over the
preservation of Old Town
Newhall

11. New Life in His Presence
Church
Erika Pulido
24346 Main Street
Newhall, CA 91321
Date: N/A
• No Comment
City of Santa Clarita September 2013
Dockweiler Extension Project Draft EIR Responses to the NOP State Clearinghouse No. 2013082016 Page 6 of 14
SCREENCHECK DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW

SUMMARY OF NOP COMMENT

LETTERS

DOCKWEILER EXTENSION

PROJECT

12. PCPOA
Mary Duitsman
22120 Placerita Canyon
Newhall, CA 91321
Date: August 21, 2013
n n n • Concerns about special
interests

13. SCOPE
Lynne Plambeck, President
Carmillis Noltemeyer, Board
Member
PO Box 1182
Santa Clarita, CA 91386
Date: September 1, 2013
n n n n n • Piece-Mealing of CEQA

14. Valencia Vista HOA Board
Jim Abernethy
24451 Leonard Tree Lane
Newhall, CA 91321
Date: August 21, 2013
n n n n

15. Veterans of Placerita Canyon
through Prayer Angels for the
Military, Inc.

Suzon Gerstel and
Dale Gerstel
21609 Oak Orchard Road
Newhall, CA 91321
Date: August 21, 2013
• Disliked format of NOP
meeting
• Inadequate representation of
organization
• Concern about preservation
of neighborhood character
City of Santa Clarita September 2013
Dockweiler Extension Project Draft EIR Responses to the NOP State Clearinghouse No. 2013082016 Page 7 of 14
SCREENCHECK DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW

SUMMARY OF NOP COMMENT

LETTERS

DOCKWEILER EXTENSION

PROJECT

16. Edna Adams
19825 Ermine Street
Canyon Country, CA 91351
Date: August 3, 2013
• Add to mailing list

17. Randall and Renée Berglund
21556 Placerita Canyon Road
Newhall, CA 91321
Date: August 21, 2013
n n n n
• Opposes project
• Concerns over financing of
the project

18. Mark Berlinger
21605 Placerita Canyon Road
Newhall, CA 91321
Date: August 21, 2013
• Disliked format of NOP
meeting
• Opposes project

19. Rhonda Berlinger
21605 Placerita Canyon Road
Newhall, CA 91321
Date: August 21, 2013
n n • Opposes project

20. Christian Bouyer
24919 Alderbrook Drive
Newhall, CA 91321
Date: August 21, 2013
n
• Concerns over financing of
the project
• Concerns over purpose of
project
City of Santa Clarita September 2013
Dockweiler Extension Project Draft EIR Responses to the NOP State Clearinghouse No. 2013082016 Page 8 of 14
SCREENCHECK DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW

SUMMARY OF NOP COMMENT

LETTERS

DOCKWEILER EXTENSION

PROJECT

21. Mitch Bruckner
24814 Horseshoe Lane
Newhall, CA 91321
Date: August 21, 2013
n n • Opposes project

22. Terry Carberry
24325 Main Street
Newhall, CA 91321
Date: August 3, 2013
• No comment

23. Sandra Cattell
21648 Oak Orchard Road,
Newhall, CA 91321
Date: September 3, 2013
n n n n n
• Opposes project
• Concern about preservation
of neighborhood character

24. Linda Clark
Placerita Canyon
Newhall, CA 91321
Date: August 21, 2013
n

25. Darrell Clarke
24804 Parchman Avenue
Newhall, CA 91321
Date: September 3, 2013
n n

26. Jenifer Costin
23830 Evans Avenue
Newhall CA 91321
Date: August 21, 2013
• Opposes project
• Concerns over purpose of
project
City of Santa Clarita September 2013
Dockweiler Extension Project Draft EIR Responses to the NOP State Clearinghouse No. 2013082016 Page 9 of 14
SCREENCHECK DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW

SUMMARY OF NOP COMMENT

LETTERS

DOCKWEILER EXTENSION

PROJECT

27. Charles and Mary Jo Haendle
21035 Placeritos Boulevard
Newhall, CA 91321
Date: August 26, 2013
n
• Opposes project
• Concerns over purpose of
project
• Concerns over financing of
the project

28. Bill and Suzy Hannd
21161 Placerita Canyon Road
Newhall, CA 91321
Date: August 21, 2013
n • Opposes project

29. Richard Hart
17827 Ridgeway Road
Granada Hills, CA 91344
Date: August 5, 2013
• Requesting copy of NOP

30. Paul Hazard
24637 Aden Avenue
Newhall, CA 91321
Date: September 18, 2013
• No comment

31. Steve Howard
24524 Aden Avenue
Newhall, CA 91321
Date: August 21, 2013
n n • Opposes project
• Concerns over home values

32. Ann Jones
24855 Quigley Canyon Road
Newhall, CA 91321
Date August, 21, 2013
n n
• Opposes project
• Concern about preservation
of neighborhood character
City of Santa Clarita September 2013
Dockweiler Extension Project Draft EIR Responses to the NOP State Clearinghouse No. 2013082016 Page 10 of 14
SCREENCHECK DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW

SUMMARY OF NOP COMMENT

LETTERS

DOCKWEILER EXTENSION

PROJECT

33. Olga Kaczmar
24979 Alderbrook Drive
Newhall, CA 91321
Date: August 21, 2013
n n • Concern about preservation
of neighborhood character

34. Andrew Kim
24412 Leonard Tree Lane #203
Santa Clarita CA 91321
Date: August 21, 2013
• No comment

35. Catherine Kim
24412 Leonard Tree Lane #203
Santa Clarita CA 91321
Date: August 21, 2013
n

36. Mary Frances Larson
21820 Placeritos Boulevard
Newhall, CA 91321
Date: August 21, 2013
n

37. Eugene Leary
21236 Simay Lane
Newhall, CA 91321
Date: August 21, 2013
n n n n n n n
• Concern about preservation
of neighborhood character
• Disliked format of NOP
meeting

38. Robert G. Leemon
21231 Simay Lane
Newhall, CA 91321
Date: August 21, 2013
n • Concerns over purpose of
project
City of Santa Clarita September 2013
Dockweiler Extension Project Draft EIR Responses to the NOP State Clearinghouse No. 2013082016 Page 11 of 14
SCREENCHECK DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW

SUMMARY OF NOP COMMENT

LETTERS

DOCKWEILER EXTENSION

PROJECT

39. Nanette Meister
21550 Placerita Canyon Road
Newhall, CA 91321
Date: August 21, 2013
• Opposes project

40. Ron and Carolynne Mendell
24834 Meadview Avenue
Newhall, CA 91321
Date: August 21, 2013
n

41. Patricia Mills
24824 Quigley Canyon Road
Newhall, CA 91321
Date: August 21, 2013
• Opposes project

42. Devin Taylor Otte
and Colleen Otte
24485 Valle Del Oro #205
Newhall, CA 91321
Date: August 21, 2013
n
• Opposes project
• Concerns over financing of
the project

43. Colleen Otte
24485 Valle Del Oro #205
Newhall, CA 91321
Date: August 21, 2013
n n n n n n • Opposes project
City of Santa Clarita September 2013
Dockweiler Extension Project Draft EIR Responses to the NOP State Clearinghouse No. 2013082016 Page 12 of 14
SCREENCHECK DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW

SUMMARY OF NOP COMMENT

LETTERS

DOCKWEILER EXTENSION

PROJECT

44. Réal and Barbara Paradise
Placerita Canyon Homeowners
22176 Placeritos Boulevard
Newhall, CA 91321
Date: August 21, 2013
n

45. Kelly Phen
24736 Oak Creek Avenue
Newhall, CA 91321
Date: August 21, 2013
n n
• Opposes project
• Concerns over financing of
the project
• Concern about preservation
of neighborhood character
• Disliked format of NOP
meeting
46 Linda Redmond
21107 Placerita Canyon Road
Newhall, CA 91321
Date: August 21, 2013
• Concerns over purpose of
project
• Opposes project

47. Mike Redmond
Date: August 21, 2013
• Concerns over financing of
the project

48. Donald J Rendall
21926 Placeritos Boulevard
Newhall, CA 91321
Date: August 23, 2013
n n • Proposes the project explore
additional alternatives
City of Santa Clarita September 2013
Dockweiler Extension Project Draft EIR Responses to the NOP State Clearinghouse No. 2013082016 Page 13 of 14
SCREENCHECK DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW

SUMMARY OF NOP COMMENT

LETTERS

DOCKWEILER EXTENSION

PROJECT

49. Michael Round
21637 Oak Orchard Road
Newhall, CA 91321
Date: August 21, 2013
n
• Concerns over existing
living and property
conditions

50. Jośe Rubio
24412 Leonard Tree Lane #204
Newhall, CA 91321
Date: August 21, 2013
n

51. Valerie Thomas
PO Box 220907
Newhall, CA 91322
Date: August 21, 2013
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n

52. Jim Visner
21307 Placerita Canyon Road
Newhall, CA 91321
Date: August 21, 2013
• Opposes project
• Disliked format of NOP
meeting
• Concern about preservation
of neighborhood character
• Concerns over special
interests
City of Santa Clarita September 2013
Dockweiler Extension Project Draft EIR Responses to the NOP State Clearinghouse No. 2013082016 Page 14 of 14
SCREENCHECK DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW

SUMMARY OF NOP COMMENT

LETTERS

DOCKWEILER EXTENSION

PROJECT

53. Julie Visner
21307 Placerita Canyon Road
Newhall, CA 91321
Date: August 21, 2013
n n n
• Opposes project
• Concerns over financing of
the project
• Concern about preservation
of neighborhood character
• Disliked format of NOP
meeting Concerns over
special interests

54. Tom Walsh
21309 Eucalyptus Way #201
Newhall, CA 91321
Date: August 21, 2013
n

55. Jong Yoon
22011 Placerita Canyon Road
Newhall, CA 91321
Date: August 21, 2013
• In support of alternative one
Source: Parker Environmental Consultants, September 2013.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
320 WEST 4TH STREET, SUITE 500
LOS ANGELES, CA 90013
(213) 576-7083
August 29, 2013
Mike Hennewy
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Dear Mr. Hennewy:

Re: SCH 2013082016 Santa Clarita Lyons Avenue and Dockweller Drive Extension Project NOP The California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) has jurisdiction over the safety of highway-rail crossings (crossings) in California. The California Public Utilities Code requires Commission approval for construction or alteration of crossings and grants the Commission exclusive power on design, alteration, and/or closure of rail crossings in California. The Commission’s Rail Crossings Engineering Section (RCES) has received a copy of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) from the State Clearinghouse for the proposed City of Santa Clarita (City) Lyons Avenue and Dockweller Drive Extension project.

The proposed project includes the extension of Lyons Avenue from Railroad Avenue to the future connection with Dockweller Drive. The extension will cross over the rail tracks owned by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Company. The project may also include the potential upgrade or closure of the at-grade 13th Street crossing.

The project will increase traffic volumes not only on streets and at intersections, but also at crossings. The project will create a new crossing. Safety factors to consider include, but are not limited to, the pedestrian circulation patterns/destinations with respect to railroad right-of-way (ROW), the planning for grade separations for major thoroughfares, and improvements to existing at-grade highway-rail crossings due to increase in traffic volumes and appropriate fencing to limit the access of trespassers onto the railroad ROW.

Commission Rules and Regulations
The following link provides resources on the Commission’s rules and regulations in regard to rail safety: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/safety/Rail/. Any modification to an existing or proposed new crossing is subject to a number of rules and regulations involving the Commission, including:
 California Public Utilities Code, Sections 1201 et al, which requires Commission authority to construct rail crossings;
 Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, which details the Formal Application process for construction or modification of a public crossing; and  Commission’s General Order (GO) 88-B, Rules for Altering Public Highway-Rail Crossings.

The design criteria for any proposed modification or new crossing construction shall comply with the following GOs:

Mike Hennewy

Page 2 of 36 ends

August 29, 2013
 GO 26-D, Clearance on Railroads and Street Railroads as to Side and Overhead Structures, Parallel Tracks and Crossings;
 GO 72-B, Construction and Maintenance of Crossings – Standard Types of Pavement Construction at Railroad Grade Crossings;
 GO 75-D, Warning Devices for At-Grade Railroad Crossings;  GO 118, Construction, Reconstruction and Maintenance of Walkways and Control, of Vegetation Adjacent to Railroad Tracks; and
 GO 128, Construction or Underground and Electrical Supply and Communication.

Federal Rules and Regulations
The project shall ensure compliance with federal regulations as well, including:
 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 213 (49 CFR Part 213), Track Safety Standards;  49 CFR Part 214 Railroad Workplace Safety;
 49 CFR Part 234, Grade Crossing Signal System;
 49 CFR Part 236, Rules Standards and Instructions Governing the Installation, Inspection Maintenance, and Repair of Signal and Train Control Systems Devices, and Appliances.

Crossing Authorizations
RCES staff is available for consultation on crossing safety matters. The following link provides more information on the Commission’s GO 88-B and formal crossing application process:
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/safety/Rail/Crossings/formalapps.htm.

1. Formal Application
A Formal Application is required for construction of all new at-grade and grade separated crossings along the corridor in accordance with the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. When the project is clearly defined and prior to submission of a Formal Application, City should contact RCES staff to arrange a diagnostic meeting with Commission staff and all interested parties to discuss relevant safety issues at each proposed crossing location, if any.

As part of its mission to reduce hazards associated with at-grade railroad crossings, the Commission’s policy is to reduce the number of such crossings. New at-grade crossings would typically not be supported by Commission staff and long-term planning for the grade separation of the existing at-grade rail crossings should be considered.

2. GO 88-B Requests
Modification (including closure) of existing rail crossings is typically authorized through the Commission’s GO 88-B process. If interested parties do not reach agreement regarding proposed modifications, a Formal Application to the Commission will be required in order to obtain authorization to implement the modifications.

Prior to submission of a GO 88-B request for authorization, City should arrange a diagnostic meeting with Commission staff and all interested parties to discuss relevant safety issues at Mike Hennewy

Page 3 of 36 ends

August 29, 2013
the crossing location. Commission crossing safety web page is found at this link:
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/safety/Rail/Crossings/contactrces.htm.

General Safety Concerns
The project will involve the construction of a new crossing and upgrade/closure of the existing atgrade 13th Street crossing. Due to serious rail safety concerns, especially given the number of trains, their rate of speed and the volume of vehicular traffic, Commission staff recommends that any newly proposed crossing of roadways/highways by this project be grade separated to prevent vehicle/pedestrian vs. train collisions. This is the only way to guarantee no future at-grade crossing accidents.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the project. We are available to meet and further discuss the comments presented herein with City, SCRRA, UPRR and other relevant parties. We hope to assist in the identification of acceptable mitigation measures that will effectively address the concerns we have identified.

Please feel free to contact me at 213-576-7076, [email protected], or Jose Pereyra at 213-576- 7083 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Ken Chiang, P.E.

Utilities Engineer
Rail Crossings Engineering Section
Safety and Enforcement Division
C: State Clearinghouse
Ken Tom, UPRR
Ron Mathieu, SCRRA

Mike Hennewy

Page 3 of 36 ends

August 29, 2013
the crossing location. Commission crossing safety web page is found at this link:
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/safety/Rail/Crossings/contactrces.htm.

Please feel free to contact me at 213-576-7076, [email protected], or Jose Pereyra at 213-576- 7083 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Ken Chiang, P.E.

Utilities Engineer
Rail Crossings Engineering Section
Safety and Enforcement Division
C: State Clearinghouse
Ken Tom, UPRR
Ron Mathieu, SCRRA
County of Los Angeles

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE
Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration
500 West Temple Street, Room 713, Los Angeles, California 90012 (213) 974-1101
http://ceo.lacounty.gov

WILLIAM T FUJIOKA
Chief Executive Offcer
Board of Supervisors

GLORIA MOLINA
First District

MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS
Second District
September 3, 2013 ZEV YAROSLAVSKY
Third District

DON KNABE
Fourth District
Mike Hennawy, Senior Engineer
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH
Fifth District
Dear Mr. Hennawy:

NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

FOR THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA LYONS AVENUE/DOCKWEILER DRIVE

EXTENSION PROJECT
On August 5, 2013, the City of Santa Clarita released the notice of preparation (NOP) for a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Lyons Avenue/Dockweiler Drive Extension Project for public review and comment.

The planned DEIR will evaluate the impacts of the proposed construction of a new railroad grade crossing, traffic improvements, new bridge across Newhall Creek, and joining existing roadways in the Placerita Canyon and Newhall communities.

Included in this letter are comments on behalf of the County Department of Public Works and the County of Los Ang~les Fire Department.

Department of Public Works (DPW)
HydrologylWater Quality
The DEIR must address possible impacts of the project on any Los Angeles County Flood Control District facilities. In addition, the DEIR must identify any pollutants that may be discharged into the flood control.system and provide measures to prevent such discharges. If you have any questions regarding these items, please contact Juan Sarda of the Watershed Management Division at (626) 458-5911, or via e-mail at jsarda(ãd pw.lacou nty .gov.
'To Enrich Lives Through Effective And Caring SeNice"
Please Conserve Paper - This Document and Copies are Two-Sided Intra-County Correspondence Sent Electronically Only
Mike Hennawy
September 3, 2013

Page 2 ends

DPW will review the DEIR's hydrology study for any impacts from the project. If you have any questions regarding hydrology impacts, please contact Toan Duong of the Land Development Division at (626) 458-4910, or via e-mail at td uong(ãdpw .Iacounty.gov.

Tra nsportationlT raffic
DPW Traffic Studies is concerned about the potential increase in traffic expected to be generated by the project at the County-maintained intersection of Pico Canyon Road and The Old Road, and requests that the DEIR study this intersection. Since Lyons Avenue becomes Pico Canyon Road upon crossing the 1-5 freeway, the Lyons Avenue extension to Dockweiler Drive will provide a more direct connection between the northeast portion of the Santa. Clarita Valley to Stevenson Ranch and the retail centers in the vicinity of the intersection. In addition, the extension may also provide a bypass route for motorists wanting to avoid the southbound SR-14 Freeway to the northbound 1-5 Freeway interchange to access the Stevenson Ranch area and adjacent retail uses.

Traffic Studies also requests that the DEIR study the intersection of The Old Road at the 1-5 Freeway Southbound ramps, which is located within the County, but it is maintained by Caltrans. It is expected that Caltrans will request a level of service analysis and off-ramp queuing analysis at this location based on prior experience working with them on such projects. If you have any questions regarding the transportation/traffic, please contact Andrew Ngumba at (626) 300-4851, or via e-mail at angumba(âd pw .Iacou nty.gov.

County of Los Angeles Consolidated Fire Protection District (CFPD) Planning Division
Any highway project that includes road closures and/or detours has the potential to impede upon emergency response times, especially during high peak traffic hours.

All road closures and detours should be approved and acceptable to the Fire Department so as not to adversely impact emergency responses.

Land Development Unit

1. The proposed development may necessitate multiple ingress/egress access for the circulation of traffic and emergency response issues.

2. The development of this project must. comply with all applicable code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows and fire hydrants.

Mike Hennawy
September 3, 2013

Page 3 ends

3. Specific fire and life safety requirements for the construction phase will be addressed on the building fire plan check. There may be additional fire and life safety requirements during this time.

4. When a bridge is required to be used as part of a fire access road, it shall be constructed and maintained in accorqance with nationally recognized standards and designed for a live load sufficient to carry a minimum of 75,000 pounds.

5. The maximum allowable grade shall not exceed 15 percent except where topography makes it impractical to keep within such a grade. In such cases, an absolute maximum of 20 percent will be allowed for up to 150 feet in distance.

The average maximum allowed grade, including topographical difficulties, shall be no more than 17 percent. Grade breaks shall not exceed 10 percent in ten feet.

6. Fire Department requirements for access, fire flows, and hydrants are addressed during the building permit stage.

7. Turning radii shall not be less than 32 feet. This measurement shall be determined at the centerline of the road.

8. The Land Development Unit's comments are only general requirements. Specific fire and life safety requirements will be addressed at the building and fire plan check phase. There may be additional requirements during this time.

If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Jason Tajima at (213) 974-1145, or via e-mail at jtajima(ãceo.lacounty.gov.

Sincerely,
'~N~N
Deputy Chief Executive Officer
Community Services Cluster
RLR: DSP
JT:os
c: Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich, Fifth District
Daryl L. Osby, Fire Chief
Gail Farber, Director of Public Works
U:\CHRONO 2013\CHRONO 2013 (WORD)\UAS\City of Santa Clarita_Lyons Ave.Dockeiier Dr Exension Project NOP of DEIR Comments_Mike Hennawy.doc September 3, 2013
Mike Hennawy
Senior Engineer
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 9355
RE: Notice of Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report and Public Scoping meeting for the Proposed Lyons Avenue/Dockweiler Drive Extension Project

Dear Mr. Hennawy:

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) is in receipt of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and Public Scoping Meeting for the proposed Lyons Avenue / Dockweiler Drive Extension Project. This letter conveys comments concerning issues that are germane to LACMTA’s statutory responsibilities in relation to the proposed project as well as issues that may impact transportation operations on LACMTA owned facilities.

It is noted that the proposed project would extend Lyons Avenue across an existing LACMTA-owned Railroad Right-of-Way (ROW). This ROW is operated and maintained by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) and is used for the Metrolink commuter rail service and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) freight operations. The following concerns related to the project’s proximity to the ROW should be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR):

1. The project sponsor is advised that SCRRA and the UPRR operate service in both directions and that trains may operate, in and out of revenue service, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

2. The policy adopted by the SCRRA Board of Directors stipulates that if a new atgrade crossing is developed, two existing at-grade crossings in the area must be closed.

3. It should be noted that railroad crossings are under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The project sponsor will be required to obtain the necessary authorization to construct the crossing. This will include demonstrating that a grade separated crossing is not practical.

4. It is likely that this proposed crossing will include the addition of warning devices, traffic signal modifications, and railroad signaling modifications. These modifications, along with the necessary use of train horns will bring additional noise factors as a result of the project.

5. All project development, engineering, and construction efforts must be coordinated with LACMTA Regional Rail, LACMTA Real Estate, and the SCRRA.

6. Any work performed on the project infrastructure or property requiring access to the railroad ROW, shall be covered by specific Right-of-Entry permits with specific requirements. These may include permits for construction of infrastructure, and any future repairs, painting, graffiti removal, etc., including the use of overhead cranes or any other equipment that could potentially impact railroad operations and safety. Frequent access for maintenance tasks such as graffiti removal, will necessitate an active license agreement. This agreement will include an annual license fee, and other requirements that meet safety standards for access to a ROW with active rail operations.

7. During construction, a protection barrier shall be constructed to prevent objects, material, or debris from falling onto the ROW. In addition, railroad flagging will be needed during construction to ensure the safety of passengers and train crews.

8. The project sponsor will be required to notify LACMTA of any changes to the construction/building plans that may or may not impact the ROW.

9. Improvements to existing facilities as part of the proposed project may result in an increase in foot traffic adjacent to the railroad ROW. To prevent trespassing along the active railroad ROW, the project sponsor may be required to install enhanced fencing to secure the ROW.

Please note that the SCRRA may have additional comments concerning the operation and maintenance of the ROW which would come in the form of a separate correspondence from those parties.

If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact me at 213-922-4313 or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Nick Saponara
CEQA Review Manager, Countywide Planning
cc. Don Sepulveda
Gray Crary, SCRRA
Southern California
Gas Company
9400 Oakdale Avenue
Chatsworth, CA
91313
Mailing Address:

P. O. Box 2300
Chatsworth, CA
91313-2300
M.L.9333
tel 818-701-2567
fax 818-701-3380
8/14/2013
City of Santa Clarita
Attn.; Mike Hennaway
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Subject: Proposed Lyons Avenue / Dockweiler Drive Extension The Project lies entirely within The Gas Company (SCG) Utility Service Territory.

Medium pressure mains exist near the Project area in the public streets. New service and mains can be extended into individual portions/phases as needed from these facilities. No facilities exist within the Project area.

Based upon the Project’s Land Use and Proposed Zoning, The Gas Company anticipates no Project related or cumulative impacts to the natural gas provisions or gas facilities in the service area. Implementation of the proposed project would not adversely affect our service capabilities in the project area or the existing adjacent service areas.

The Gas Company does not anticipate any construction related impacts to the service area. The Project pipelines would be installed in “joint-trench’’ with other dry utilities. Easements will be required for gas main extending into the Project.

To mitigate potential adverse (non-environmental) impacts or delays, advise the applicant to:
a) Notify the builder that any SCG facilities within non-dedicated (private) areas will have an easement granted to the Southern California Gas Co to protect the facilities. Main in public streets are installed under city permit. b) Request the latest SCG facility plans (gas atlases) for the developer’s civil drawings.
c) Request a SCG will-serve letter from SCG Planning/Engineering Department at the commencement of the project and before each phase of the project. This notice ensures adequate gas supply and pressure to serve the project. d) Provide the EIR or equivalent environmental document (if any) to SCG. e) Provide notice and plans of street vacation and annexation actions related to the tentative map.
f) Provide notice and plans of off-site street improvements to SCG. g) Provide tentative/approved tract/parcel maps plans to SCG. h) Contact SCG concerning the relocation, abandonment or removal of any conflicting existing SCG facilities.

Please phone Mr. Jeff Cobb, our Project Manager at (818-701-2530), if you have any questions. It may require up to 90 days to process your application for the installation of gas lines in your project.

Sincerely
John Curran
Planning Associate
North Region Technical Services
Southern California Gas Company
9400 Oakdale Ave. Chatsworth, CA91311

Voice: (818) 701-2567
Fax: (818) 701-3380
Email: [email protected]

leIIMETROLINK~
SoUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTORITY
June 30, 2009
James Chow
Associate Planner
City of Santa Clarita
23620 Valencia Boulevard Suite 302
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Subject: Nap of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Lyons Avenue AtGrade Rail Crossing/Extension Dear Mr. Chow,
Thank you for the Notice of Preparation of and EIR for the Lyons Avenue AtGrade Crossing Project. Over the past three years, the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) and the City have been working on this project.

In May 2008, SCRRA submitted comments on the North Newhall Specific Plan EIR Notice of Preparation (NaP). Our recommendations and comments relating to the Lyons Avenue at-grade crossing and other crossing improvements have not changed. Although the focus of this project is the grade crossing only (Stage 1), the new EIR should consider the future land uses and future traffc impacts as proposed in the North Newhall Specific Plan. Consequently, a copy of SCRRA's letter on the prior EIR Nap is attached as a restatement of our comments for the preparation of this new EIR.

The SCRRA has recently updated the grade crossing standards and guidelines, which incorporate the most current industry standards for vehicular and pedestrian crossing treatments. A copy of the new guideline is available for download at ww.metrolinktrains.com. These standards replace the guidelines submitted in the May 2008 comment letter.

As the project moves forward, we request and expect to receive timely notice, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5 and State CEQA Guideline Section 15088, of subsequent environmental documents relating to this project, and the time and place of any scheduled public meetings or public hearings by the agency decision makers at least 10 days prior to such a meeting. 1 700 S. Flo"Wer Street 26th Floor Los Angeles CA 90017 Tel (213) 452.0200 Fax (213) 452.0461 www.metrolinktrains.com
If you have any questions regarding these comments please contact Elizabeth Mahoney, Government and Regulatory Affairs Manager at 213 452-0259 or ma honeve(( scrra. net.
c. Jay Fuhrman, Metro
Susan Chapman, Metro
Rosa Munoz, CPUC
2 leIMETROLINK~
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AlfHORITY
May 19,2008
Member Agencies:

Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation.

Authority.

Orange County
Transportation Authority.

Riverside County
Transportation Commission.

San Bernardino
Associated Governments.

Ventura County
Transportation Commsion.

Ex Offcio Members:

Southern Californa
Association of Governents.

San Diego Associ.tion
of Governents.

SIale of Caliornia.

Jason Smisko
Senior Planner, City of Santa Clarita
23620 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Subject: NOP of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Proposed North Newhall Specific Plan (NNSP) Stage 1: Lyons Avenue At-Grade Crossing
Dear Mr. Smisko,
Thank you for the Notice of Preparation of and EIR for the Lyons Avenue At-Grade Crossing Project. Over the past two years, the SCRRA and the City have been working on this project. In the interest of improving railroad safety, the SCRRA continues to recommend that the crossing be grade separated, rather than at-grade. In that regard, the following comments are submitted as applicable to the CEQA EIR process.

As you are aware, the SCRRA is a five-county Joint Powers Authority (JPA) that operates the regional commuter rail system known as Metrolink on member agency-owned and on private freight railroad rights of way. Additionally, SCRRA provides a range of rail engineering, construction, operations and maintenance services to its five JPA member agencies. The JPA member agencies are the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) - previously referred to as MTA, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCT A), San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC).

The railroad right of way in the project area is owned by Metro, not the Southern Pacific Railroad as noted in the Initial Study. SCRRA operates one commuter rail route, the Antelope Valley Line along this right of way. The proposed Lyons Avenue would cross the existing two tracks just south of railroad control point Hood (CP Hood). Based on the project's impact to the rail line and Newhall station, the following recommendations concerning issues that are germane to our agency's statutory responsibilties in relation to the proposed project are being conveyed by SCRRA for inclusion in the EI R development:
700 S. Flower Street 26th Floor Los Angeles CA 90017 Tel (213) 452.0200 Fax (213) 452.0425 www.metrolinktrains.com
NNSP Lyons Ave. At Grade Crossing

Page 2 ends

1. The SCRRA's Grade Crossing Resolution 98-21 and Grade Crossing Design Guidelines outline all pertinent policies and procedures that wil be required by the City for consideration of adding a new crossing, and copies are attached. The SCRRA's policy is to support the creation of a new rail-highway grade crossing only if improvements to other grade crossings, including the elimination of grade crossings are made part of the creation of the new crossing, which together clearly improve public convenience and safety.

Therefore, the SCRRA requests that as part of the DEIR development, the City analyze and evaluate not only the closing of the 13th Street crossing, as described in the NOP, but also: the closing of the Market Street at-grade crossing to vehicular traffic (and the necessary redirected access from Lyons to the station parking area); the closing of the Calex crossing; corridor-wide crossing improvements at the Sanitation District private crossing to the south; safety enhancements at San Fernando Road (sidewalk, signal preemption, pedestrian facilities), and Drayton Street safety enhancements. The SCRRA also requests that these improvements be made prior to or in conjunction with the opening of the Lyon Street crossing (if approved).

2. Please note that as part of our grade crossing policies, the City wil also need approval from Metro to add a crossing on the Metro-owned ROW. Metro, as a SCRRA member agency, would make the request on the City's behalf to the SCRRA Board of Directors for support of the City's application to the PUC.

3. The Nap states that the implementation of the NNSP wil be incorporated into the traffc analysis and will be discussed generally in this stage of the EIR. The traffc analysis in the Stage 1 EIR should evaluate the cumulative impacts of all development in the project area including, but not limited to, the Downtown Newhall plan, the Masters College Plan and the North Newhall Specific Plan (NNSP).

4. The traffc analysis should consider the traffc circulation related to this proposed at-grade crossing at the extension of Lyons Avenue, particularly in light of the proximity of San Fernando Road.

5. The traffc circulation plan should also consider linking the three major east side streets, Lyon, Via Princessa and Magic Mountain to provide similar parallel traffc flow as San Fernando Road on the west side. It is our understanding that the City has prior plans for an overcrossing at Magic Mountain, which SCRRA would support in concept.

6. For train activity and vehicle dwell-time analysis in the project area, please use the following service characteristics: There are currently 24 weekday Metrolink trains and an average of 5 daily freight trains through this location; the SCRRA Strategic Assessment projects 32 weekday Metrolink trains by 2015 and 42 weekday Metrolink trains by 2020. Weekend service is projected to increase from 12 daily NNSP Lyons Ave. At Grade Crossing

Page 3 ends

trains to 20 trains by 2020. Future freight trains volumes are expected to increase by at least 4 daily trains within a couple of years.

7. The crossing area would traverse two tracks and potentially impact the existing CP Hood. The City shall be responsible for the costs associated with any changes needed in the control point as a result of the crossing, if approved.

8. Existing or proposed traffic signals within close proximity of the railroad must be interconnected with the railroad signal controls. This wil allow for proper preemption to allow vehicular traffic to clear track area prior to arrival of trains.

Close coordination with the City and railroad is critical to allow for safe movements of vehicles.

9. SCRRA, along with the CPUC, shall participate in the design and construction of the crossing and this work should be coordinated with our Engineering department.

If you have any questions regarding these comments please contact Elizabeth Mahoney, Government and Regulatory Affairs Manager at 213 452-0259 or mahonevetêscrra.net. i olow
iet Executive Offcer
Encls.
cc. Patricia Chen, Metro
Susan Chapman, Metro
Rosa Muñoz, CPUC
SCRRA Files
IlêllMETROLINK ~

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY
May 19, 2008
Member Agencies:

Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation
Authority.

Orange County
Transportation Authority.

Riverside County
Transportation Commission.

San Bernardino
Associated Governments.

Ventura County
Transportation Commssion.

Ex Officio Members:

Southern California
Association of Governents.

San Diego Association
of Governents.

State of Californa.

As you are aware, the SCRRA is a five-county Joint Powers Authority (JPA) that operates the regional commuter rail system known as Metrolink on member agency-owned and on private freight railroad rights of way. Additionally, SCRRA provides a range of rail engineering, construction, operations and maintenance services to its five JPA member agencies. The JPA member agencies are the Los Angeles County Metropolian Transportation Authority (Metro) - previously referred to as MTA, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCT A), San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC).

The railroad right of way in the project area is owned by Metro, not the Southern Pacific Railroad as noted in the Initial Study. SCRRA operates one commuter rail route, the Antelope Valley Line along this right of way. The proposed Lyons Avenue would cross the existing two tracks just south of railroad control point Hood (CP Hood). Based on the project's impact to the rail line and Newhall station, the following recommendations concerning issues that are germane to our agency's statutory responsibilities in relation to the proposed project are being conveyed by SCRRA for inclusion in the EIR development:
700 S. Flower Street 26th Floor Los Angeles CA 90017 Tel (213) 452.0200 Fax (213) 452.0425 www.metrolinktrains.com
NNSP Lyons Ave. At Grade Crossing

Page 2 ends

1. The SCRRA's Grade Crossing Resolution 98-21 and Grade Crossing Design Guidelines outline all pertinent policies and procedures that will be required by the City for consideration of adding a new crossing, and copies are attached. The SCRRA's policy is to support the creation of a new rail-highway grade crossing only if improvements to other grade crossings, including the elimination of grade crossings are made part of the creation of the new crossing, which together clearly improve public convenience and safety.

2. Please note that as part of our grade crossing policies, the City will also need approval from Metro to add a crossing on the Metro-owned ROW. Metro, as a SCRRA member agency, would make the request on the City's behalf to the SCRRA Board of Directors for support of the City's application to the PUC.

3. The NOP states that the implementation of the NNSP will be incorporated into the traffic analysis and will be discussed generally in this stage of the EIR. The traffc analysis in the Stage 1 EIR should evaluate the cumulative impacts of all development in the project area including, but not limited to, the Downtown Newhall plan, the Masters College Plan and the North Newhall Specific Plan (NNSP).

4. The traffic analysis should consider the traffic circulation related to this proposed at-grade crossing at the extension of Lyons Avenue, particularly in light of the proximity of San Fernando Road.

Page 3 ends

trains to 20 trains by 2020. Future freight trains volumes are expected to increase by at least 4 daily trains within a couple of years.

8. Existing or proposed traffic signals within close proximity of the railroad must be interconnected with the railroad signal controls. This will allow for proper preemption to allow vehicular traffic to clear track area prior to arrival of trains.

Close coordination with the City and railroad is critical to allow for safe movements of vehicles.

9. SCRRA, along with the CPUC, shall participate in the design and construction of the crossing and this work should be coordinated with our Engineering department.

If you have any questions regarding these comments please contact Elizabeth Mahoney, Government and Regulatory Affairs Manager at 213 452-0259 or mahoneveCCscrra.net. i olow
ief Executive Officer
Encls.
cc. Patricia Chen, Metro
Susan Chapman, Metro
Rosa Muñoz, CPUC
SCRRA Files
'~'METROLINK. Southern California Regional Rail Authority 700 South Flower Street, 26th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017-4101

GRADE CROSSING DESIGN GUIDELINES

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose
The Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRR) Board Members have asked its staff to develop Crossing Guidelines to provide uniform and consistent design standards for crossing construction and maintenance. The information provided in the Guidelines wil be useful to consulting engineers and public agencies when wanting to initiate new crossing(s) or modifYing existing crossing(s).

1.2 Scope
The Guidelines are not intended as complete constrction, maintenance and operation specifications, but are requirements, which are most important for safe constrction and maintenance of grade crossings. These guidelines include SCRR policy, regulatory responsibility, public, private, pedestrian and grade separation design criteria, crossing approval procedures, funding, design and constrction requirements and contact list.

1.3 Definitions
Diagnostic Team
Highway-Rail
Grade Crossing
Grade Separation
Member Agency
Overhead
A Diagnostic Team is a group of knowledgeable representatives of parties of interest in a Highway-Rail Grade Crossing, organized by the public authority or private property owner responsible for that Highway-Rail Grade Crossing, who, using crossing safety management principles, evaluate conditions at a HighwayRail Grade Crossing to make determinations or recommendations for the public authority or private propert owner concerning safety needs at that Highway-Rail Grade Crossing. A Diagnostic Team is usually composed of railroad personnel, public safety or law enforcement, engineering personnel from the public authority or private owner with responsibility for the highway that crosses the railroad, and other concerned parties.

The general area where a highway and a railroad's right-of-way cross at the same level, within which are included the railroad tracks, highway, and traffc control devices for highway traffc traversing that area.

A crossing of a highway and a railroad at different levels.

Any specific county transportation agency(s), whose right-of-way or propert is directly affected by this project. The SCRR Member Agencies are the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MT A), the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTe), the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), and the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC).

A grade separated highway over a railroad.

Page i 06/09/04
Pedestrian Crossing A Highway-Rail Grade Crossing that is used by pedestrians but not by vehicles.

Private Crossing A Highway-Rail Grade Crossing that is on a privately owned roadway used only by the private propert owner or licensee.

Public Agency The federal governent and any agencies, departments or subdivisions thereof; the State of California; and any county, city, city and county district, joint powers agency, municipal corporation, or any other political subdivision or public corporation therein, requesting and sponsoring the Rail-with- Trail project.

Public Crossing A Highway-Rail Grade Crossing that is on a roadway under the jurisdiction of and maintained by a public authority and open to the traveling public.

SCRR A five-county joint powers authority, created pursuant to State of California Public Utilties Code Section 130255 and California Government Code Section 6500 et seq., to build, maintain and operate the "Metrolink" commuter train system. The five-county member agencies are comprised of the following: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC), Orange County Transportation Authority (aCTA), San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), and Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC).

SCRR builds, operates and maintains commuter rail system in the five-county area on rail rights-of-ways owned by the member agencies.

Underpass A grade separated highway under a railroad.

1.4 Reference Standards
Grade crossing planing, design, funding, maintenance and operation shall comply with the current editions of the following codes, specifications, standards, and recommended practices:

1. Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRR)

2. Public Utilities Commission of the State of California (CPUC)

3. Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (S&H)

4. State of Californa Departent of Transportation (CAL TRANS)

5. American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA)

6. The Association of American Railroads (AAR)

7. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)

8. Standard Specifications of Public Works Constrction of the Joint Cooperative Committee (SSPWC)

9. U.S. Deparent of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHW A)

10. Work Area Traffic Control Handbook (WATCH)

2.0 SCRR POLICY ON CROSSINGS
It is the SCRR policy, to support and promote the elimination of Highway-Rail Grade Crossings to the extent feasible on all regional rail lines, oppose the creation of new Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, and promote to the extent feasible the improvement of remaining Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. SCRRetrolink Page 2 06/09/04 Grade Crossin Desi n Guidelines .... StRJ24~ liourtr(ls$.iligSigasl Einergency Nbribert~888..446~9.721... .

SCRR, along with the CPUC, Caltrans, AAR and FHW A are intensifying its efforts in promoting its safety program by eliminating Highway-Rail Grade Crossings when possible and working with local authorities in upgrading of other Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. The efforts include following possible alternatives:

1. Elimination of Highway-Rail Grade Crossings where possible by construction of Grade Separations, consolidations, relocation of highways and/or railroads, and establishment of no new Highway-Rail Grade Crossings.

2. Upgrade of Highway-Rail Grade Crossings in accordance with priorities established by designated State and Federal agencies, and working in close coordination with local agencies.

SCRR may support the creation of a new Highway-Rail Grade Crossing only if the elimination of other existing Highway-Rail Grade Crossing(s) and/or improvement to existing Highway-Rail Grade Crossing(s) are made par of the creation of the new Highway-Rail Grade Crossing which together clearly improve public convenience and safety. If the new crossing is a Highway-Rail Grade Crossing, the Public Agency must convincingly show that a separation is impracticable and that the public convenience and necessity absolutely require a Highway-Rail Grade Crossing. SCRR may ask the Public Agency to prepare an engineering report showing in precise details, why a separated crossing is not practicable. SCRR does not believe that a lack of finances should be a reason for authorizing the constrction of a Highway-Rail Grade Crossing.

3.0 CPUC REQUIREMENTS
CPUC has the exclusive authority to regulate public utilties including railroads in California. Public Utilities (PU) Code Sections 1201- i 220 have rules and regulations regarding railroad crossings. Section 1201 requires that no public road, highway, or street shall be constructed across the track of any railroad corporation at-grade without having first secured the permission of the Commission. Section 1202 says that the CPUC has the exclusive power (a) to determine and prescribe the maner, including the paricular point of crossing, and terms of installation, operation, maintenance, use, and protection of each grade crossing, (b) to alter, relocate, or abolish by physical closing any such crossing, and (c) to require, where in its judgment it would be practical, a separation of grades at any crossing and prescribe the terms upon which such separation shall be made and the proportions in which the expenses shall be divided. PU Code Sections 1201-1205 require that Public Agencies fie a Commission application for authority to construct a new public HighwayRail Grade Crossing, major alteration to an existing crossing, or a grade separated crossings.

Refer to State of Calitàmia wvvw.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html web site for further information on PU Code Sections.

4.0 PUBLIC CROSSINGS

4.1 Jurisdiction
The CPUC has the exclusive power to determine and prescribe the maner, including the particular point of crossing, and terms of installation, operation, maintenance, use, and protection of each Highway-Rail Grade Crossings; and to alter, relocate, or abolish by physical closing any Highway-Rail Grade Crossings.

SCRR Board approved Resolution 98-21 in 1998 establishing a Highway-Rail Grade Crossing policy. New Highway-Rail Grade Crossings may be granted only on a case-by-case basis and only if the SCRR Member Agency requests an establishment ofa new Highway-Rail Grade Crossing and the CPUC authorizes it. SCRRetrolink Page 3 06/09/04 Grade Crossin Desi n Guidelines SCR.t4~Il()uI"ÇrossiÎlg Sign:d .:Eniergency.NalJ:ibeI"1-888~44(j-972i

4.2 Approval Procedures
Public Utilities Code Sections 1201-1205 require that Public Agency fie a Commission application for authority to construct a new Highway-Rail Grade Crossing and major alteration to an existing crossing.

The following procedures and steps wil be taken by the Public Agency to obtain approval of a new Highway-Rail Grade Crossing from SCRR and CPUC.

1. Public Agency requesting a new Highway-Rail Grade Crossing wil contact SCRRA (Manager of Public Projects) and CPUC to inquire about the possibilty of creating a new Highway-Rail Grade Crossing across the railroad property. The Public Agency must convincingly show that a Grade Separation is impracticable and that the public convenience and necessity absolutely require a Highway-Rail Grade Crossing. SCRR and CPUC may ask the Public Agency to prepare an engineering report showing in precise details, why a Grade Separation is not practicable. The Public Agency wil also be asked to look at elimination of other existing Highway-Rail Grade Crossing(s) or improvement to existing Highway-Rail Grade Crossing(s).

2. If SCRR and CPUC concur that a Highway-Rail Grade Crossing is necessar, the Public Agency will contact the Member Agency to request an approval of the Highway-Rail Grade Crossing.

Member Agency wil request approval of the Highway-Rail Grade Crossing from SCRR Board.

SCRR Board will consider approval of the Highway-Rail Grade Crossing on a case-by-case basis.

If SCRR Board approves the Highway-Rail Grade Crossing, the Public Agency wil star CPUC approval process as per PU Code Sections 1201-1205.

3. The Public Agency shall prepare and furnish SCRR and CPUC thirt (30) percent plans of the proposed work. The plan should be drawn to scale and should show the following: (i) plan of crossing, (ii) existing and proposed protection, (iii) width of paving, tracks, (iv) significant topography, (v) limits of right-of-way, (vi) a profie of highway approaches, and (vii) other details suffcient to allow proper location of protective devices.

4. A Diagnostic Team meeting wil be held at the site, which should include the SCRR, CPUC, other operating railroads, Public Agency and any other concerned parties. The meeting shall address the scope of the project, work required by SCRR, warning devices requirements, and financial arrangements. Warning devices shall be as per CPUC General Order No. 75-C, www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHEDiGraphics/647-2.pdf. "Regulations Governing the Protection of Crossing at Grade of Roads, Highways, and Streets with Railroads in the State of California".

5. Public Agency wil submit an application to CPUC and SCRR. Refer to the CPUC web site for CPUC application procedures WWW.cPuc.ca.gov 1 stati c/industry Itrans poitation/rai I +crossings+program/fil ing+procedures/index. htm. The application shall contain information as required by CPUC, Rules of Practice and Procedure, Article 10, Rule 38, "To Construct a Public Highway Across a Railroad". An environmental report wil have to be submitted as a part of the application. The Public Agency will complete the U.S. DOT Crossing Inventory Form http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafètv/ (Form FRA F 6180.71).

6. If the CPUC, SCRR, United Transportation Union and other operating railroads can not agree to a project, then the CPUC, SCRR United Transportation Union and other operating railroads can fie a formal protest to the application and request a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge SCRRetrolink Page 4 06/09/04 Grade Crossin Desi n Guidelines .. SCRR24..Hour CrosšingSigiiaiEinèrgeDcyNûmJ)er.l..888-446~9721 to decide the merits of the project. This process can take a maximum of eighteen (18) months. If no hearings are necessary and all issues are worked out before the application is fied, the CPUC Rail Crossing Engineering Staff can handle the application much more quickly.

7. SCRR wil prepare a Construction and Maintenance agreement outlining the share of responsibilities and expenses. A draft of the agreement wil be sent to the Public Agency for review. When acceptable to both parties, the SCRRA will execute two copies and send them to the Public Agencies for execution. The Public Agency wil return both executed copies to the SCRR for their execution.

8. The Public Agency wil send a copy of the fully executed Construction and Maintenance agreement to the CPUC.

9. The Public Agency shall prepare and submit a legal description and plat (by professional land surveyor) showing the proposed encumbrance to the Member Agency. The Member Agency wil prepare an easement agreement and send a draft to the Public Agency. When acceptable, the Member Agency and Public Agency wil execute two copies ofthe easement agreement. Since it is necessary to have an independent appraisal of the propert and the appraisal process requires longer time, it is suggested that the Public Agency start easement agreement preparation as soon as SCRR grants initial project approval.

10. The Public Agency shall furnish SCRR and CPUC final plans of the proposed work for review, comments and approvaL.

11. Once the CPUC (staff approves the project and CPUC Commissioners issue a fonnal decision authorizing the project) and SCRR are in concurence with the project, the Public Agency can proceed with the constrction work.

4.2.1 Public Crossing Modifications
The procedures and steps to be taken by the Public Agency to obtain approval for major alteration are similar to the procedures shown above in this Section. However, CPUC General Order No. 88-B provides for an infonnal process for authorizing minor alterations, such as Highway-Rail Grade Crossing widening within the existing street right-of-way, approach grade changes, track elevation changes, roadway realignent that is functionally related to the existing crossing and can be achieved within the existing or a contiguous right-ofway, or addition on one track within the existing railroad right-of-way. Refer to the CPUC web site for CPUC application procedures www.cpuc.ca.gov¡static/industry¡transportationlrail+crossings+program¡filing+procedures/index.htm. Refer to CPUC General Order No. 88-B www.cpuc.ca.g:ov/word pdf/GENERAL ORDER/33542.pdf: "Rules for Altering Public Road-Highway Grade Crossings", for more infonnation.

4.3 Funding
Public Agency interested in developing a new Public Crossing is responsible for financing of the Public Crossing.

4.3.1 Public Crossing Modifcations
As provided by Title 23, United States Code, Section 130 (23 U.S.C. 130), the "Section 130 Program" provides federal funds to improve safety at existing highway-rail grade crossings. The purpose of the Section SCRRetrolink Page 5 06/09/04 Grade Crossin Desi n Guidelines .;SÇRR24~H.our.Crossilig.SignalEme:rgeiiçyNlIm berl~888-446-9771 130 Program is to reduce the number, severity and potential of hazards to motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians at highway-rail grade crossings. The Section 130 Program is a cooperative effort between the FHW A, Caltrans, CPUC, railroad companies and Public Agencies.

Caltrans has established an Offce of Local Programs that assists local agencies in taking advantage of State and Federal funded transportation programs. The Office of Local Programs processes funding applications, federal documents and serves as the primary contact for Public Agencies. The Office of Local Programs establishes a multi-year program, ensures that most high priority projects are being selected and implements a structured process of approval and disapproval of cost and project schedule. Refer to Offce of Local Programs, Local Assistance Program Guidelines, www.dot.ca.gov!hq/LocaIPrograins/lpp/LPP97-05.pdt:

Chapter 10, for more information on project eligibilty, selection and programming procedures, funding, implementation, and administration.

CPUC is responsible for establishing priority lists of projects, which are in need of funding for modifications.

These lists are determined on the basis of criteria established by the CPUC. Refer to CPUC guidelines titled "Guidelines for the Federal Aid At-Grade Highway-Rail Crossing Program" http://www.cpnc.ca. gOY / stati c!i ndustry (transportation/ crossings/ cpuc+secti on+ i 3 O+guide lines. pdf for information on crossing selection, review process and acceptable scope of work and improvements.

4.4 Agreements

4.4.1 Real Estate Agreement
A license or easement agreement from the Member Agency whose right-of-way is directly affected by the project is necessar for the Public Crossing. The license or easement agreement wil include requirements, terms and conditions related to indemnification, license fees and compensations, assumption of risk and waiver, insurance, tests and inspections, maintenance and repair, breach, abandonment, reimbursement, construction, relocation, payments, hazardous/toxic materials, compliance with laws etc.

4.4.2 Construction and Maintenance (C&M) Agreement
A Constrction and maintenance (C&M) agreement between the railroad and Public Agency responsible for the highway is also necessar for the Public Crossing. This agreement wil include detailed work description; method of payment; responsibility for design, constrction, fuding and maintenance; cost estimates of railroad work; form, duration and amount of insurance; and liabilty at the Public Crossing.

4.5 Design
The design ofthe Public Crossing projects wil be done by Public Agency.

The following are some of the references that should be consulted for the design of crossing projects:

1. CPUC General Order No. 72-B, "Rules Governing the Construction and Maintenance of Crossing At-Grade of Railroads with Public Streets, Roads and Highway in the State of California".

2. CPUC General Order No. 75-C, "Regulations Governing the Protection of Crossing at Grade of Roads, Highways, and Streets with Railroads in the State of California".

3. FHW A, "Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook".

4. U.S. Departent of Transportation, FHW A, "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices".

5. CALTRANS, "MUTCD 2003 California Supplement".

6. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), "Geometric Design for Highway-Rail Intersections". SCRRetrolink Page 6 06/09/04 Grade Crossin Desi n Guidelines S€RJ24~ Hour Crossing Sigjilll:EinêrgencýNuniber.1-888",44G~?721.'

7. ITE, "Traffc Engineering Handbook".

8. Applicable SCRR Engineering Standards.

Site and operational improvements can contribute greatly to safety of Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. Site improvements to be considered are: sight distances (ahead of crossing, across the approach quadrants and along the track), geometries (horizontal and vertical alignents), illuminations, safety barriers and flagging.

Passive grade crossing warning deviees; pavement markings to supplement the regulatory and warning messages presented by crossing signs and signals; and active grade crossing warning system that give warning of the approach or presence of a train shall be designed and installed for all Highway-Rail Grade Crossings standards, guidelines and requirements.

CPUC has uniform standards for Highway-Rail Grade Crossing protection to be used in the State of California. CPUC General Order No. 75-C has standards on installation and maintenance of signs, signals, markings and other waring devices at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. MUTCD also has guidelines on waring devices at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. Refer to Par 8, "Traffc Controls for Highway-Rail Grade Crossings" for further information. The MUTCD is a Federal standard under Title 23, United States Code lO9(d) and is incorporated by reference into Code of Federal Regulations. Considered by the FHWA as a national standard, the MUTCD has the force oflaw.

The SCRR signal department prepares, at Public Agency's cost, the design for the active traffc control system including the train detection circuits.

The Highway-Rail Grade Crossing surface for all new construction and maintenance project wil be pre-cast concrete panels as per SCRR Engineering Standard No. ES2006.

4.5.1 Preemption
When a Highway-Rail Grade Crossing is equipped with flashing-light signal system and is located within 200 feet of an intersection or mid-block location controlled by a traffc control signal, the traffc control signal should be provided with preemption. Traffc control signals at the intersections located further than 200 feet from the Highway-Rail Grade Crossing should also be considered for preemption if factors such as traffic volume, vehicle mix, vehicle and train approach speeds, frequency of trains and queue lengths determines a need for preemption.

Refer to SCRR's "Preemption Guidelines" for fuher information on existing standards, definitions, interconnection, preemption and preemption circuit. The preemption guidelines are available on SCRR's website at www.metrolinktrains.com ("About Metrolink", "Public Projects" and "Grade Crossings").

4.6 Construction
The construction shall meet requirements stated in SCRR's standard specifications, guidelines and engineering standards and shall also meet AREMA requirements.

Public Agency shall comply with the rules and regulations contained in the curent editions of the following SCRR documents during the constrction of the project: (i) Right-of-Entr agreement (SCRR Form No. 6), (ii) Rules and Requirements for Constrction on Railroad Propert (SCRR Form No. 37), (iii) General Safety Regulations for Constructionlaintenance Activity on Railway Propert, and (iv) Applicable SCRR Engineering Stadards.

Page 7 ends

Public Agency shall notify SCRRA five (5) working days in advance of any construction or maintenance activity which wil occur between lines two feet outside of the outside rails. Public Agency shall be responsible to reimburse SCRR the actual cost and expense incurred by SCRR for all services and work performed in connection with the crossing project including a computed surcharge representing SCRR's costs for administration and management.

The SCRR signal department constructs, at Public Agency's cost, the active traffc control system including the train detection circuits.

4.6.1 Temporary Traffc Control
Temporar traffic control shall be used when a maintenance or construction activity is located on the railroad nght-of-way or when the activity is located in the vicinity of Highway-Rail Grade Crossing, which could result in queuing of vehicles across the railroad tracks.

Refer to SCRR's "Temporary Traffic Control Guidelines for Highway-Rail Grade Crossings" for further information on definitions, referenced standards, traffc control plans, submittals, traffic control elements and responsibility/authority for the temporary traffc control at Highway-Rail Grade Crossing.

The guidelines provide acceptable alternatives and procedures to prescribe the appropriate temporary traffc control measures at highway-rail grade crossings. The guidelines are available on SCRR's website.

4.7 Maintenance
Maintenance of Highway-Rail Grade Crossings wil be as per CPUC General Order No. 72-B, wvvw.cPuc.ca.gov/published/graphics/646-2.pdf "Rules Governing the Construction and Maintenance of Crossing At-Grade of Railroads with Public Streets, Roads and Highway in the State of California". As per Section VII of this General Order, railroad corporation (SCRR) wil maintain, repair and renew the crossing area between lines two (2) feet outside of the rails of each track. When two or more tracks are involved, SCRR shall maintain the area between the tracks where the distance between the centerlines of tracks is fifteen (15) feet or less measured at the centerline of the highway, normal to the tracks. As per Section VII, the Public Agency wil maintain the approaches and those portions of the crossing not included under railroad responsibility above.

5.0 PRIATE CROSSINGS

5.1 Jurisdiction
SCRR is responsible for approving or denying new Private Crossing. SCRR will grant permission to constrct a new Private Crossing only if no alternative means of access and a constrction of a Grade Separation are not feasible. As mentioned earlier in Section 2.0, new Private Crossings wil be granted only on a case-by-case basis and only if the SCRR Member Agency requests an establishment of new private grade crossing.

Generally, CPUC application is not necessary for a new Private Crossing but under certain conditions the CPUC may require it. Since CPUC has the exclusive power to determine and prescribe the manner, and term of installation, operation, maintenance, use, and protection of each grade crossing, SCRR wil request CPUC for their input on the installation of a new private grade crossing. The CPUC has in the past made investigations of Private Crossings on an informal basis and also requested formal commission investigations.

Where evidence showed public use of Private Crossings, the commission has ordered both improvements

Page 8 ends

and/or closure of the Private Crossing under PU codes.

Traffc on the Private Crossing wil be limited to the licensee, employees, family and business invitees. Ifthe general public were involved, the crossing would be treated as a Public Crossing.

5.2 Approval Procedures
The procedures and steps to be taken by a propert owner to obtain approval of a new Private Crossing are similar to the procedures shown in Section 4.2 for a new Public Crossings except that CPUC approval is not necessary. However, as mentioned in Section 5.1, SCRR wil generally request CPUC input on the installation of a new Private Crossing.

5.3 Funding
Private propert owners are responsible for financing ofthe new Private Crossing.

5.4 Agreements
The requirements on agreements for Private Crossing are similar to the requirements shown in Section 4.4 for Public Crossings.

5.5 Design
The design of the Private Crossing projects will be done by Propert owner. Passive grade crossing waring devices, pavement markings and active grade crossing waring system shall be designed and installed at all Private Crossings.

For additional information on design requirements, refer to Section 4.5 on design for Public Crossings.

5.6 Construction
The requirements on construction for Private Crossing are similar to the requirements shown in Section 4.6 for Public Crossings.

5.7 Maintenance
Maintenance of the railroad track and signals at Private Crossing is the responsibility of the SCRR. The propert owner is responsible to reimburse SCRR for all costs related to the maintenance of the Private Crossing including track and signal maintenance. The cost for the maintenance of the railroad signals wil be as per CPUC requirements and resolutions or as per conditions included in the C&M agreement.

6.0 PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
The requirements on jurisdiction, approval procedures, fuding, agreements, design and maintenance for Pedestrian Crossings are similar to the requirements shown in Section 4.0 for Public Crossings. The requirements for grade separated Pedestrian Crossings are similar to the requirements shown in Section 7.0 for Grade Separations. Refer to these requirements for Pedestrian Crossings.

7.0 GRADE SEPARATIONS

Page 9 ends

7.1 Jurisdiction
The CPUC requires that no public road, highway, or street shall be constrcted across the track of any railroad corporation without having first secured the permission of the Commission. CPUC has the exclusive power to require, where in its judgment it would be practical, a separation of grades at any Highway-Rail Grade Crossing and prescribe the terms upon which such separation shall be made and the proportions in which the expenses shall be divided.

7.2 Approval Procedures
The procedures and steps to be taken by the Public Agency to obtain approval for major alteration are similar to the procedures shown above in Section 4.2. However, CPUC General Order No. 88-B provides for an informal process for authorizing Grade Separations that closes one or more highway-rail grade crossings. Refer to the CPUC web site for CPUC application procedures www.epne.ea.gov/static/inctustrv/transportation/rail+crossings+programltling+proeedures/inctex.htm. Refer to CPUC General Order No. 88-8 W\"''W.epue.ca.gov/word pdtìGENERAL ORDER/33542.pdf, "Rules for Altering Public Road-Highway Grade Crossings", for more information.

7.3 Funding
Public Agency interested in developing a Grade Separation is responsible for financing of a Grade Separation.

Federal and State fuding is available for Grade Separation projects that eliminate one or more Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. CPUC is responsible for establishing priority lists of projects, which are in need of fuding for separation. These lists are determined on the basis of criteria established by the CPUC.

California Streets and Highways (S&H) Code Sections 190 and 2450-2461 has rules and regulations regarding fuding for Grade Separations. Funding for projects included on priority list, prepared by CPUC, is provided as per S&H Code Section 190. The basis for allocation and state requirements are contained in S&H Code Sections 2450-2461. Refer to S&H web site '.'\'W.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html for fuher information on Code Sections.

7.4 Agreements
The requirements on agreements for Grade Separation are similar to the requirements shown in Section 4.4 for Public Crossings.

7.5 Design
The design of the Grade Separation projects wil be done by Public Agency.

Railroad bridges shall be designed for all loads specified in Chapter 8 and i 5 of the AREMA ManuaL. The railroad live load to be applied is a Cooper's E-80.

The support and shoring systems shall meet the latest rules and requirements of: SCRR Form No. 37 available on SCRR's website at www.metrolinktrains.com ("About Metrolink", "Public Projects" and "Grade Crossings"), American Association of State Highway and Transportation Offcials (AASHTO), AREMA, and Caltrans Trenching and Shoring ManuaL.

SCRRetrolink Page 10 06/09/04 Grade Crossin Desi n Guidelines SCRRA.~4-.lloiirÇrósšing..SignaIEmergencyNuôib~r..i~g88"44.6~972i.

The falsework wil meet the rules and requirements of Caltrans Falsework ManuaL. Temporar collsion posts set in concrete and extending not less than 16 feet above the top of the rail shall be installed on both sides of the bents and located 10 feet clear of the centerline of the nearest track and approximately 100 feet in advance of the falsework. Collsion posts wil preferably be steel I-beams with web parallel to the track.

Falsework wil be sheathed solid on the side adjacent to track between 3 and 17 feet above the top of the raiL.

A demolition plan indicating the method of track protection, the sequence of demolition and describing the procedure and equipment to be used during demolition shall be submitted to SCRR for review and approvaL.

All Overhead and Underpass strctures shall provide the horizontal and vertical clearances for anticipated futue tracks, changes in track alignents and raising of tracks for maintenance purposes. SCRR shall be contacted prior to finalizing the clearances.

For additional information on design requirements, refer to Section 4.5 on design for Public Crossings.

7.5.1 Overhead
A permanent minimum vertical clearance of 24' -0" shall be provided for all bridges, measured from the top of the high rail to the lower point of the strcture in the horizontal area. SCRR Engineering Standard No.

ES2 1 02 shall be consulted for more information.

A temporary minimum horizontal clearance of 15'-0" from the centerline of track (including temporary falsework) shall be provided for all bridges. A temporary minimum vertical clearance of 22'-6" above the top of the rail shall be provided for all bridges. The temporary minimum clearance of 22' -6" may be reduced to 21'-6", if prior approval is obtained in writing from SCRR, CPUC and other operating freight railroads.

Whenever practicable, overhead bridge strctue shall have all piers and abutments located outside of the railroad right-of-way. If this is not nor feasible, all piers and abutments shall be located more than 25'-0" from the face of pier to the centerline of the nearest track. SCRR permission must be obtained to locate piers and abutments closer than 25' -0".

Crash wall, if necessar and as per AREMA standards, shall be provided for piers and abutments located closer than 25' -0".

7.5.2 Underpass
Cast-in-place bridge structure is not approved for construction on SCRR System. Steel spans with concrete deck (I-beams, deck girders, thr girders), prestressed or precast concrete girders with concrete deck, and prestressed precast box girder bridges are acceptable. Prior to selection of the type of superstructure for the Underpass, SCRR permission must be obtained.

A minimum vertical clearance of 16'-6" shall be provided for all bridges, measured from the bottom of the superstructure to the higher point of the roadway pavement. A minimum vertical clearance of 15'-0" may be accepted if prior approval is obtained in writing from SCRR and if sacrificial girders not caring any railroad loads are provided on each sides ofthe bridge.

The Public Agency wil assume the repair costs for damage to the bridge by highway traffc. In the event of damage to the bridge or the girders by highway traffc, the extent and method of repair shall be agreed upon

Page 11 ends

by the Public Agency and SCRR. If the Public Agency fails, refuses or neglects to pedonn the repair to the bridge, SCRR wil pedonn any work necessary to place the highway and appurtenances in such condition as wil not endanger or intedere SCRR facilties or operations or jeopardize SCRR employees. The Public Agency shall reimburse SCRR for all the expenses.

7.5.3 Shoofly Track
The shoofly track design shall confonn to all Federal, State, SCRR and Local standards and regulations applicable. The shoofly shall be designed for maximum authorized speed for passenger and freight trains shown in SCRR Timetable and Track Charts. SCRR pennission must be obtained if shoofly is to be designed for lower speeds to meet existing site conditions. The track curve speed, superelevation and spiral length will meet the requirements shown in SCRR Engineering Standard ES2302.

7.6 Construction
The requirements on constrction for Grade Separations are similar to the requirements shown in Section 4.6 for Public Crossings.

7.6.1 Shoofly Track Construction
If existing track is removed temporarly durng shoofly constrction, the existing rail wil be put up on blocks and not on the ground, concrete ties wil be stacked with space dunnage boards so that the ties are not resting on the shoulders of the lower ties, clips are put in containers protected from weather and new insulators and pads are used for the track.

The shoofly track can have class 1 relay rails with 6" base (132, 133 or 136) on 14" tie plates, however, the rails and welds wil be ultrasonically tested (unless new rail is tested at plant). Wood ties are acceptable for shoofly track with Engineering Standard ES1404 spiking pattern. Jointed rail can be used with less that 1/2" end mismatch and 36" six-hole joint bars.

The track on the underpass strctures wil be constrcted with concrete ties (guard rail ties) and 50 feet on each side of the bridge. If existing rail and concrete ties are used for this work, all welds wil be tested ultrasonically, new insulators and pads wil be used and all new & replacement clips wil be galvanized.

7.7 Maintenance

7.7.1 Overhead
The Public Agency is responsible to maintain, repair, and renew the entire Grade Separation strcture, including piers and abutments, retaining walls, lighting, drainage system, roadway pavement, roadway facilities, curb and gutter, striping, signage and appurtenances. Public Agency is responsible for removal of graffti from the bridge strctue, piers, abutments and retaining walls on a regular basis.

7.7.2 Underpass
SCRR is responsible for the maintenance of the superstrcture of the Grade Separation structue above the bridge seats, including bearing assemblies, roadbed, tracks, railroad drainage, and all other related railroad facilities.

The Public Agency is responsible to maintain the bridge strcture and appurtenances below the bridge seats, SCRRetrolink Page 12 06/09/04 Grade Crossin Desi n Guidelines . .......Sc:lU24~:iolÎr..CrossìlÌg 'SignalEmergeôcyNlÎllberi~888-446~972i. including piers and abutments, retaining walls, roadway ilumination & electrical appurtenances, drainage system, roadway pavement, roadway facilties, curb and gutter, striping, signage, aesthetic or cosmetic design elements or painting added to the superstructure soffts or facades and appurtenances. Public Agency is responsible for removal of graffiti from all component surfaces of the overall project, including retaining walls, substrcture and superstructure (above and below the bridge seats) of the Grade Separation strcture.

8.0 QUIET ZONES
United States Congress on November 2, 1994 passed Public Law 103-440 ("Act"), which added § 20153 to title 49 of the United States Code. Subsections (I) and U) were added on October 9, 1996 that amended § 20153 by Public Law 104-264. The law requires the Secretar of Transportation (whose authority in this area has been delegated to the Federal Railroad Administrator (49 CFR 1.49), to issue regulations to require the use of locomotive horns at public grade crossings, but gives the agency the authority to make reasonable exceptions. On January 13, 2000, FRA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register (65 FR 2230) addressing the use of locomotive horns at public highway-rail grade crossings. FRA issued an Interim Final Rule on December 18,2003.

The Interim Final Rule has all the legal attributes of the finale rule and wil be in effect on December 18, 2004. Interim Final Rule on locomotive horns at highway-rail grade crossings published by FRA in Federal Register should be consulted for detailed information on this rule. The rule is available on FRA's Website at http://www.fra.dot.gov/ContentJ.asp'?P=1318.

Public Agency should coordinate the design, constrction and improvements of Highway-Rail Grade Crossings involved in the Quiet Zone projects with SCRR.

9.0 CONTACTS
The following is a partial list of agencies that shall be contacted for information on the crossing application, design, construction and funding:

1. SCRR:

Manager Public Projects
Southern California Regional Rail Authority
700 South Flower Street, Suite 2600
Los Angeles, CA 90017-4101
Phone: (213) 452-0249
Fax: (213) 452-0423
E-mail: mathieur(gscrra.net

2. CPUC:

Refer to the CPUC web site for CPUC contacts WWW.cpuc.ca.gov.

3. CALTRANS:

Refer to the Caltrans www.dot.ca.gov web site for their contacts.

4. SECTION 130:

Page 13 ends

Refer to CPUC web site for Caltrans Offce of Local Programs, Section i 30 www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocaIPrograms/sect¡30/sect 130.htm Railroad/Highway At-Grade Crossings Safety Program (Local) contacts.

SCRRetrolink Page 14 06/09/04 Grade Crossin Desi n Guidelines "'SciRid2fl-'HoutCrosšiligSignilI.Emergency N nm~erl..888::44679721'" -/
,
. RESOLUTION 98-21

OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY

REGARDING RAIL-HIGHWAY GRADE CROSSINGS
.
!'
l.

WHEREAS, the overall purpose of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) is to design, build and operate a premier regional passenger rail system, including commuter and other passenger services, in Southern California; and,
WHEREAS, consistent with this purpose, SCRRA has undertaken a comprehensive capital program to provide mobilty for the region, leading to more livable communities; and, WHEREAS, as part of this program, SCRRA has adopted a strategic plan which includes eliminating or improving existing at-grade rail-highway crossings, and supporting regional, county and local efforts to build grade-separated rail-highway crossings in the region's passenger rail corridors; and,
WHEREAS, SCRRA and its member agencies, along with the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration, the California Public Utilties Commission, and the California Department of Transportation cooperate on efforts to increase safety through the minimization and elimination of risks at rail-highway grade crossings, in accordance with Federal and state programs and nationally-recognized transportation and traffic engineering standards and practices; WHEREAS, SeRRA recognizes that California Public Utilties Commission ultimately determines whether a new rail-highway grade crossing wil be built.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED' that SCRRA does hereby adopt the following policy guidelines concerning rail-highway grade crossings;

1. SCRRA shall support and promote the elimination of rail - highway grade crossings to the extent feasible on all regional passenger rai/lines.

2. SCRRA shall oppose the creation of new rail - highway grade crossings to the extent feasible on all regional'passenger rai/lines.

3. SCRRA shall support additional funding for grade separations.

4. Any request for an exception shall be presented by a SCRRA member agency; and, upon request, the SCRRA Board wil consider exceptions on a case-by-case basis.

5. The SCRRA shall promote to the extent feasible the improvement of remaining grade crossings in the region's passenger rail corridors through the upgrade of active and passive warning devices and crossing surfaces.

6. The SCRRA would support the creation of a new rail-highway grade crossing 'only if improvements to other grade crossings, including elimination of grade crossing(s), are made part of the creation of the new grade crossing which together clearly improve public convenience and safety.
9-11-98
Date

SCOPE
Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment

TO PROMOTE, PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE ENVIRONMENT, ECOLOGY

AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE SANTA CLARITA VALLEY
POST OFFICE BOX 1182, SANTA CLARITA, CA 91386
9-1-13
City of Santa Clarita
Mike Hennawy, Senior Engineer
23920 Valencia Blvd...

Santa Clarita, CA91355
Delivered via email to: [email protected]
Re: Notice Of Preparation - Lyons Ave. Extension Project Dear Mr. Hennawy:

Past road extensions, i.e., Via Princessa extension, received no review before the Planning Commission and no public scoping hearings. Although a community meeting was held recently for this project, it did not include a presentation of the City's proposal, nor did it provide a hearing opportunity for formal community input. Because of the impacts of this project on the community, impacts to Placerita Creek, and the railroad crossings, we urge the City to provide all opportunities to receive public input so that all concerns may be heard and addressed to help develop a project proposal that meets everyones' needs.

Piece-mealing
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the whole project and its impacts be considered. It is not permissible under CEQA to divide a project into smaller pieces or sections to reduce project impacts that would occur if the whole project were considered.

We assert that his project is being piece-mealed to reduce project impacts. The City fully intends to extend this road to Highway 14. We urge the City to include the impacts of the next phase of this road extension. Obviously it is not going to stop as indicated on the map, but is intended to be built to connect to Highway 14. The next phase will meet several obstacles including a roadway that is to close to existing houses, a steep grade, grading of a significant ridgeline and associated impacts to aesthetics, and the potential for requiring removal of many oaks.

Some of these obstacles may make the extension impractical. If that is the case, these obstacles should be discussed now, rather than wasting money and time on a phase of a roadway that cannot be completed. Indeed, piece-mealing a project, as is proposed by this NOP, is contrary to CEQA guidelines and may open the project to a legal challenge.

GHG Production - Wrong Baseline
The NOP states that there will be no impact to Greenhouse gas production. CEQA requires that the impacts produced by a project be weighed against existing conditions. It is obvious that the NOP analysis has reached conclusions of less than significant impacts throughout the document by first using the wrong baseline. It is well known that in Save our Peninsula v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (2001), 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 125, the Court of Appeal stated:

SCOPE Comments on the NOP for Lyons Ave. Extension 2
“Section 15125, subdivision (a), now provides: “An EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project , as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced. …This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant.” (Italics added.) Furthermore, the section 15126.2 now provides as follows: “In assessing the impact of a proposed project on the environment, the lead agency should normally limit its examination to changes in the existing physical conditions in the affected area as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or where no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced” These amendments reflect and clarify a central concept of CEQA, widely accepted by the courts, that the significance of a project’s impacts cannot be measured unless the EIR first establishes the actual physical conditions on the property. (County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water District, supra, 76 Cal.App.4th at p. 953, 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 66; Environmental Planning & Information Council v. County of Carmel-by –the-Sea v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 183 CalApp.3d 229, 227 Cal.Rptr. 899.) In other words, baseline determination is the first rather than the last step in the environmental review process.” We urge the City to include GHG analysis in the DEIR that is weighed against the proper base line.

Noise
We concur with the NOP analysis that this project will create substantial levels of noise and vibration for the existing residential neighborhoods. We urge the City to include alternative and mitigation to reduce noise levels to existing residents.

Air Quality
Per our comments on GHG, it appears that the City may intend to use the wrong baseline for air quality and traffic analysis.

The Santa Clarita Valley is in a non-attainment area for ozone, PM2.5 and PM10 air pollution. In a rating from marginal to extreme, the SCV was rated severe. Approval of the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan allowed local entities to request a “bump up” to the Extreme classification.

This “bump-up” applies to ozone only. The category change allowed an extension of time to comply, but required instituting certain mitigation measures and the attainment of “milestones”.

We do not see the required mitigation measures in the DEIR. Nor is there a discussion of the milestones that must be reached in order to comply with the 2007 Air Quality Plan. Without compliance, Federal funding for road expansion will be denied.

The health effects of this pollutant as described on the EPA air quality website are as follows:

Ozone –“(a) Pulmonary function decrements and localized lung edema in humans and animals; (b) Risk to public health implied by alterations in pulmonary morphology and host defense in animals; (c) Increased mortality risk; (d) Risk to public health implied by altered connective tissue metabolism and altered pulmonary morphology in animals after long-term exposures and pulmonary function decrements in chronically exposed humans; (e)Vegetation damage; and (f) Property damage.”
SCOPE Comments on the NOP for Lyons Ave. Extension 3
The attainment date for PM2.5 is much earlier then the 2024 extended date for the ozone extreme designation. The PM2.5 plan, due in 2008, is still being processed with the US EPA.

Adverse health effects for particulate pollution as described by the EPA website are as follows:

PM10 “(a) Exacerbation of symptoms in sensitive patients with respiratory or cardiovascular disease; (b) Declines in pulmonary function growth in children; and (c) Increased risk of premature death from heart or lung diseases in the elderly”.

PM2.5 Same as above.

Based on the thresholds of significance identified in Appendix G of the 2005 CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant effect on the environment if it would:
(a) conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; (b) violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation;
(c) 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 (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors);
The DEIR should address these issues.

Wildlife corridors and impacts to Placerita Creek
Placerita Creek is a tributary to the Santa Clara River which serves as a major wildlife corridor.

The DEIR should thoroughly discuss these issues and provide alternatives that would reduce impacts to Placerita Creek and its function as a wild life corridor.

An alternative should be provided that would enhance the function of this tributary by replanting with native riparian plants, thus enhancing the re-charge and corridor values of the tributary.

At Grade Railroad Crossings
The project proposes an at-grade railroad crossing immediately north of the existing Newhall MetroLink station. At grade crossings are permitted through the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). In the past, the CPUC has not granted approval for such crossings. This issue should be discussed in the DEIR. An alternative should be included that provides for a bridge going over the railroad crossing, in the event that such a crossing does not receive approval. The financial requirements for building a bridge should also be discussed in the DEIR.

An at-grade crossing may slow or otherwise impede MetroLink trains on this railroad line, as well as adding to the potential for train/car accidents that already exists at several crossings. The DEIR should evaluate this increased risk. Also, a stalled train may impede emergency access to the Placerita Canyon neighborhood as has occurred in other areas of the Santa Clarita Valley.

While the potential for such an impact already exists, it would be increased by the proposal at hand.

Traffic and Circulation
It appears that his project may impact access or create other traffic related problems for the Newhall Library as well as increasing traffic and noise on Lyons Ave. Please address these issues in the DEIR.

SCOPE Comments on the NOP for Lyons Ave. Extension 4
Conclusion
We believe that conducting the environmental analysis for this project at this time is premature, unless the City has the funding to begin work and complete the entire (not just this first phase).

It appears that the project will have substantial major negative impacts on adjacent residents, reducing both their home values and their quality of life. It will increase cumulative air pollution and add to GHG production in the Santa Clarita Valley.

We therefore urge the City to re-consider moving forward with this project at this time. At a minimum, the City should conduct noticed hearings on this NOP to hear from residents and consider the financial impacts of the project.

We will be providing additional comments as the public process continues and request to receive a copy of the DEIR when it becomes available. Thank you for the opportunity to participate.

Sincerely,
Carmillis Noltemeyer
Carmillis Noltemeyer
Board Member
Lynne Plambeck
President

Tuesday,
September
3,
2013
4:34:21
PM
Pacific
Daylight
Time
Page
1 of
2 Subject: RE:

LyonsAve/Dockweiller
Drive
Extension
Project
Date: Tuesday,
September
3,
2013
4:16:52
PM
Pacific
Daylight
Time
From: Mike
Hennawy
To: 'Sandra
Cattell'
CC: 'Shane
Parker'
Thank
you
Ms.

Cattell
for
your
comments.

I
forwarded
them
to
my
environmental
consultant
to
include
in
the
EIR.

If
you
have
any
questions,
please
don’t
hesitate
to
contact
me.

Thanks,
__________________________
Mike Hennawy
Senior Engineer
City of Santa Clarita
Phone: (661) 286-4056
Email: [email protected]
Web: http://www.santa-clarita.com
P Think before you print
From: Sandra Cattell [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 4:11 PM
To: Mike Hennawy
Subject: LyonsAve/Dockweiller Drive Extension Project
Dear Mr Hennawy,
I am a 34 year resident of Santa Clarita who moved to Placerita Canyon for the quiet, rural equestrian lifestyle.

This project would substantially damage the community I live in, as well as create an unsafe crossing of the railroad tracks. Currently there are about 460 homes in Placerita Cyn, and a smattering of commercial business.

Residents are able to use the south gated entrance whenever going in that direction with the use of a gate card, which many residents take advantage of, but we still use 13th street when going into Newhall. In spite of the decreased traffic due to the south access, residents must still often wait at the tracks for trains to clear the station and the crossing.

The plan will increase the traffic using the crossing over the tracks by making it convenient to go down Lyons and use the proposed Dockweiller Extension. The increase in traffic would come from the revitalization of Newhall, additional proposed development in Placerita Canyon to the tune of over 750 new homes and a lot of commercial development, and the revitalization of Lyons Corridor. Additionally, there will be increased traffic from the development of the approved Disney Project and the approved Gates-King Project. Even if the crossing was expanded to 4 lanes (2 in each direction) it could not adequately handle the destined increase in traffic. It would increase the wait times for ingress and egress of Placerita Canyon residents.

Another problem would be the additional impacts to the lifestyle of Placerita Canyon residents like myself. Taking Page
2 of
2 down the bluffs that shelter the canyon, and actually define the canyon would open it up for noise and light pollution, from both trains and the city. Placerita Canyon is a low-key, rural equestrian community, where kids still ride their horses down to the Sidestore on hot days for a soda. Also negatively impacted would be the residents along Dockweiller, who depend upon the street as a place to park their cars, but more importantly, as a place to walk, as their are NO SIDEWALKS, and actually, no place to put them either. In some places the walls of homes are within feet of the street.

The proposed crossing at Lyons would also be over the Newhall creek, creating the possibility of pollution of our local Newhall water, as well as a disruption to the flora and fauna that depend upon the creek. It would be adjacent to a large floodway area.

Lastly, I do not see how Newhall Avenue could possibly be raised the 4 1/2 to 5 feet necessary for an at-grade crossing without seriously impacting the neightborhood and surrounding neighbors who use Newhall Avenue daily for their north-south commute. It would be endangering the community, as it would hinder the ability of residents to get out of the community, as we have seen when traffic has been diverted to Newhall Ave. in freeway emergencies.

Please protect our community, and do not put in the Dockweiller extension, nor the Lyons crossing. Preferred by myself and my neighbors would be a safety upgrade of the 13th street crossing, without encouraging additional usage.

Thank you for the opportunity to give my comments,
Sandra Cattell
21648 Oak Orchard Rd,
Newhall, Ca 91321
661 259-0433

Thursday,
September
5,
2013
12:22:21
PM
Pacific
Daylight
Time
Page
1 of
1 Subject: FW:

Comments
on
Proposed
Lyons
Avenue/Dockweiler
Drive
Extension
Initial
Study
Checklist
Date: Thursday,
September
5,
2013
11:34:19
AM
Pacific
Daylight
Time
From: Mike
Hennawy
To: 'Shane
Parker'
CC: Henrik
Nazarian,
James
Chow
From: Darrell Clarke [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 5:33 PM
To: Mike Hennawy
Subject: Comments on Proposed Lyons Avenue/Dockweiler Drive Extension Initial Study Checklist Mike
Hennawy
City
of
Santa
Clarita
via
email
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
Proposed
Lyons
Avenue/Dockweiler
Drive
Extension
Initial
Study
Checklist.

Here
are
three
points
I’d
add
to
your
draft
checklist:

1. I
don’t
see
reference
to
vertical
or
horizontal
alternatives
to
this
proposed
railroad
grade
crossing
at
Lyons
Avenue,
which
one
would
expect
in
a
Draft
EIR.

In
particular,
it
is
the
policy
of
Metrolink
and
the
CPUC
to
discourage
new
railroad
grade
crossings
in
favor
of
grade
separations,
especially
for
such
a
major
arterial
as
Lyons/Dockweiler:
“Any
new
highway-‐rail
grade
crossings
are
strongly
discouraged
by
not
only
the
SCRRA
but
by
the
CPUC
and
FRA
and
other
State
and
Federal
Agencies.”
Page
3,
SCRRA
HIGHWAY–RAIL
GRADE

CROSSINGS,
June
30,
2009.

A
further
difficulty
–
and
construction
impact
–
of
such
a
grade
crossing
is
the
significant
elevation
difference
between
Railroad
Avenue
and
the
adjacent
railroad
tracks
that
would
have
to
be
filled
in.

2. I’d
elaborate
on
the
note
under
XVI.

Transportation/Circulation,
Response
a-‐g,
“The
potential
of
the
Project
to
cause
a
substantial
change
in
traffic
patterns
in
relation
to
existing
traffic
loads
and
capacity
on
local
streets
will
be
analyzed
in
the
EIR.”
Cumulative
impacts
of
revitalizing
downtown
Newhall,
development
of
the
new
Gates
King
and
Disney
projects,
and
the
projected
over
750
new
homes
and
commercial
development
in
Placerita
Canyon
would
likely
turn
quiet,
narrow
Dockweiller
(currently
with
no
sidewalks)
into
a
major
traffic
corridor.

3. And
in
addition
to
the
Response
under
I.

Aesthetics,
substantial
bulldozing
of
hills
that
create
the
Newhall
Creek
canyon
would
potentially
impact
the
larger
Placerita
Canyon
community
with
increased
noise
and
light.

Darrell
Clarke
24804
Parchman
Avenue
Newhall,
CA
91321

Lyons Avenue/Dockweiler Road Extension Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Appendix C
Air Quality Worksheets
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 7.1.5.1
Emission Estimates for -> Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases (English Units) ROG (lbs/day) CO (lbs/day) NOx (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) CO2 (lbs/day) Grubbing/Land Clearing 1.5 12.0 15.1 20.7 0.7 20.0 4.8 0.6 4.2 2,464.5 Grading/Excavation 8.6 56.7 92.8 24.2 4.2 20.0 7.9 3.7 4.2 13,055.5 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 6.2 39.1 58.9 23.0 3.0 20.0 6.9 2.8 4.2 8,004.2 Paving 1.6 12.4 13.4 0.8 0.8 - 0.7 0.7 - 2,309.9
Maximum (pounds/day) 8.6 56.7 92.8 24.2 4.2 20.0 7.9 3.7 4.2 13,055.5 Total (tons/construction project) 0.8 5.2 8.1 2.6 0.4 2.2 0.8 0.3 0.5 1,137.4 Notes: Project Start Year -> 2019
Project Length (months) -> 12
Total Project Area (acres) -> 5
Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (acres) -> 2
Total Soil Imported/Exported (yd3/day)-> 223
Emission Estimates for -> Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases (Metric Units) ROG (kgs/day) CO (kgs/day) NOx (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) CO2 (kgs/day) Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.7 5.5 6.9 9.4 0.3 9.1 2.2 0.3 1.9 1,120.2 Grading/Excavation 3.9 25.8 42.2 11.0 1.9 9.1 3.6 1.7 1.9 5,934.3 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 2.8 17.8 26.8 10.5 1.4 9.1 3.1 1.3 1.9 3,638.3 Paving 0.7 5.6 6.1 0.4 0.4 - 0.3 0.3 - 1,050.0
Maximum (kilograms/day) 3.9 25.8 42.2 11.0 1.9 9.1 3.6 1.7 1.9 5,934.3 Total (megagrams/construction project) 0.7 4.7 7.3 2.4 0.4 2.0 0.7 0.3 0.4 1,031.6 Notes: Project Start Year -> 2019
Project Length (months) -> 12
Total Project Area (hectares) -> 2
Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (hectares) -> 1
Total Soil Imported/Exported (meters3/day)-> 170
Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns H and I. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column J are the sume of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns K and L.

Dockweiler Road Extension
Dockweiler Road Extension
PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.

PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.

Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns H and I. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column J are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns K and L.

Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 7.1.5.1
Emission Estimates for -> Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases (English Units) ROG (lbs/day) CO (lbs/day) NOx (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) CO2 (lbs/day) Grubbing/Land Clearing 1.4 11.4 15.1 20.6 0.6 20.0 4.7 0.6 4.2 2,267.8 Grading/Excavation 8.2 52.6 88.1 24.0 4.0 20.0 7.8 3.6 4.2 10,797.3 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 6.0 36.9 58.6 23.0 3.0 20.0 6.9 2.7 4.2 7,315.7 Paving 1.5 11.4 13.3 0.8 0.8 - 0.7 0.7 - 2,014.9
Maximum (pounds/day) 8.2 52.6 88.1 24.0 4.0 20.0 7.8 3.6 4.2 10,797.3 Total (tons/construction project) 0.8 4.9 7.8 2.6 0.4 2.2 0.8 0.3 0.5 977.9 Notes: Project Start Year -> 2019
Project Length (months) -> 12
Total Project Area (acres) -> 5
Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (acres) -> 2
Total Soil Imported/Exported (yd3/day)-> 0
Emission Estimates for -> Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases (Metric Units) ROG (kgs/day) CO (kgs/day) NOx (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) CO2 (kgs/day) Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.7 5.2 6.8 9.4 0.3 9.1 2.2 0.3 1.9 1,030.8 Grading/Excavation 3.7 23.9 40.0 10.9 1.8 9.1 3.5 1.7 1.9 4,907.9 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 2.7 16.8 26.6 10.4 1.3 9.1 3.1 1.2 1.9 3,325.3 Paving 0.7 5.2 6.0 0.4 0.4 - 0.3 0.3 - 915.8
Maximum (kilograms/day) 3.7 23.9 40.0 10.9 1.8 9.1 3.5 1.7 1.9 4,907.9 Total (megagrams/construction project) 0.7 4.4 7.1 2.4 0.3 2.0 0.7 0.3 0.4 887.0 Notes: Project Start Year -> 2019
Project Length (months) -> 12
Total Project Area (hectares) -> 2
Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (hectares) -> 1
Total Soil Imported/Exported (meters3/day)-> 0
Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns H and I. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column J are the sume of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns K and L.

Dockweiler Road Extension - On Site Only (excludes haul trips) Dockweiler Road Extension - On Site Only (excludes haul trips) PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.

PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.

CALINE4 Simplified - EMFAC2007 Parker Environmental Consultants 5/20/15 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS
Project Title: Dockweiler Extension
Background Information
Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: SRA 13
Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 2.0
Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 0.8
Persistence Factor: 0.7
Analysis Year: 2015
Roadway Data
Intersection: 1. Sierra Highway/SR-14 Freeway SouthBound Ramps Analysis Condition: C
No. of Average Speed
Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M.

North-South Roadway: Sierra Highway At Grade 6 5 5
East-West Roadway: SR-14 At Grade 2 5 5
A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N
0 1,895 460 0 380 380
W < v > E W < v > E
0 ^ ^ 25 0 ^ ^ 10
0 > < 0 0 > < 0
0 v v 70 0 v v 35
< ^ > < ^ >
0 395 130 0 1,040 105
S S
Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour)
N-S Road: 2,775 N-S Road: 1,810
E-W Road: 685 E-W Road: 530
Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations
Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,0001
A1 A2 A3 A4 B C
Traffic Emission
Roadway E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors2 E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 9.5 6.1 4.9 3.5 2,775 4.75 1.25 0.80 0.65 0.46 East-West Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 1.7 685 4.75 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.06 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 9.5 6.1 4.9 3.5 1,810 4.75 0.82 0.52 0.42 0.30 East-West Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 1.7 530 4.75 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.04 1 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 2 Emission factors from EMFAC2007.

Total Roadway CO Concentrations
Peak Hour Emissions = North-South Concentration + East-West Concentration + Background 1-hour Concentration2 8-Hour Emissions = ((Highest Peak Hour Concentration - Background 1-hour Concentration) x Persistence Factor) + Background 8-hour Concentration2 A.M. P.M.

Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour
Roadway Edge 3.4 2.9 1.8
25 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.9 2.6 1.4
50 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.7 2.5 1.3
100 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.5 2.3 1.2
2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996).

Reference CO Concentrations Estimated CO Concentrations CALINE4 Simplified - EMFAC2007 Parker Environmental Consultants 5/20/15 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS
Project Title: Dockweiler Extension
Background Information
Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: SRA 13
Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 2.0
Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 0.8
Persistence Factor: 0.7
Analysis Year: 2015
Roadway Data
Intersection: 2. Sierra Highway/Placerita Canyon Rd.

Analysis Condition: D
No. of Average Speed
Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M.

North-South Roadway: Sierra Highway At Grade 6 5 5
East-West Roadway: Placerita Canyon At Grade 6 5 5
A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N
10 1,830 135 10 365 40
W < v > E W < v > E
10 ^ ^ 265 10 ^ ^ 170
10 > < 5 20 > < 15
20 v v 125 5 v v 35
< ^ > < ^ >
5 300 65 10 1,225 140
S S
Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour)
N-S Road: 2,550 N-S Road: 1,820
E-W Road: 605 E-W Road: 420
Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations
Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,0001
A1 A2 A3 A4 B C
Traffic Emission
Roadway E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors2 E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 9.5 6.1 4.9 3.5 2,550 4.75 1.15 0.74 0.59 0.42 East-West Road 2.8 2.3 2.0 1.7 605 4.75 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 9.5 6.1 4.9 3.5 1,820 4.75 0.82 0.53 0.42 0.30 East-West Road 2.8 2.3 2.0 1.7 420 4.75 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 1 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 2 Emission factors from EMFAC2007.

Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour
Roadway Edge 3.2 2.9 1.7
25 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.8 2.6 1.4
50 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.7 2.5 1.3
100 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.5 2.3 1.1
2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996).

North-South Roadway: Sierra Highway At Grade 4 5 5
East-West Roadway: Dockweiler Drive At Grade 2 5 5
A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N
125 1,860 0 90 355 0
W < v > E W < v > E
135 ^ ^ 0 105 ^ ^ 0
0 > < 0 0 > < 0
135 v v 0 30 v v 0
< ^ > < ^ >
30 225 0 100 1,325 0
S S
Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour)
N-S Road: 2,345 N-S Road: 1,875
E-W Road: 425 E-W Road: 325
Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations
Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,0001
A1 A2 A3 A4 B C
Traffic Emission
Roadway E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors2 E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 11.9 7.0 5.4 3.8 2,345 4.75 1.33 0.78 0.60 0.42 East-West Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 1.7 425 4.75 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.03 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 11.9 7.0 5.4 3.8 1,875 4.75 1.06 0.62 0.48 0.34 East-West Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 1.7 325 4.75 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.03 1 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 2 Emission factors from EMFAC2007.

Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour
Roadway Edge 3.4 3.1 1.8
25 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.8 2.7 1.4
50 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.6 2.5 1.3
100 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.5 2.4 1.1
2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996).

North-South Roadway: SR-14 Fwy Southbound At Grade 2 5 5 East-West Roadway: Newhall Avenue At Grade 6 5 5
A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N
355 5 5 305 5 5
W < v > E W < v > E
0 ^ ^ 0 0 ^ ^ 0
750 > < 730 945 > < 1,480
700 v v 5 575 v v 20
< ^ > < ^ >
0 0 0 0 0 0
S S
Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour)
N-S Road: 710 N-S Road: 600
E-W Road: 2,535 E-W Road: 3,305
Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations
Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,0001
A1 A2 A3 A4 B C
Traffic Emission
Roadway E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors2 E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 1.7 710 4.75 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.06 East-West Road 9.5 6.1 4.9 3.5 2,535 4.75 1.14 0.74 0.59 0.42 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 1.7 600 4.75 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.05 East-West Road 9.5 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,305 4.75 1.49 0.96 0.77 0.55 1 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 2 Emission factors from EMFAC2007.

Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour
Roadway Edge 3.3 3.6 1.9
25 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.8 3.0 1.5
50 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.7 2.8 1.4
100 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.5 2.6 1.2
2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996).

North-South Roadway: Sierra Highway At Grade 8 5 5
East-West Roadway: Newhall Avenue At Grade 8 5 5
A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N
240 1,485 180 240 105 40
W < v > E W < v > E
150 ^ ^ 20 355 ^ ^ 490
1,300 > < 895 1,445 > < 1,245
195 v v 85 55 v v 45
< ^ > < ^ >
70 140 15 220 685 60
S S
Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour)
N-S Road: 2,215 N-S Road: 1,915
E-W Road: 2,850 E-W Road: 3,560
Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations
Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,0001
A1 A2 A3 A4 B C
Traffic Emission
Roadway E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors2 E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.9 1.6 2,215 4.75 0.27 0.23 0.20 0.17 East-West Road 8.5 5.7 4.6 3.4 2,850 4.75 1.15 0.77 0.62 0.46 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.9 1.6 1,915 4.75 0.24 0.20 0.17 0.15 East-West Road 8.5 5.7 4.6 3.4 3,560 4.75 1.44 0.96 0.78 0.58 1 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 2 Emission factors from EMFAC2007.

Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour
Roadway Edge 3.4 3.7 2.0
25 Feet from Roadway Edge 3.0 3.2 1.6
50 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.8 3.0 1.5
100 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.6 2.7 1.3
2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996).

North-South Roadway: Valle Del Oro At Grade 2 5 5
East-West Roadway: Dockweiler Drive At Grade 4 5 5
A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N
5 10 5 5 10 5
W < v > E W < v > E
5 ^ ^ 5 5 ^ ^ 5
15 > < 5 10 > < 10
10 v v 265 5 v v 130
< ^ > < ^ >
5 5 185 15 10 145
S S
Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour)
N-S Road: 480 N-S Road: 315
E-W Road: 480 E-W Road: 305
Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations
Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,0001
A1 A2 A3 A4 B C
Traffic Emission
Roadway E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors2 E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 14.0 7.6 5.7 4.0 480 4.75 0.32 0.17 0.13 0.09 East-West Road 3.3 2.6 2.2 1.7 480 4.75 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.04 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 14.0 7.6 5.7 4.0 315 4.75 0.21 0.11 0.09 0.06 East-West Road 3.3 2.6 2.2 1.7 305 4.75 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 1 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 2 Emission factors from EMFAC2007.

Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour
Roadway Edge 2.4 2.3 1.1
25 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.2 2.2 1.0
50 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.2 2.1 0.9
100 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.1 2.1 0.9
2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996).

Reference CO Concentrations Estimated CO Concentrations CALINE4 Simplified - EMFAC2007 Parker Environmental Consultants 5/20/15 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS
Project Title: Dockweiler Extension
Background Information
Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: SRA 13
Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 2.0
Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 0.8
Persistence Factor: 0.6
Analysis Year: 2015
Roadway Data
Intersection: 11. Newhall Avenue and Lyons Avenue
Analysis Condition: D
No. of Average Speed
Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M.

North-South Roadway: Newhall Avenue At Grade 4 20 20
East-West Roadway: Lyons Avenue At Grade 6 20 20
A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N
115 245 25 85 470 145
W < v > E W < v > E
125 ^ ^ 35 65 ^ ^ 135
260 > < 515 330 > < 235
325 v v 20 265 v v 200
< ^ > < ^ >
335 145 65 260 280 175
S S
Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour)
N-S Road: 1,135 N-S Road: 1,650
E-W Road: 1,675 E-W Road: 1,240
Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations
Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,0001
A1 A2 A3 A4 B C
Traffic Emission
Roadway E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors2 E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 3.3 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,135 2.85 0.11 0.08 0.07 0.06 East-West Road 9.5 6.1 4.9 3.5 1,675 2.85 0.45 0.29 0.23 0.17 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 11.9 7.0 5.4 3.8 1,650 2.85 0.56 0.33 0.25 0.18 East-West Road 2.8 2.3 2.0 1.7 1,240 2.85 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.06 1 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 2 Emission factors from EMFAC2007.

Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour
Roadway Edge 2.6 2.7 1.2
25 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.4 2.4 1.0
50 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.3 2.3 1.0
100 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.2 2.2 0.9
2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996).

North-South Roadway: Railroad Avenue At Grade 6 5 5
East-West Roadway: Newhall Avenue At Grade 2 5 5
A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N
350 1,035 0 355 960 0
W < v > E W < v > E
220 ^ ^ 0 430 ^ ^ 0
0 > < 0 0 > < 0
145 v v 0 135 v v 0
< ^ > < ^ >
240 660 0 215 1,160 0
S S
Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour)
N-S Road: 2,265 N-S Road: 2,905
E-W Road: 955 E-W Road: 1,135
Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations
Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,0001
A1 A2 A3 A4 B C
Traffic Emission
Roadway E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors2 E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 9.5 6.1 4.9 3.5 2,265 4.75 1.02 0.66 0.53 0.38 East-West Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 1.7 955 4.75 0.17 0.12 0.10 0.08 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 9.5 6.1 4.9 3.5 2,905 4.75 1.31 0.84 0.68 0.48 East-West Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 1.7 1,135 4.75 0.20 0.15 0.12 0.09 1 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 2 Emission factors from EMFAC2007.

Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour
Roadway Edge 3.2 3.5 1.9
25 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.8 3.0 1.5
50 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.6 2.8 1.4
100 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.5 2.6 1.2
2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996).

North-South Roadway: Newhall Ave At Grade 2 5 5
East-West Roadway: Main Street At Grade 2 5 5
A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N
5 30 0 5 45 0
W < v > E W < v > E
5 ^ ^ 0 5 ^ ^ 0
0 > < 0 0 > < 0
575 v v 0 995 v v 0
< ^ > < ^ >
505 30 0 655 50 0
S S
Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour)
N-S Road: 1,140 N-S Road: 1,745
E-W Road: 1,090 E-W Road: 1,660
Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations
Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,0001
A1 A2 A3 A4 B C
Traffic Emission
Roadway E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors2 E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 14.0 7.6 5.7 4.0 1,140 4.75 0.76 0.41 0.31 0.22 East-West Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 1.7 1,090 4.75 0.19 0.14 0.11 0.09 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 14.0 7.6 5.7 4.0 1,745 4.75 1.16 0.63 0.47 0.33 East-West Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 1.7 1,660 4.75 0.29 0.21 0.17 0.13 1 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 2 Emission factors from EMFAC2007.

Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour
Roadway Edge 3.0 3.5 1.8
25 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.6 2.8 1.4
50 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.4 2.6 1.3
100 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.3 2.5 1.1
2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996).

North-South Roadway: Arch Street / 12th Street At Grade 2 5 5 East-West Roadway: Placerita Canyon Road At Grade 2 5 5 A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N
5 115 125 5 135 135
W < v > E W < v > E
10 ^ ^ 140 15 ^ ^ 120
5 > < 5 5 > < 5
5 v v 5 5 v v 5
< ^ > < ^ >
5 90 5 5 180 5
S S
Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour)
N-S Road: 485 N-S Road: 590
E-W Road: 285 E-W Road: 275
Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations
Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,0001
A1 A2 A3 A4 B C
Traffic Emission
Roadway E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors2 E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 14.0 7.6 5.7 4.0 485 4.75 0.32 0.18 0.13 0.09 East-West Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 1.7 285 4.75 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 14.0 7.6 5.7 4.0 590 4.75 0.39 0.21 0.16 0.11 East-West Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 1.7 275 4.75 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 1 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 2 Emission factors from EMFAC2007.

Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour
Roadway Edge 2.4 2.4 1.1
25 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.2 2.2 1.0
50 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.2 2.2 0.9
100 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.1 2.1 0.9
2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996).

Reference CO Concentrations Estimated CO Concentrations CALINE4 Simplified - EMFAC2007 Parker Environmental Consultants 5/20/15 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS
Project Title: Dockweiler Extension
Background Information
Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: SRA 13
Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 2.0
Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 0.8
Persistence Factor: 0.7
Analysis Year: 2019
Roadway Data
Intersection: 1. Sierra Highway/SR-14 Freeway SouthBound Ramps Analysis Condition: B
No. of Average Speed
Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M.

North-South Roadway: Sierra Highway At Grade 6 5 5
East-West Roadway: SR-14 At Grade 2 5 5
A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N
0 895 280 0 570 295
W < v > E W < v > E
0 ^ ^ 20 0 ^ ^ 20
0 > < 0 0 > < 0
0 v v 120 0 v v 180
< ^ > < ^ >
0 460 50 0 1,355 50
S S
Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour)
N-S Road: 1,655 N-S Road: 2,240
E-W Road: 470 E-W Road: 545
Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations
Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,0001
A1 A2 A3 A4 B C
Traffic Emission
Roadway E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors2 E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 9.5 6.1 4.9 3.5 1,655 3.38 0.53 0.34 0.27 0.20 East-West Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 1.7 470 3.38 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.03 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 9.5 6.1 4.9 3.5 2,240 3.38 0.72 0.46 0.37 0.26 East-West Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 1.7 545 3.38 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.03 1 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 2 Emission factors from EMFAC2007.

Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour
Roadway Edge 2.6 2.8 1.4
25 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.4 2.5 1.2
50 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.3 2.4 1.1
100 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.2 2.3 1.0
2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996).

Reference CO Concentrations Estimated CO Concentrations SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS
Project Title: Dockweiler Extension
Background Information
Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: SRA 13
Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 2.0
Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 0.8
Persistence Factor: 0.7
Analysis Year: 2019
Roadway Data
Intersection: 2. Sierra Highway/Placerita Canyon Rd.

Analysis Condition: D
No. of Average Speed
Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M.

North-South Roadway: Sierra Highway At Grade 6 5 5
East-West Roadway: Placerita Canyon At Grade 6 5 5
A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N
10 1,830 135 10 365 40
W < v > E W < v > E
10 ^ ^ 265 10 ^ ^ 170
10 > < 5 20 > < 15
20 v v 125 5 v v 35
< ^ > < ^ >
5 300 65 10 1,225 140
S S
Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour)
N-S Road: 2,550 N-S Road: 1,820
E-W Road: 605 E-W Road: 420
Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations
Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,0001
A1 A2 A3 A4 B C
Traffic Emission
Roadway E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors2E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 9.5 6.1 4.9 3.5 2,550 3.38 0.82 0.53 0.42 0.30 East-West Road 2.8 2.3 2.0 1.7 605 3.38 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 9.5 6.1 4.9 3.5 1,820 3.38 0.58 0.38 0.30 0.22 East-West Road 2.8 2.3 2.0 1.7 420 3.38 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 1 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 2 Emission factors from EMFAC2007.

Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour
Roadway Edge 2.9 2.6 1.4
25 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.6 2.4 1.2
50 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.5 2.3 1.1
100 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.3 2.2 1.0
2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996).

Reference CO Concentrations Estimated CO Concentrations CALINE4 Simplified - EMFAC2007 Parker Environmental Consultants 5/20/2015 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS
Project Title: Dockweiler Extension
Background Information
Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: SRA 13
Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 2.0
Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 0.8
Persistence Factor: 0.7
Analysis Year: 2019
Roadway Data
Intersection: 4. Sierra Highway and Dockweiler Drive
Analysis Condition: B
No. of Average Speed
Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M.

North-South Roadway: Sierra Highway At Grade 4 5 5
East-West Roadway: Dockweiler Drive At Grade 2 5 5
A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N
225 560 0 350 135 0
W < v > E W < v > E
205 ^ ^ 0 340 ^ ^ 0
0 > < 0 0 > < 0
90 v v 0 30 v v 0
< ^ > < ^ >
95 90 0 50 600 0
S S
Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour)
N-S Road: 1,080 N-S Road: 1,425
E-W Road: 615 E-W Road: 770
Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations
Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,0001
A1 A2 A3 A4 B C
Traffic Emission
Roadway E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors2E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 11.9 7.0 5.4 3.8 1,080 3.38 0.43 0.26 0.20 0.14 East-West Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 1.7 615 3.38 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.04 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 11.9 7.0 5.4 3.8 1,425 3.38 0.57 0.34 0.26 0.18 East-West Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 1.7 770 3.38 0.10 0.07 0.06 0.04 1 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 2 Emission factors from EMFAC2007.

Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour
Roadway Edge 2.5 2.7 1.3
25 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.3 2.4 1.1
50 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.2 2.3 1.0
100 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.2 2.2 1.0
2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996).

Reference CO Concentrations Estimated CO Concentrations CALINE4 Simplified - EMFAC2007 Parker Environmental Consultants 5/20/2015 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS
Project Title: Dockweiler Extension
Background Information
Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: SRA 13
Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 2.0
Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 0.8
Persistence Factor: 0.7
Analysis Year: 2019
Roadway Data
Intersection: 5. SR-14 Soundbound Ramps and Newhall Avenue Analysis Condition: A
No. of Average Speed
Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M.

North-South Roadway: SR-14 Fwy Southbound At Grade 2 5 5 East-West Roadway: Newhall Avenue At Grade 6 5 5
A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N
950 5 5 400 5 5
W < v > E W < v > E
0 ^ ^ 0 0 ^ ^ 0
190 > < 860 810 > < 1,180
880 v v 5 1,380 v v 5
< ^ > < ^ >
0 0 0 0 0 0
S S
Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour)
N-S Road: 960 N-S Road: 1,390
E-W Road: 2,880 E-W Road: 3,770
Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations
Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,0001
A1 A2 A3 A4 B C
Traffic Emission
Roadway E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors2E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 1.7 960 3.38 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.06 East-West Road 9.5 6.1 4.9 3.5 2,880 3.38 0.92 0.59 0.48 0.34 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 1.7 1,390 3.38 0.17 0.13 0.10 0.08 East-West Road 9.5 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,770 3.38 1.21 0.78 0.62 0.45 1 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 2 Emission factors from EMFAC2007.

Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour
Roadway Edge 3.0 3.4 1.8
25 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.7 2.9 1.4
50 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.5 2.7 1.3
100 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.4 2.5 1.2
2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996).

Reference CO Concentrations Estimated CO Concentrations CALINE4 Simplified - EMFAC2007 Parker Environmental Consultants 5/20/2015 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS
Project Title: Dockweiler Extension
Background Information
Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: SRA 13
Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 2.0
Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 0.8
Persistence Factor: 0.7
Analysis Year: 2019
Roadway Data
Intersection: 6. Sirerra Highway and Newhall Avenue
Analysis Condition: C
No. of Average Speed
Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M.

North-South Roadway: Sierra Highway At Grade 8 5 5
East-West Roadway: Newhall Avenue At Grade 8 5 5
A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N
30 140 30 10 130 25
W < v > E W < v > E
20 ^ ^ 85 120 ^ ^ 40
1,355 > < 1,240 1,440 > < 1,375
185 v v 480 170 v v 165
< ^ > < ^ >
65 80 185 95 495 220
S S
Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour)
N-S Road: 1,135 N-S Road: 1,275
E-W Road: 3,375 E-W Road: 3,265
Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations
Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,0001
A1 A2 A3 A4 B C
Traffic Emission
Roadway E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors2E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.9 1.6 1,135 3.38 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.06 East-West Road 8.5 5.7 4.6 3.4 3,375 3.38 0.97 0.65 0.52 0.39 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.9 1.6 1,275 3.38 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.07 East-West Road 8.5 5.7 4.6 3.4 3,265 3.38 0.94 0.63 0.51 0.38 1 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 2 Emission factors from EMFAC2007.

Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour
Roadway Edge 3.1 3.1 1.5
25 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.7 2.7 1.3
50 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.6 2.6 1.2
100 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.4 2.4 1.1
2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996).

Reference CO Concentrations Estimated CO Concentrations CALINE4 Simplified - EMFAC2007 Parker Environmental Consultants 5/20/2015 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS
Project Title: Dockweiler Extension
Background Information
Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: SRA 13
Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 2.0
Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 0.8
Persistence Factor: 0.7
Analysis Year: 2019
Roadway Data
Intersection: 8. Valle Del Oro and Dockeiler Drive
Analysis Condition: B
No. of Average Speed
Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M.

North-South Roadway: Valle Del Oro At Grade 2 5 5
East-West Roadway: Dockweiler Drive At Grade 4 5 5
A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N
20 5 5 20 5 10
W < v > E W < v > E
20 ^ ^ 5 20 ^ ^ 10
85 > < 155 225 > < 225
10 v v 90 10 v v 140
< ^ > < ^ >
60 5 155 25 5 130
S S
Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour)
N-S Road: 325 N-S Road: 315
E-W Road: 495 E-W Road: 740
Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations
Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,0001
A1 A2 A3 A4 B C
Traffic Emission
Roadway E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors2E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 1.7 325 3.38 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 East-West Road 11.9 7.0 5.4 3.8 495 3.38 0.20 0.12 0.09 0.06 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 1.7 315 3.38 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 East-West Road 11.9 7.0 5.4 3.8 740 3.38 0.30 0.18 0.14 0.10 1 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 2 Emission factors from EMFAC2007.

Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour
Roadway Edge 2.2 2.3 1.0
25 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.1 2.2 0.9
50 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.1 2.2 0.9
100 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.1 2.1 0.9
2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996).

Reference CO Concentrations Estimated CO Concentrations CALINE4 Simplified - EMFAC2007 Parker Environmental Consultants 5/20/2015 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS
Project Title: Dockweiler Extension
Background Information
Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: SRA 13
Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 2.0
Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 0.8
Persistence Factor: 0.6
Analysis Year: 2019
Roadway Data
Intersection: 11. Newhall Avenue and Lyons Avenue
Analysis Condition: C
No. of Average Speed
Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M.

North-South Roadway: Newhall Avenue At Grade 4 20 20
East-West Roadway: Lyons Avenue At Grade 8 20 20
A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N
5 60 10 5 35 5
W < v > E W < v > E
5 ^ ^ 5 5 ^ ^ 5
300 > < 300 490 > < 575
595 v v 60 720 v v 110
< ^ > < ^ >
560 40 80 650 25 110
S S
Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour)
N-S Road: 1,395 N-S Road: 1,650
E-W Road: 1,765 E-W Road: 2,445
Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations
Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,0001
A1 A2 A3 A4 B C
Traffic Emission
Roadway E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors2E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 3.3 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,395 2.09 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.05 East-West Road 8.5 5.7 4.6 3.4 1,765 2.09 0.31 0.21 0.17 0.13 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 3.3 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,650 2.09 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.06 East-West Road 8.5 5.7 4.6 3.4 2,445 2.09 0.43 0.29 0.23 0.17 1 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 2 Emission factors from EMFAC2007.

Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour
Roadway Edge 2.4 2.5 1.1
25 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.3 2.4 1.0
50 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.2 2.3 1.0
100 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.2 2.2 0.9
2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996).

Reference CO Concentrations Estimated CO Concentrations CALINE4 Simplified - EMFAC2007 Parker Environmental Consultants 5/20/2015 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS
Project Title: Dockweiler Extension
Background Information
Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: SRA 13
Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 2.0
Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 0.8
Persistence Factor: 0.7
Analysis Year: 2019
Roadway Data
Intersection: 12. Railroad Avenue and Lyons Avenue
Analysis Condition: C
No. of Average Speed
Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M.

North-South Roadway: Railroad Avenue At Grade 8 5 5
East-West Roadway: Lyons Avenue At Grade 6 5 5
A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N
105 750 120 225 765 110
W < v > E W < v > E
90 ^ ^ 90 195 ^ ^ 120
180 > < 120 165 > < 305
135 v v 60 100 v v 70
< ^ > < ^ >
85 700 50 90 910 70
S S
Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour)
N-S Road: 1,855 N-S Road: 2,325
E-W Road: 715 E-W Road: 1,080
Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations
Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,0001
A1 A2 A3 A4 B C
Traffic Emission
Roadway E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors2E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 8.5 5.7 4.6 3.4 1,855 3.38 0.53 0.36 0.29 0.21 East-West Road 2.8 2.3 2.0 1.7 715 3.38 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 8.5 5.7 4.6 3.4 2,325 3.38 0.67 0.45 0.36 0.27 East-West Road 2.8 2.3 2.0 1.7 1,080 3.38 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.06 1 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 2 Emission factors from EMFAC2007.

Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour
Roadway Edge 2.6 2.8 1.3
25 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.4 2.5 1.2
50 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.3 2.4 1.1
100 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.3 2.3 1.0
2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996).

Reference CO Concentrations Estimated CO Concentrations CALINE4 Simplified - EMFAC2007 Parker Environmental Consultants 5/20/2015 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS
Project Title: Dockweiler Extension
Background Information
Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: SRA 13
Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 2.0
Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 0.8
Persistence Factor: 0.7
Analysis Year: 2019
Roadway Data
Intersection: 15. Main Street and Newhall Avenue
Analysis Condition: C
No. of Average Speed
Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M.

North-South Roadway: Newhall Ave At Grade 2 5 5
East-West Roadway: Main Street At Grade 2 5 5
A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N
20 10 0 10 10 0
W < v > E W < v > E
10 ^ ^ 0 10 ^ ^ 0
0 > < 0 0 > < 0
780 v v 0 740 v v 0
< ^ > < ^ >
600 10 0 760 10 0
S S
Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour)
N-S Road: 1,400 N-S Road: 1,520
E-W Road: 1,410 E-W Road: 1,520
Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations
Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,0001
A1 A2 A3 A4 B C
Traffic Emission
Roadway E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors2E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 1.7 1,400 3.38 0.18 0.13 0.10 0.08 East-West Road 14.0 7.6 5.7 4.0 1,410 3.38 0.67 0.36 0.27 0.19 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 14.0 7.6 5.7 4.0 1,520 3.38 0.72 0.39 0.29 0.21 East-West Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 1.7 1,520 3.38 0.19 0.14 0.11 0.09 1 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 2 Emission factors from EMFAC2007.

Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour
Roadway Edge 2.8 2.9 1.4
25 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.5 2.5 1.2
50 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.4 2.4 1.1
100 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.3 2.3 1.0
2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996).

Reference CO Concentrations Estimated CO Concentrations CALINE4 Simplified - EMFAC2007 Parker Environmental Consultants 5/20/2015 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS
Project Title: Dockweiler Extension
Background Information
Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: SRA 13
Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 2.0
Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 0.8
Persistence Factor: 0.7
Analysis Year: 2019
Roadway Data
Intersection: 16. Arch Street and 12th Street/Placerita Canyon Road Analysis Condition: C
No. of Average Speed
Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M.

North-South Roadway: Arch Street / 12th Street At Grade 4 5 5 East-West Roadway: Placerita Canyon Road / Dockweiler At Grade 4 5 5 A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N
5 10 5 5 45 5
W < v > E W < v > E
5 ^ ^ 5 5 ^ ^ 5
5 > < 5 5 > < 5
10 v v 165 10 v v 120
< ^ > < ^ >
10 40 170 80 15 200
S S
Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour)
N-S Road: 405 N-S Road: 470
E-W Road: 355 E-W Road: 340
Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations
Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,0001
A1 A2 A3 A4 B C
Traffic Emission
Roadway E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors2E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 11.9 7.0 5.4 3.8 405 3.38 0.16 0.10 0.07 0.05 East-West Road 3.3 2.6 2.2 1.7 355 3.38 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 11.9 7.0 5.4 3.8 470 3.38 0.19 0.11 0.09 0.06 East-West Road 3.3 2.6 2.2 1.7 340 3.38 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 1 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 2 Emission factors from EMFAC2007.

Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour
Roadway Edge 2.2 2.2 1.0
25 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.1 2.1 0.9
50 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.1 2.1 0.9
100 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.1 2.1 0.9
2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996).

Reference CO Concentrations Estimated CO Concentrations CALINE4 Simplified - EMFAC2007 Parker Environmental Consultants 5/20/2015 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS
Project Title: Dockweiler Extension
Background Information
Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: SRA 13
Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 2.0
Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 0.8
Persistence Factor: 0.7
Analysis Year: 2025
Roadway Data
Intersection: 1. Sierra Highway/SR-14 Freeway SouthBound Ramps Analysis Condition: E
No. of Average Speed
Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M.

North-South Roadway: Sierra Highway At Grade 6 5 5
East-West Roadway: SR-14 At Grade 2 5 5
A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N
0 1,980 60 0 540 160
W < v > E W < v > E
0 ^ ^ 40 0 ^ ^ 30
0 > < 0 0 > < 0
0 v v 200 0 v v 440
< ^ > < ^ >
0 450 320 0 2,270 40
S S
Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour)
N-S Road: 2,950 N-S Road: 3,290
E-W Road: 620 E-W Road: 670
Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations
Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,0001
A1 A2 A3 A4 B C
Traffic Emission
Roadway E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors2E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 9.5 6.1 4.9 3.5 2,950 2.34 0.65 0.42 0.34 0.24 East-West Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 1.7 620 2.34 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 9.5 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,290 2.34 0.73 0.47 0.38 0.27 East-West Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 1.7 670 2.34 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.03 1 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 2 Emission factors from EMFAC2007.

Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour
Roadway Edge 2.7 2.8 1.4
25 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.5 2.5 1.2
50 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.4 2.4 1.1
100 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.3 2.3 1.0
2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996).

Reference CO Concentrations Estimated CO Concentrations CALINE4 Simplified - EMFAC2007 Parker Environmental Consultants 5/20/2015 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS
Project Title: Dockweiler Extension
Background Information
Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: SRA 13
Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 2.0
Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 0.8
Persistence Factor: 0.7
Analysis Year: 2025
Roadway Data
Intersection: 2. Sierra Highway/Placerita Canyon Rd.

Analysis Condition: D
No. of Average Speed
Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M.

North-South Roadway: Sierra Highway At Grade 8 5 5
East-West Roadway: Placerita Canyon At Grade 8 5 5
A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N
430 1,590 150 80 890 30
W < v > E W < v > E
110 ^ ^ 270 80 ^ ^ 50
1,090 > < 880 1,340 > < 920
400 v v 300 300 v v 30
< ^ > < ^ >
210 360 230 270 2,160 790
S S
Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour)
N-S Road: 3,090 N-S Road: 4,440
E-W Road: 3,120 E-W Road: 3,160
Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations
Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,0001
A1 A2 A3 A4 B C
Traffic Emission
Roadway E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors2E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.9 1.6 3,090 2.34 0.19 0.16 0.14 0.12 East-West Road 8.5 5.7 4.6 3.4 3,120 2.34 0.62 0.42 0.34 0.25 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 8.5 5.7 4.6 3.4 4,440 2.34 0.88 0.59 0.48 0.35 East-West Road 2.6 2.2 1.9 1.6 3,160 2.34 0.19 0.16 0.14 0.12 1 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 2 Emission factors from EMFAC2007.

Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour
Roadway Edge 2.8 3.1 1.6
25 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.6 2.8 1.3
50 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.5 2.6 1.2
100 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.4 2.5 1.1
2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996).

Reference CO Concentrations Estimated CO Concentrations CALINE4 Simplified - EMFAC2007 Parker Environmental Consultants 5/20/2015 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS
Project Title: Dockweiler Extension
Background Information
Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: SRA 13
Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 2.0
Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 0.8
Persistence Factor: 0.7
Analysis Year: 2025
Roadway Data
Intersection: 4. Sierra Highway and Dockweiler Drive
Analysis Condition: E
No. of Average Speed
Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M.

North-South Roadway: Sierra Highway At Grade 4 5 5
East-West Roadway: Dockweiler Drive At Grade 2 5 5
A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N
740 740 0 860 140 0
W < v > E W < v > E
480 ^ ^ 0 1,220 ^ ^ 0
0 > < 0 0 > < 0
70 v v 0 50 v v 0
< ^ > < ^ >
60 230 0 110 860 0
S S
Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour)
N-S Road: 2,190 N-S Road: 3,080
E-W Road: 1,350 E-W Road: 2,240
Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations
Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,0001
A1 A2 A3 A4 B C
Traffic Emission
Roadway E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors2E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 11.9 7.0 5.4 3.8 2,190 2.34 0.61 0.36 0.28 0.19 East-West Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 1.7 1,350 2.34 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.05 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 11.9 7.0 5.4 3.8 3,080 2.34 0.86 0.50 0.39 0.27 East-West Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 1.7 2,240 2.34 0.19 0.14 0.12 0.09 1 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 2 Emission factors from EMFAC2007.

Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour
Roadway Edge 2.7 3.1 1.5
25 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.4 2.6 1.3
50 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.3 2.5 1.2
100 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.2 2.4 1.1
2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996).

Reference CO Concentrations Estimated CO Concentrations CALINE4 Simplified - EMFAC2007 Parker Environmental Consultants 5/20/2015 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS
Project Title: Dockweiler Extension
Background Information
Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: SRA 13
Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 2.0
Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 0.8
Persistence Factor: 0.7
Analysis Year: 2025
Roadway Data
Intersection: 5. SR-14 Soundbound Ramps and Newhall Avenue Analysis Condition: A
No. of Average Speed
Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M.

North-South Roadway: SR-14 Fwy Southbound At Grade 2 5 5 East-West Roadway: Newhall Avenue At Grade 6 5 5
A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N
1,290 10 10 520 10 10
W < v > E W < v > E
0 ^ ^ 0 0 ^ ^ 0
210 > < 1,090 1,120 > < 1,000
850 v v 10 1,360 v v 10
< ^ > < ^ >
0 0 0 0 0 0
S S
Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour)
N-S Road: 1,310 N-S Road: 1,380
E-W Road: 3,440 E-W Road: 4,000
Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations
Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,0001
A1 A2 A3 A4 B C
Traffic Emission
Roadway E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors2E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 1.7 1,310 2.34 0.11 0.08 0.07 0.05 East-West Road 9.5 6.1 4.9 3.5 3,440 2.34 0.76 0.49 0.39 0.28 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 1.7 1,380 2.34 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.05 East-West Road 9.5 6.1 4.9 3.5 4,000 2.34 0.89 0.57 0.46 0.33 1 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 2 Emission factors from EMFAC2007.

Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour
Roadway Edge 2.9 3.0 1.5
25 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.6 2.7 1.3
50 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.5 2.5 1.2
100 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.3 2.4 1.1
2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996).

Reference CO Concentrations Estimated CO Concentrations CALINE4 Simplified - EMFAC2007 Parker Environmental Consultants 5/20/2015 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS
Project Title: Dockweiler Extension
Background Information
Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: SRA 13
Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 2.0
Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 0.8
Persistence Factor: 0.7
Analysis Year: 2025
Roadway Data
Intersection: 6. Sirerra Highway and Newhall Avenue
Analysis Condition: D
No. of Average Speed
Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M.

North-South Roadway: Sierra Highway At Grade 8 5 5
East-West Roadway: Newhall Avenue At Grade 8 5 5
A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N
90 650 70 20 140 40
W < v > E W < v > E
40 ^ ^ 50 120 ^ ^ 70
740 > < 1,220 1,260 > < 960
480 v v 1,110 300 v v 480
< ^ > < ^ >
190 200 250 450 780 1,170
S S
Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour)
N-S Road: 2,880 N-S Road: 3,320
E-W Road: 3,440 E-W Road: 3,980
Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations
Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,0001
A1 A2 A3 A4 B C
Traffic Emission
Roadway E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors2E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.9 1.6 2,880 2.34 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.11 East-West Road 8.5 5.7 4.6 3.4 3,440 2.34 0.68 0.46 0.37 0.27 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 2.6 2.2 1.9 1.6 3,320 2.34 0.20 0.17 0.15 0.12 East-West Road 8.5 5.7 4.6 3.4 3,980 2.34 0.79 0.53 0.43 0.32 1 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 2 Emission factors from EMFAC2007.

Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour
Roadway Edge 2.9 3.0 1.5
25 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.6 2.7 1.3
50 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.5 2.6 1.2
100 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.4 2.4 1.1
2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996).

Reference CO Concentrations Estimated CO Concentrations CALINE4 Simplified - EMFAC2007 Parker Environmental Consultants 5/20/2015 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS
Project Title: Dockweiler Extension
Background Information
Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: SRA 13
Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 2.0
Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 0.8
Persistence Factor: 0.7
Analysis Year: 2025
Roadway Data
Intersection: 8. Valle Del Oro and Dockeiler Drive
Analysis Condition: D
No. of Average Speed
Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M.

North-South Roadway: Valle Del Oro At Grade 2 5 5
East-West Roadway: Dockweiler Drive At Grade 6 5 5
A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N
120 10 10 90 10 50
W < v > E W < v > E
90 ^ ^ 40 100 ^ ^ 30
330 > < 500 790 > < 460
20 v v 240 60 v v 460
< ^ > < ^ >
60 10 210 80 10 430
S S
Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour)
N-S Road: 550 N-S Road: 1,050
E-W Road: 1,330 E-W Road: 2,220
Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations
Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,0001
A1 A2 A3 A4 B C
Traffic Emission
Roadway E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors2E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 1.7 550 2.34 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.02 East-West Road 9.5 6.1 4.9 3.5 1,330 2.34 0.30 0.19 0.15 0.11 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 1.7 1,050 2.34 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.04 East-West Road 9.5 6.1 4.9 3.5 2,220 2.34 0.49 0.32 0.25 0.18 1 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 2 Emission factors from EMFAC2007.

Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour
Roadway Edge 2.3 2.6 1.2
25 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.2 2.4 1.1
50 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.2 2.3 1.0
100 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.1 2.2 1.0
2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996).

Reference CO Concentrations Estimated CO Concentrations CALINE4 Simplified - EMFAC2007 Parker Environmental Consultants 5/20/2015 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS
Project Title: Dockweiler Extension
Background Information
Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: SRA 13
Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 2.0
Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 0.8
Persistence Factor: 0.6
Analysis Year: 2025
Roadway Data
Intersection: 11. Newhall Avenue and Lyons Avenue
Analysis Condition: D
No. of Average Speed
Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M.

North-South Roadway: Newhall Avenue At Grade 4 20 20
East-West Roadway: Lyons Avenue At Grade 8 20 20
A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N
10 140 70 10 40 40
W < v > E W < v > E
10 ^ ^ 20 10 ^ ^ 20
680 > < 620 960 > < 940
770 v v 80 900 v v 160
< ^ > < ^ >
560 150 120 990 20 110
S S
Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour)
N-S Road: 1,820 N-S Road: 2,220
E-W Road: 2,650 E-W Road: 3,810
Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations
Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,0001
A1 A2 A3 A4 B C
Traffic Emission
Roadway E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors2E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 3.3 2.6 2.2 1.7 1,820 1.48 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.05 East-West Road 8.5 5.7 4.6 3.4 2,650 1.48 0.33 0.22 0.18 0.13 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 3.3 2.6 2.2 1.7 2,220 1.48 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.06 East-West Road 8.5 5.7 4.6 3.4 3,810 1.48 0.48 0.32 0.26 0.19 1 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 2 Emission factors from EMFAC2007.

Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour
Roadway Edge 2.4 2.6 1.2
25 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.3 2.4 1.0
50 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.2 2.3 1.0
100 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.2 2.2 0.9
2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996).

Reference CO Concentrations Estimated CO Concentrations CALINE4 Simplified - EMFAC2007 Parker Environmental Consultants 5/20/2015 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS
Project Title: Dockweiler Extension
Background Information
Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: SRA 13
Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 2.0
Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 0.8
Persistence Factor: 0.7
Analysis Year: 2025
Roadway Data
Intersection: 12. Railroad Avenue and Lyons Avenue
Analysis Condition: D
No. of Average Speed
Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M.

North-South Roadway: Railroad Avenue At Grade 8 5 5
East-West Roadway: Lyons Avenue At Grade 6 5 5
A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N
110 640 380 220 630 390
W < v > E W < v > E
80 ^ ^ 240 210 ^ ^ 360
630 > < 420 670 > < 810
140 v v 80 80 v v 140
< ^ > < ^ >
50 580 130 100 890 120
S S
Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour)
N-S Road: 2,030 N-S Road: 2,700
E-W Road: 1,880 E-W Road: 2,490
Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations
Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,0001
A1 A2 A3 A4 B C
Traffic Emission
Roadway E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors2E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 8.5 5.7 4.6 3.4 2,030 2.34 0.40 0.27 0.22 0.16 East-West Road 2.8 2.3 2.0 1.7 1,880 2.34 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.07 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 8.5 5.7 4.6 3.4 2,700 2.34 0.54 0.36 0.29 0.21 East-West Road 2.8 2.3 2.0 1.7 2,490 2.34 0.16 0.13 0.12 0.10 1 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 2 Emission factors from EMFAC2007.

Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour
Roadway Edge 2.5 2.7 1.3
25 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.4 2.5 1.1
50 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.3 2.4 1.1
100 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.2 2.3 1.0
2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996).

Reference CO Concentrations Estimated CO Concentrations CALINE4 Simplified - EMFAC2007 Parker Environmental Consultants 5/20/2015 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS
Project Title: Dockweiler Extension
Background Information
Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: SRA 13
Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 2.0
Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 0.8
Persistence Factor: 0.7
Analysis Year: 2025
Roadway Data
Intersection: 15. Main Street and Newhall Avenue
Analysis Condition: B
No. of Average Speed
Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M.

North-South Roadway: Newhall Ave At Grade 2 5 5
East-West Roadway: Main Street At Grade 2 5 5
A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N
90 10 0 10 40 0
W < v > E W < v > E
50 ^ ^ 0 10 ^ ^ 0
0 > < 0 0 > < 0
940 v v 0 790 v v 0
< ^ > < ^ >
530 10 0 980 50 0
S S
Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour)
N-S Road: 1,490 N-S Road: 1,860
E-W Road: 1,610 E-W Road: 1,790
Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations
Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,0001
A1 A2 A3 A4 B C
Traffic Emission
Roadway E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors2E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 1.7 1,490 2.34 0.13 0.09 0.08 0.06 East-West Road 14.0 7.6 5.7 4.0 1,610 2.34 0.53 0.29 0.21 0.15 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 14.0 7.6 5.7 4.0 1,860 2.34 0.61 0.33 0.25 0.17 East-West Road 3.7 2.7 2.2 1.7 1,790 2.34 0.15 0.11 0.09 0.07 1 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 2 Emission factors from EMFAC2007.

Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour
Roadway Edge 2.7 2.8 1.3
25 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.4 2.4 1.1
50 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.3 2.3 1.0
100 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.2 2.2 1.0
2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996).

Reference CO Concentrations Estimated CO Concentrations CALINE4 Simplified - EMFAC2007 Parker Environmental Consultants 5/20/2015 SIMPLIFIED CALINE4 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS
Project Title: Dockweiler Extension
Background Information
Nearest Air Monitoring Station measuring CO: SRA 13
Background 1-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 2.0
Background 8-hour CO Concentration (ppm): 0.8
Persistence Factor: 0.7
Analysis Year: 2025
Roadway Data
Intersection: 16. Arch Street and 12th Street/Placerita Canyon Road Analysis Condition: C
No. of Average Speed
Roadway Type Lanes A.M. P.M.

North-South Roadway: Arch Street / 12th Street At Grade 4 5 5 East-West Roadway: Placerita Canyon Road / Dockweiler At Grade 4 5 5 A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes N N
10 80 40 10 580 70
W < v > E W < v > E
10 ^ ^ 80 10 ^ ^ 70
10 > < 10 10 > < 10
90 v v 60 40 v v 120
< ^ > < ^ >
20 470 90 20 280 30
S S
Highest Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour)
N-S Road: 810 N-S Road: 1,070
E-W Road: 290 E-W Road: 310
Roadway CO Contributions and Concentrations
Emissions = (A x B x C) / 100,0001
A1 A2 A3 A4 B C
Traffic Emission
Roadway E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet Volume Factors2E.O.R. 25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet A.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 11.9 7.0 5.4 3.8 810 2.34 0.23 0.13 0.10 0.07 East-West Road 3.3 2.6 2.2 1.7 290 2.34 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 P.M. Peak Traffic Hour
North-South Road 11.9 7.0 5.4 3.8 1,070 2.34 0.30 0.18 0.14 0.10 East-West Road 3.3 2.6 2.2 1.7 310 2.34 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 1 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996). 2 Emission factors from EMFAC2007.

Peak Hour Peak Hour 8-Hour
Roadway Edge 2.2 2.3 1.0
25 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.2 2.2 0.9
50 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.1 2.2 0.9
100 Feet from Roadway Edge 2.1 2.1 0.9
2 Methodology from Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1996).

Reference CO Concentrations Estimated CO Concentrations CALINE4 Simplified - EMFAC2007 Parker Environmental Consultants 5/20/2015 2013 AIR QUALITY

SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Carbon
Monoxide a) Ozone Nitrogen Dioxide b) Sulfur Dioxide c) No. Days Standard Exceeded
Source/Receptor Area
No. Location
Station
No.

No. Days of Data
Max Conc. in ppm 8-hour
No. Days of Data
Max. Conc. in ppm 1-hour
Max. Conc. in ppm 8-hour
Fourth High Conc. ppm 8-hour
Health Advisory≥ 0.15 ppm 1-hour
Old
Federal
> 0.124
ppm
1-hour
Current
Federal
> 0.075
ppm
8-hour
Current
State
> 0.09
ppm
1-hour
Current
State
> 0.070
ppm
8-hour
No. Days of Data
Max Conc. in ppb 1-hour
98th
Percentile
Conc.
ppb
1-hour
Annual
Average
AAM
Conc.
ppb
No. Daysof Data
Max. Conc. in ppb 1-hour
99th
Percentile
Conc.
ppb
1-hour

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
1 Central LA 087 330 2.0 365 0.081 0.069 0.060 0 0 0 0 0 301 90.3 62.6 21.8 312 6.3 5.2 2 Northwest Coastal LA County 091 340 1.3 359 0.088 0.075 0.059 0 0 0 0 1 291 51.2 48.8 14.5 -- -- -- 3 Southwest Coastal LA County 820 281* 2.5 352 0.105 0.081 0.060 0 0 1 1 1 334 77.8 58.0 11.8 322 10.1 6.5 4 South Coastal LA County 1 072 249* 2.0 267* 0.092 0.070 0.060 0 0 0 0 0 234* 66.9 55.7 14.0 178* 21.8 10.1 4 South Coastal LA County 2 077 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4 South Coastal LA County 3 033 323 2.6 362 0.090 0.069 0.057 0 0 0 0 0 325 81.3 71.3 21.5 349 15.1 11.6 6 West San Fernando Valley 074 323 2.3 320 0.124 0.092 0.084 0 0 11 7 21 258* 58.2 51.7 14.4 -- -- -- 7 East San Fernando Valley 069 335 2.4 362 0.110 0.083 0.079 0 0 6 4 17 284 72.5 60.0 20.2 342 10.8 4.2 8 West San Gabriel Valley 088 201* 1.7 211* 0.099 0.075 0.070 0 0 0 2 2 200* 66.7 60.3 19.1 -- -- -- 9 East San Gabriel Valley 1 060 343 1.7 361 0.115 0.085 0.080 0 0 6 7 15 352 76.9 56.7 17.7 -- -- -- 9 East San Gabriel Valley 2 591 347 0.8 340 0.135 0.100 0.088 0 1 24 24 43 349 55.7 50.4 13.0 -- -- -- 10 Pomona/Walnut Valley 075 340 1.6 355 0.125 0.099 0.085 0 1 15 12 22 343 78.8 64.8 22.5 -- -- -- 11 South San Gabriel Valley 085 347 2.0 363 0.101 0.072 0.070 0 0 0 2 3 337 79.4 60.6 20.6 -- -- -- 12 South Central LA County 112 338 3.5 358 0.090 0.080 0.063 0 0 1 0 1 340 69.8 61.8 17.6 -- -- -- 13 Santa Clarita Valley 090 352 0.8 365 0.134 0.104 0.094 0 2 40 30 58 362 65.4 45.0 14.4 -- -- --

ORANGE COUNTY
16 North Orange County 3177 355 2.2 363 0.104 0.078 0.066 0 0 1 2 2 269* 85.0 53.3 14.8 -- -- -- 17 Central Orange County 3176 333 2.6 340 0.084 0.070 0.063 0 0 0 0 0 301 81.6 58.8 18.0 -- -- -- 18 North Coastal Orange County 3195 313 2.0 385 0.095 0.083 0.065 0 0 1 1 2 330 75.7 53.2 11.6 296 4.2 3.3 19 Saddleback Valley 3812 356 1.3 365 0.104 0.082 0.074 0 0 2 2 5 -- -- -- -- -- -- --

RIVERSIDE COUNTY
22 Norco/Corona 4155 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 23 Metropolitan Riverside County 1 4144 334 2.0 357 0.123 0.103 0.094 0 0 26 13 38 318 59.6 54.8 17.3 354 8.1 4.6 23 Metropolitan Riverside County 2 4146 318 1.6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 257* 57.6 50.7 15.8 -- -- -- 23 Mira Loma 4165 339 1.9 365 0.118 0.096 0.092 0 0 21 11 32 333 53.8 50.7 13.7 -- -- -- 24 Perris Valley 4149 -- -- 344 0.108 0.090 0.088 0 0 34 17 60 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 25 Lake Elsinore 4158 336 0.6 362 0.102 0.089 0.081 0 0 12 6 25 294 46.6 40.0 8.4 -- -- -- 26 Temecula 4031 -- -- 324 0.093 0.078 0.075 0 0 3 0 12 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 29 Banning Airport 4164 -- -- 254* 0.115 0.103 0.091 0 0 41 24 66 308 51.9 45.0 8.5 -- -- -- 30 Coachella Valley 1** 4137 354 1.5 365 0.113 0.104 0.090 0 0 46 10 82 359 52.3 38.5 7.5 -- -- -- 30 Coachella Valley 2** 4157 -- -- 365 0.105 0.087 0.085 0 0 18 2 38 -- -- -- -- -- -- --

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 5175 340 1.7 365 0.143 0.111 0.095 0 3 27 25 44 276* 62.1 53.3 17.7 -- -- -- 33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 5817 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 34 Central San Bernardino Valley 1 5197 337 1.3 363 0.151 0.122 0.100 1 2 42 34 68 335 81.7 60.6 20.6 298 3.8 3.1 34 Central San Bernardino Valley 2 5203 340 1.7 361 0.139 0.112 0.097 0 2 36 22 53 291 72.2 54.5 17.6 -- -- -- 35 East San Bernardino Valley 5204 -- -- 356 0.133 0.119 0.104 0 3 63 43 93 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 37 Central San Bernardino Mountains 5181 -- -- 365 0.120 0.105 0.099 0 0 72 45 101 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 38 East San Bernardino Mountains 5818 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- DISTRICT MAXIMUM 3.5 0.151 0.122 0.104 1 3 72 45 101 90.3 71.3 22.5 21.8 11.6 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN 3.5 0.151 0.122 0.104 1 5 88 70 119 90.3 71.3 22.5 21.8 11.6 * Incomplete data. ** Salton Sea Air Basin -- - Pollutant not monitored ppm - Parts Per Million parts of air, by volume ppb – Parts Per Billion parts of air, by volume AAM = Annual Arithmetic Mean a) - The federal 8-hour standard (8-hour average CO > 9 ppm) and state 8-hour standard (8-hour average CO > 9.0 ppm) were not exceeded.

The federal and state 1-hour standards (35 ppm and 20 ppm) were not exceeded either. b) - The NO2 federal 1-hour standard is 100 ppb and the annual standard is annual arithmetic mean NO2 > 0.0534 ppm (53.4 ppb). The state 1-hour and annual standards are

0.18 ppm (180 ppb) and 0.030 ppm (30 ppb).
c) - The federal SO2 1-hour standard is 75 ppb (0.075 ppm). The state standards are 1-hour average SO2 > 0.25 ppm (250 ppb) and 24-hour average SO2 > 0.04 ppm (40 ppb).

For information on the current standard levels and most recent revisions please refer to “Appendix II – Current Air Quality” of the “Final 2012 AQMP” which can be accessed at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-qualitymanagement-plans/2012-air-quality-management-plan/final-2012-aqmp-(february-2013)/appendix-ii-final-2012.pdf. Maps showing the source/receptor area boundaries can be accessed via the Internet by entering your address in the AQMD Current Hourly Air Quality Map, accessed from http://www2.aqmd.gov/webappl/gisaqi2/VEMap3D.aspx. A map or copy of the AQMP Appendix II is also available free of charge from the AQMD Public Information Center at 1-800-CUT-SMOG.

South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 www.aqmd.gov 2013
2013 AIR QUALITY

SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Suspended Particulates PM10 d) Fine Particulates PM2.5 f) Lead h) PM10 Sulfate i) No. Days of Data
Max. Conc. in µg/m3
24-hour
No. (%) Samples
Exceeding Standards
Annual.

Average
Conc. e)
(AAM)
µg/m3
No. Daysof Data
Max. Conc. in µg/m3
24-hour
98th
PercentileConc. in µg/m3
24-hour
No (%) Samples
Exceeding
Federal Std
> 35 µg/m3
24-hour
Annual.

Average
Conc. g)
(AAM)
µg/m3
Max. MonthlyAverageConc. µg/m3
Max. 3-MonthsRolling Averagesµg/m3
No. Days of Data
Max. Conc. in µg/m3
24-hour
Source/Receptor Area
No. Location
Station
No.

Federal
> 150 µg/m3
24-hour
State
> 50 µg/m3
24-hour

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
1 Central LA 087 60 57 0 1(2%) 29.5 344 43.1 29.0 1(0.3%) 11.95 0.013 0.011 60 5.8 2 Northwest Coastal LA County 091 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3 Southwest Coastal LA County 820 56 38 0 0 20.8 -- -- -- -- -- 0.005 0.004 56 5.6 4 South Coastal LA County 1 072 43* 37 0 0 23.2 331 47.2 26.1 2(0.6%) 11.34 0.006 0.006 43* 4.5 4 South Coastal LA County 2 077 56 54 0 1(2%) 27.3 341 42.9 24.6 1(0.3%) 10.97 0.012 0.009 56 4.8 4 South Coastal LA County 3 033 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 6 West San Fernando Valley 074 -- -- -- -- -- 118 41.8 23.0 1(0.8%) 9.71 -- -- -- -- 7 East San Fernando Valley 069 58 52 0 1(2%) 28.5 346 45.1 30.4 4(1.2%) 12.15 -- -- 58 5.4 8 West San Gabriel Valley 088 -- -- -- -- -- 64* 25.7 20.5 0(0%) 10.13 -- -- -- -- 9 East San Gabriel Valley 1 060 61 76 0 6(10%) 33.0 120 29.6 26.4 0(0%) 10.54 -- -- 61 4.8 9 East San Gabriel Valley 2 591 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 10 Pomona/Walnut Valley 075 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 11 South San Gabriel Valley 085 -- -- -- -- -- 114 29.1 28.8 0(0%) 11.56 0.012 0.011 -- -- 12 South Central LA County 112 -- -- -- -- -- 113 52.1 24.3 1(0.9%) 11.95 0.014 0.011 -- -- 13 Santa Clarita Valley 090 60 43 0 0 21.6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 60 3.7

ORANGE COUNTY
16 North Orange County 3177 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 17 Central Orange County 3176 59 77 0 1(2%) 25.4 331 37.8 22.7 1(0.3%) 10.09 -- -- 59 4.7 18 North Coastal Orange County 3195 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 19 Saddleback Valley 3812 61 51 0 1(2%) 19.3 117 28.0 17.5 0(0%) 8.08 -- -- 61 4.4

RIVERSIDE COUNTY
22 Norco/Corona 4155 57 58 0 2(4%) 28.3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 57 4.2 23 Metropolitan Riverside County 1 4144 119 135 0 10(8%) 33.8 353 60.3 34.6 6(1.7%) 12.50 0.010 0.009 119 4.2 23 Metropolitan Riverside County 2 4146 -- -- -- -- -- 117 53.7 29.2 1(0.9%) 11.28 0.007 0.006 -- -- 23 Mira Loma 4165 59 147 0 14(24%) 41.1 355 56.5 37.5 9(2.5%) 14.12 -- -- 59 4.2 24 Perris Valley 4149 57 70 0 10(18%) 33.6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 57 3.4 25 Lake Elsinore 4158 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 26 Temecula 4031 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 29 Banning Airport 4164 61 64 0 1(2%) 20.6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 61 2.9 30 Coachella Valley 1** 4137 60 129 0 3(5%) 22.6 117 18.5 13.8 0(0%) 6.52 -- -- 60 3.5 30 Coachella Valley 2** 4157 120 129+ 0+ 23(19%) 38.1 118 25.8 15.9 0(0%) 8.35 -- -- 120 3.9

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 5175 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.008 0.006 -- -- 33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 5817 60 115 0 3(5%) 33.2 110 49.3 26.8 1(0.9%) 11.98 -- -- 60 4.8 34 Central San Bernardino Valley 1 5197 61 90 0 19(31%) 40.6 121 43.6 33.1 1(0.8%) 12.26 -- -- 61 4.1 34 Central San Bernardino Valley 2 5203 60 102 0 3(5%) 31.3 110 55.3 33.4 1(0.9%) 11.41 0.010 0.010 60 4.6 35 East San Bernardino Valley 5204 61 72 0 2(3%) 27.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 61 3.6 37 Central San Bernardino Mountains 5181 60 37 0 0 21.4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 60 3.6 38 East San Bernardino Mountains 5818 -- -- -- -- -- 59 35.5 35.1 1(1.7%) 9.67 -- -- -- -- DISTRICT MAXIMUM 147+ 0+ 23 41.1 60.3 37.5 9 14.12 0.013++ 0.011++ 5.8 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN 147 0 33 41.1 60.4 37.5 13 14.12 0.013++ 0.011++ 5.8 * Incomplete data. ** Salton Sea Air Basin µg/m3 - Micrograms per cubic meter of air AAM = Annual Arithmetic Mean -- - Pollutant not monitored d) - Federal Reference Method (FRM) PM10 samples were collected every 6 days at all sites except for Stations 4144 and 4157, where samples were collected every 3 days. PM10 statistics listed above are for the FRM data only. Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) PM10 continuous monitoring instruments were operated at some of the above locations. Max 24-hour average PM10 at sites with FEM monitoring was 153 µg/m3, at Indio (155 µg/m3 is needed to exceed the PM10 standard). e) - State standard is annual average (AAM) > 20 µg/m3. Federal annual PM10 standard (AAM > 50 µg/m3) was revoked in 2006. f) - PM2.5 samples were collected every 3 days at all sites except for station numbers 069, 072, 077, 087, 3176, 4144 and 4165, where samples were taken daily, and station number 5818 where samples were taken every 6 days. PM2.5 statistics listed above are for the FRM data only. FEM PM2.5 continuous monitoring instruments were operated at some of the above locations for special purposes with the max 24-hour average concentration recorded of 83.2 µg/m3, (at Mira Loma). g) - U.S. EPA has revised the federal annual PM2.5 standard from annual average (AAM) > 15.0 µg/m3 to AAM > 12.0 µg/m3, effective December 14, 2012. State standard is annual average (AAM) > 12.0 µg/m3. +) - High PM10 data sample (159 µg/m3 on August 23 at Indio) excluded due to the high wind in accordance with the EPA Exceptional Event Regulation. Also, multiple high PM10 FEM data recorded in Coachella Valley and the Basin were excluded.
h) – Federal lead standard is 3-months rolling average > 0.15 µg/m3; state standard is monthly average  1.5 µg/m3. Lead statistics listed above are for population-oriented sites only. Lead standards were not exceeded. ++) – Higher lead concentrations were recorded at source-oriented monitoring sites immediately downwind of stationary lead sources. Maximum monthly and 3-month rolling averages recorded were 0.14 µg/m3 and 0.10 µg/m3, respectively. i) – State sulfate standard is 24-hour  25 µg/m3. There is no federal standard for sulfate.

Printed on
Recycled
Paper
2013
2012 AIR QUALITY

SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Carbon
Monoxide a) Ozone Nitrogen Dioxide b) Sulfur Dioxide c) No. Days Standard Exceeded
Source/Receptor Area
No. Location
Station
No.

No. Days of Data
Max Conc.in ppm 8-hour
No. Days of Data
Max. Conc. in ppm 1-hour
Max. Conc. in ppm 8-hour
Fourth High Conc. ppm 8-hour
Old
Federal
> 0.124
ppm
1-hour
Current
Federal
> 0.075
ppm
8-hour
Current
State
> 0.09
ppm
1-hour
Current
State
> 0.070
ppm
8-hour
No. Days of Data
Max Conc. in ppb 1-hour
98th
Percentile
Conc.
ppb
1-hour
Annual
Average
AAM
Conc.
ppb
No. Daysof Data
Max. Conc. in ppb 1-hour
99th
Percentile
Conc.
ppb
1-hour

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
1 Central LA 087 365 1.9 364 0.093 0.077 0.068 0 1 0 2 240* 77.3 68.9 24.8 235* 5.2 5.0 2 Northwest Coastal LA County 091 366 1.4 351 0.093 0.073 0.065 0 0 0 1 324* 61.3 53.6 13.7 -- -- -- 3 Southwest Coastal LA County 820 366 2.5 366 0.106 0.075 0.059 0 0 1 1 268* 61.7 55 10.4 203* 4.9 4.7 4 South Coastal LA County 1 072 363 2.2 366 0.084 0.067 0.060 0 0 0 0 221* 77.2 62.5 20.8 285* 22.2 14.3 4 South Coastal LA County 2 077 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4 South Coastal LA County 3 033 214* 2.6 212* 0.08 0.066 0.054 0 0 0 0 213* 97.8 77.4 25.3 213* 22.7 21.3 6 West San Fernando Valley 074 366 2.8 366 0.129 0.098 0.095 1 23 18 38 261* 70.9 48.7 14.9 -- -- -- 7 East San Fernando Valley 069 366 2.4 366 0.117 0.088 0.081 0 8 8 15 295* 79.5 57 21.9 366 6.5 2.9 8 West San Gabriel Valley 088 319 1.6 318 0.111 0.086 0.08 0 9 8 20 280* 71.2 55.8 17.2 -- -- -- 9 East San Gabriel Valley 1 060 366 1.2 366 0.134 0.095 0.079 1 10 18 18 352 71.8 61.5 19.5 -- -- -- 9 East San Gabriel Valley 2 591 366 1.1 366 0.147 0.11 0.095 3 45 45 57 287* 60 53.3 14.2 -- -- -- 10 Pomona/Walnut Valley 075 364 1.5 364 0.117 0.092 0.085 0 15 21 28 364 81.6 60.6 21.4 -- -- -- 11 South San Gabriel Valley 085 366 2.2 357 0.106 0.075 0.071 0 0 5 6 204* 80.8 55.2 20.4 -- -- -- 12 South Central LA County 112 366 4.0 357 0.086 0.07 0.064 0 0 0 0 337* 79.3 63.1 17.2 -- -- -- 13 Santa Clarita Valley 090 353 1.1 366 0.134 0.112 0.102 6 57 45 81 366 66.1 50.7 13.6 -- -- --

ORANGE COUNTY
16 North Orange County 3177 348 2.4 365 0.100 0.078 0.070 0 2 3 3 332* 67.5 53.2 18.0 -- -- -- 17 Central Orange County 3176 366 2.3 366 0.079 0.067 0.065 0 0 0 0 366 67.3 53.5 14.6 -- -- -- 18 North Coastal Orange County 3195 366 1.7 366 0.090 0.076 0.060 0 1 2 1 348 74.4 50.6 10.4 350 6.2 2 19 Saddleback Valley 3812 366 1.1 336 0.096 0.078 0.071 0 1 0 4 -- -- -- -- -- -- --

RIVERSIDE COUNTY
22 Norco/Corona 4155 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 23 Metropolitan Riverside County 1 4144 366 1.6 357 0.126 0.102 0.096 1 47 27 70 333* 61.7 54.6 15.5 321* 4.3 2 23 Metropolitan Riverside County 2 4146 365 1.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 246* 60.3 53.7 16.5 -- -- -- 23 Mira Loma 4165 355 1.9 360 0.124 0.102 0.095 0 47 31 70 301* 60.7 49.7 13.9 -- -- -- 24 Perris Valley 4149 321 0.111 0.093 0.090 0 46 28 64 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 25 Lake Elsinore 4158 366 0.7 366 0.111 0.089 0.087 0 17 10 29 366 48.3 40.9 10.2 -- -- -- 26 Temecula 4031 -- -- 306 0.104 0.082 0.077 0 4 1 22 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 29 Banning Airport 4164 -- -- 338 0.117 0.098 0.095 0 53 40 71 321* 72.0 49.7 9.5 -- -- -- 30 Coachella Valley 1** 4137 366 0.5 366 0.126 0.100 0.094 1 51 17 76 353 45.1 39.3 7.8 -- -- -- 30 Coachella Valley 2** 4157 -- -- 364 0.102 0.089 0.085 0 24 2 43 -- -- -- -- -- -- --

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 5175 360 1.1 336 0.136 0.111 0.102 4 45 42 66 328* 66.7 60.2 19.5 -- -- -- 33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 5817 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 34 Central San Bernardino Valley 1 5197 366 1.1 366 0.142 0.11 0.106 5 62 60 85 359 69.1 61.2 22.1 366 22.5 4.3 34 Central San Bernardino Valley 2 5203 362 1.7 366 0.124 0.109 0.100 0 54 41 74 315* 67.0 59.7 18.8 -- -- -- 35 East San Bernardino Valley 5204 -- -- 366 0.136 0.109 0.105 3 79 66 98 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 37 Central San Bernardino Mountains 5181 -- -- 364 0.140 0.112 0.103 2 86 56 100 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 38 East San Bernardino Mountains 5818 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- DISTRICT MAXIMUM 4.0 0.147 0.112 0.106 6 86 66 100 97.8 77.4 25.3 22.7 21.3 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN 4.0 0.147 0.112 0.106 12 111 98 138 97.8 77.4 25.3 22.7 21.3 * Incomplete data. ** Salton Sea Air Basin ppm - Parts Per Million parts of air, by volume ppb – Parts Per Billion parts of air, by volume AAM = Annual Arithmetic Mean -- - Pollutant not monitored a) - The federal 8-hour standard (8-hour average CO > 9 ppm) and state 8-hour standard (8-hour average CO > 9.0 ppm) were not exceeded. The federal and state 1-hour standards (35 ppm and 20 ppm) were not exceeded either. b) - The NO2 federal 1-hour standard is 100 ppb and the annual standard is annual arithmetic mean NO2 > 0.0534 ppm (53.4 ppb). The state 1-hour and annual standards are

0.18 ppm (180 ppb) and 0.030 ppm (30 ppb). c) - The federal SO2 1-hour standard is 75 ppb (0.075 ppm). The state standards are 1-hour average SO2 > 0.25 ppm (250 ppb) and 24-hour average SO2 > 0.04 ppm (40 ppb).

For information on the current standard levels and most recent revisions please refer to “Appendix II – Current Air Quality” of the “Final 2012 AQMP (December)” which can be accessed at http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/2012aqmp/DraftFinal/appII.pdf.

Maps showing the source/receptor area boundaries can be accessed via the Internet by entering your address in the AQMD Current Hourly Air Quality Map, accessed from http://www2.aqmd.gov/webappl/gisaqi2/VEMap3D.aspx or at http://www.aqmd.gov/map/MapAQMD2.pdf . A map or copy of the AQMP Appendix II is also available free of charge from the AQMD Public Information Center at 1-800-CUT-SMOG. 2012
South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 www.aqmd.gov 2012 AIR QUALITY

SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Suspended Particulates PM10 d,g) Fine Particulates PM2.5 f,g) Particulates TSP Lead h) PM10 Sulfate i) No. Days of Data
Max. Conc. in µg/m3
24-hour
No. (%) Samples
Exceeding Standards Annual.

Average
Conc. e)
(AAM)
µg/m3
No. Days of Data
Max. Conc. in µg/m3
24-hour
98th
PercentileConc. in µg/m3
24-hour
No. (%)
Samples
Exceeding
Federal Std
> 35 µg/m3
24-hour
Annual.

Average
Conc.
(AAM)
µg/m3
No. Days of Data
Max. Conc. in µg/m3
24-hour
Annual.

Average
Conc.
(AAM)
µg/m3
Max. MonthlyAverageConc. µg/m3
Max. 3-MonthsRolling Averages µg/m3
No. Days of Data
Max. Conc. in µg/m3
24-hour
Source/Receptor Area
No. Location
Station
No.

Federal
> 150
µg/m3
24-hour
State
> 50
µg/m3
24-hour

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
1 Central LA 087 60 80 0 4 30.2 342 58.7 31.8 4 12.55 57 197 61.8 0.014 0.011 60 5.7 2 Northwest Coastal LA County 091 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 56 128 47.0 -- -- -- -- 3 Southwest Coastal LA County 820 57 31 0 0 19.8 -- -- -- -- -- 52 60 35.1 0.005 0.003 57 5.4 4 South Coastal LA County 1 072 60 45 0 0 23.3 349 49.8 26.4 4 10.37 60 74 41.2 0.005 0.005 60 5.2 4 South Coastal LA County 2 077 60 54 0 1 25.5 340 46.7 25.1 4 10.57 59 76 40.3 0.007 0.005 60 4.9 4 South Coastal LA County 3 033 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 6 West San Fernando Valley 074 -- -- -- -- -- 110 41.6 31.2 2 10.48 -- -- -- -- -- 7 East San Fernando Valley 069 60 55 0 1 26.4 355 54.2 28.2 2 12.17 -- -- -- -- -- 60 6.2 8 West San Gabriel Valley 088 -- -- -- -- -- 96 30.5 24.2 0 10.12 49 82 47.2 -- -- -- -- 9 East San Gabriel Valley 1 060 61 78 0 6 30.3 118 39.6 25.6 1 11.02 56 175 67.1 -- -- 61 5.2 9 East San Gabriel Valley 2 591 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 10 Pomona/Walnut Valley 075 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 11 South San Gabriel Valley 085 -- -- -- -- -- 119 45.3 28.5 1 11.85 59 77 49.9 0.007 0.007 -- -- 12 South Central LA County 112 -- -- -- -- -- 115 51.2 30.3 1 11.69 550 91 52.1 0.009 0.008 -- -- 13 Santa Clarita Valley 090 55 37 0 0 19.6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 55 4.9

ORANGE COUNTY
16 North Orange County 3177 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 17 Central Orange County 3176 61 48 0 0 22.4 347 50.1 24.9 4 10.81 -- -- -- -- -- 61 4.4 18 North Coastal Orange County 3195 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 19 Saddleback Valley 3812 60 37 0 0 17.3 123 27.6 17.6 0 7.91 -- -- -- -- -- 60 4.2

RIVERSIDE COUNTY
22 Norco/Corona 4155 59 52 0 1 26.6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 59 4.4 23 Metropolitan Riverside County 1 4144 121 67 0 19 34.5 352 38.1 33.7 7 13.51 58 126 66.7 0.008 0.007 120 7.7 23 Metropolitan Riverside County 2 4146 -- -- -- -- -- 104 30.2 26.8 0 11.35 59 72 44.2 0.006 0.005 -- -- 23 Mira Loma 4165 56 78 0 15 39.9 351 39.3 35.1 7 15.06 -- -- -- -- -- 56 4.7 24 Perris Valley 4149 60 62 0 1 26.5 - - - - -- -- -- -- -- -- 60 3.8 25 Lake Elsinore 4158 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 26 Temecula 4031 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 29 Banning Airport 4164 60 45 0 0 19.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 60 5.0 30 Coachella Valley 1** 4137 60 37 0 0 16.4 117 15.5 13.7 0 6.50 -- -- -- -- -- 60 5.9 30 Coachella Valley 2** 4157 121 124 0 7 29.5 117 20 16.4 0 7.64 -- -- -- -- -- 121 7.6

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 5175 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 59 106 43.4 0.007 0.006 -- -- 33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 5817 61 57 0 4 30.8 120 35.2 28.6 0 12.41 -- -- -- -- -- 61 5.1 34 Central San Bernardino Valley 1 5197 60 67 0 9 34.3 110 39.9 35.6 3 12.82 56 148 78.4 -- -- 60 4.6 34 Central San Bernardino Valley 2 5203 55 53 0 1 29.2 107 34.8 27.1 0 11.76 56 128 55.6 0.008 0.007 55 4.4 35 East San Bernardino Valley 5204 61 48 0 0 23.4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 61 4.2 37 Central San Bernardino Mountains 5181 57 43 0 0 18.9 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 57 3.7 38 East San Bernardino Mountains 5818 -- -- -- -- -- 52 36.4 27.4 1 7.98 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- DISTRICT MAXIMUM 124 0 19 39.9 58.7 35.6 7 15.06 197 78.4 0.014 0.011 7.7 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN 80 0 31 39.9 58.7 35.6 15 15.06 197 78.4 0.014 0.011 7.7 ** Salton Sea Air Basin µg/m3 - Micrograms per cubic meter of air AAM = Annual Arithmetic Mean -- - Pollutant not monitored d) - Federal Reference Method (FRM) PM10 samples were collected every 6 days at all sites except for Stations 4144 and 4157, where samples were collected every 3 days. PM10 statistics listed above are for the FRM data only. Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) PM10 continuous monitors were operated at some of the above locations. Max 24-hour average PM10 at sites with FEM monitoring was 142 µg/m3, at Palm Springs in Coachella Valley. The FEM Basin’s max was 104 µg/m3, at Mira Loma.
e) - Federal annual PM10 standard (AAM > 50 µg/m3) was revoked in 2006. State standard is annual average (AAM) > 20 µg/m3. f) - PM2.5 samples were collected every 3 days at all sites except for station numbers 069, 072, 077, 087, 3176, 4144 and 4165, where samples were taken daily, and station number 5818 where samples were taken every 6 days. PM2.5 statistics listed above are for the FRM data only. FEM PM2.5 continuous monitoring instruments were operated at some of the above locations. Max 24-hour average PM2.5 concentration recorded at FEM sites was 79.0 µg/m3, at Central LA..

U.S. EPA has revised the annual PM2.5 standard from annual average (AAM) 15.0 µg/m3 to 12.0 µg/m3, effective March 18, 2013. State standard is annual average (AAM) > 12.0 µg/m3. g) - High PM10 and PM2.5 data samples excluded in accordance with the EPA Exceptional Event Regulation are as follows: PM10 (FEM) data recorded on August 9 (270 µg/m3) and January 21 (207 µg/m3) both at Indio; PM2.5 (FRM) at Azusa (39.6 µg/m3) and Fontana (39.9 µg/m3), both recorded on July 5. h) – Federal lead standard is 3-months rolling average > 0.15 µg/m3; state standard is monthly average  1.5 µg/m3. Lead statistics listed above are for population-oriented sites only; standards were not exceeded at any of these sites. i) – State sulfate standard is 24-hour  25 µg/m3. There is no federal standard for sulfate.

Printed on
Recycled
Paper
2012
2010 AIR QUALITY
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MAAGEMET DISTRICT
Carbon Monoxidea) Ozone Nitrogen Dioxideb) Sulfur Dioxidec) No.

Days of Data
Max. Conc. in
ppm
1-hour
Max Conc. in
ppm
8-hour
No.

Days of Data
Max. Conc. in
ppm
1-hour
Max. Conc. in
ppm
8-hour
Fourth High Conc.
ppm
8-hour
No. Days Standard Exceeded
Max Conc. in
ppb
1-hour
98th
Percentile
Conc.
ppb
1-hour
Annual
Average
AAM
Conc.
ppb
No.

Days of Data
Max. Conc. in
ppb
1-hour
Max. Conc. in
ppb
24-hour
Health
Advisory
≥ 0.15
ppm
1-hour
Federal State
No.

Days of Data
Source/Receptor Area
Old
> 0.12
ppm
1-hour
Current
> 0.075
ppm
8-hour
Current
> 0.09
ppm
1-hour
Current
> 0.070
ppm
8-hour
Station
No. Location No.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
1 Central LA 087 364 3 2.3 357 0.098 0.080 0.064 0 0 1 1 1 364 89.0 70.5 25.0 355 9.8 1.5 2 Northwest Coastal LA County 091 364 2 1.4 360 0.099 0.078 0.069 0 0 1 2 4 365 70.8 57.4 15.6 -- -- -- 3 Southwest Coastal LA County 820 344 3 2.2 319 0.089 0.070 0.059 0 0 0 0 1 358 75.8 60.9 12.1 327 25.9 3.5 4 South Coastal LA County 1 072 358 3 2.1 358 0.101 0.084 0.057 0 0 1 1 1 360 92.8 70.2 19.8 329 40.0 6.0 4 South Coastal LA County 2 077 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 6 West San Fernando Valley 074 365 3 2.6 295 0.122 0.091 0.086 0 0 19 11 40 365 75.0 56.0 16.7 -- -- -- 7 East San Fernando Valley 069 364 3 2.4 317 0.111 0.084 0.076 0 0 4 3 11 359 82.0 64.3 24.1 233* 14.9 4.1 8 West San Gabriel Valley 088 355 3 2.0 325 0.101 0.081 0.075 0 0 3 1 6 355 71.0 63.0 19.6 -- -- -- 9 East San Gabriel Valley 1 060 355 3 1.3 356 0.104 0.081 0.075 0 0 3 5 10 364 77.2 59.6 18.5 -- -- -- 9 East San Gabriel Valley 2 591 360 2 1.3 350 0.124 0.099 0.090 0 0 20 25 48 360 78.5 55.5 15.4 -- -- -- 10 Pomona/Walnut Valley 075 365 3 1.8 342 0.115 0.082 0.076 0 0 4 9 20 365 97.0 72.5 26.2 -- -- -- 11 South San Gabriel Valley 085 364 2 1.9 358 0.112 0.086 0.059 0 0 1 1 1 364 79.0 65.4 22.9 -- -- -- 12 South Central LA County 112 353 6 3.6 358 0.081 0.062 0.050 0 0 0 0 0 364 76.8 68.8 17.9 -- -- -- 13 Santa Clarita Valley 090 355 2 1.1 331 0.126 0.105 0.087 0 1 23 18 44 364 59.3 54.2 14.3 -- -- --

ORANGE COUNTY
16 North Orange County 3177 356 3 1.8 351 0.118 0.096 0.071 0 0 1 2 4 333 82.5 61.6 20.1 -- -- -- 17 Central Orange County 3176 358 3 2.0 331 0.104 0.088 0.060 0 0 1 1 1 364 73.3 61.1 17.5 -- -- -- 18 North Coastal Orange County 3195 364 2 2.1 353 0.097 0.076 0.060 0 0 1 1 2 364 70.0 56.0 11.3 348 9.5 2.1 19 Saddleback Valley 3812 362 1 0.9 353 0.117 0.082 0.069 0 0 2 2 2 -- -- -- -- --

RIVERSIDE COUNTY
22 Norco/Corona 4155 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 23 Metropolitan Riverside County 1 4144 364 3 1.8 341 0.128 0.098 0.092 0 1 47 31 78 333 64.5 57.0 16.8 349 17.6 4.6 23 Metropolitan Riverside County 2 4146 355 3 1.7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 361 60.8 51.5 17.2 -- -- -- 23 Mira Loma 4165 360 3 1.9 324 0.121 0.094 0.090 0 0 38 22 63 365 62.2 50.3 15.1 -- -- -- 24 Perris Valley 4149 -- -- -- 343 0.122 0.107 0.099 0 0 50 42 82 -- -- -- -- -- 25 Lake Elsinore 4158 363 1 0.6 355 0.107 0.091 0.086 0 0 24 15 42 363 51.2 40.6 10.1 -- -- -- 29 Banning Airport 4164 -- -- -- 328 0.124 0.107 0.099 0 0 60 31 84 365 65.7 53.2 11.6 -- -- -- 30 Coachella Valley 1** 4137 365 2 0.5 361 0.114 0.099 0.092 0 0 52 23 83 365 45.7 39.0 8.5 -- -- -- 30 Coachella Valley 2** 4157 -- -- -- 348 0.100 0.087 0.084 0 0 19 7 47 -- -- -- -- --

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY --
32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 5175 353 2 1.8 349 0.131 0.097 0.090 0 1 39 31 59 365 78.9 58.0 20.4 -- -- -- 33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 5817 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 34 Central San Bernardino Valley 1 5197 359 3 1.4 350 0.143 0.100 0.094 0 2 33 28 55 363 71.9 64.8 23.1 330* 6.6 1.6 34 Central San Bernardino Valley 2 5203 326 2 1.7 354 0.129 0.105 0.095 0 1 40 27 63 365 69.2 56.6 18.8 -- -- -- 35 East San Bernardino Valley 5204 -- -- -- 363 0.128 0.112 0.097 0 1 61 43 86 -- -- -- -- -- 37 Central San Bernardino Mountains 5181 -- -- -- 364 0.142 0.123 0.109 0 6 74 52 101 -- -- -- -- -- 38 East San Bernardino Mountains 5818 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- DISTRICT MAXIMUM 6 3.6 0.143 0.123 0.109 0 6 74 52 101 97.0 72.5 26.2 40.0 6.0 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN 6 3.6 0.143 0.123 0.109 0 7 102 79 131 97.0 72.5 26.2 40.0 6.0 ppm - Parts Per Million parts of air, by volume ppb – Parts Per Billion parts of air, by volume AAM = Annual Arithmetic Mean -- - Pollutant not monitored ** Salton Sea Air Basin • In 2010, the State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards were met for the gaseous pollutants CO, NO2 and SO2 at all District regular monitoring sites, listed above. a) - The federal 8-hour standard is 8-hour average CO > 9 ppm and state 8-hour standard is 8-hour average CO > 9.0 ppm. The federal and state 1-hour standards are 35 ppm and 20 ppm. b) - The NO2 federal 1-hour standard is 100 ppb and the annual standard is annual arithmetic mean NO2 > 0.0534 ppm. The state 1-hour and annual standards are 0.18 ppm and 0.030 ppm. c) - The federal SO2 1-hour standard is 75 ppb (0.075 ppm). The state standards are 1-hour average SO2 > 0.25 ppm and 24-hour average SO2 > 0.04 ppm. • Revised/New Standards in 2010:
-- U.S. EPA established the new NO2 1-hour federal standard of 100 ppb (0.100 ppm), effective April 7, 2010. -- U.S. EPA revised the SO2 federal standard by establishing the new 1-hour standard of 75 ppb (0.075 ppm) and revoking the existing annual (0.03 ppm) and 24-hour (0.14 ppm) standards, effective August 2, 2010.

South CoastAir Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 www.aqmd.gov 2010
2010 AIR QUALITY
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MAAGEMET DISTRICT
Source/Receptor Area
No. Location
Station
No.

Suspended Particulates PM10 d) Fine Particulates PM2.5 e) Particulates TSP f) Lead f) Sulfate f) No.

Days of Data
Max. Conc. in µg/m324-hour
No. (%) Samples
Exceeding Standards Annual
Average
Conc.
(AAM)
µg/m3
No.

Days of Data
Max. Conc. in µg/m324-hour
98thPercentile
Conc. in µg/m324-hour
No. (%)
Samples
Exceeding
Fzederal Std
> 35 µg/m3
24-hour
Annual
Average
Conc.
(AAM)
µg/m3
No.

Days of Data c)
Max. Conc. in µg/m324-hour
Annual
Average
Conc.
(AAM)
µg/m3
Max. MonthlyAverageConc. µg/m3
Max. QuarterlyAverageConc.µg/m3
Max. Conc. in µg/m3 24-hour
No. Days
Exceeding
State Std
≥ 25 µg/m3
24-hour
Federal
> 150
µg/m3
24-hour
State
> 50
µg/m3
24-hour

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
1 Central LA 087 56 42 0 0 27.1 335 39.2 27.1 2(0.6%) 11.9 53 105 53.3 0.02 0.01 9.1 0 2 Northwest Coastal LA County 091 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 59 82 40.8 -- -- 7.5 0 3 Southwest Coastal LA County 820 55 37 0 0 20.6 -- -- -- -- -- 55 85 36.7 0.01 0.01 9.7 0 4 South Coastal LA County 1 072 58 44 0 0 22.0 338 35.0 28.3 0 10.5 60 129 45.5 0.01 0.01 11.8 0 4 South Coastal LA County 2 077 59 76 0 2(3.4%) 27.3 351 33.7 26.5 0 10.4 57 130 50.8 0.01 0.01 12.2 0 6 West San Fernando Valley 074 -- -- -- -- -- 100 40.7 30.4 1(1.0%) 10.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 7 East San Fernando Valley 069 55 51 0 1(1.8%) 29.6 322 43.7 31.8 4(1.2%) 12.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 8 West San Gabriel Valley 088 -- -- -- -- -- 97 35.2 24.0 0 10.2 58 58 36.4 -- -- 7.7 0 9 East San Gabriel Valley 1 060 55 70 0 5(9.1%) 29.8 93 44.4 35.4 1(1.1%) 10.9 53 136 58.2 -- -- 6.4 0 9 East San Gabriel Valley 2 591 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 10 Pomona/Walnut Valley 075 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 11 South San Gabriel Valley 085 -- -- -- -- -- 117 34.9 32.0 0 12.5 59 265 86.1 0.02 0.01 8.5 0 12 South Central LA County 112 -- -- -- -- -- 111 38.2 31.8 1(0.9%) 12.5 58 94 49.2 0.01 0.01 7.8 0 13 Santa Clarita Valley 090 57 40 0 0 21.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ORANGE COUNTY
16 North Orange County 3177 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 17 Central Orange County 3176 57 43 0 0 22.4 331 31.7 25.2 0 10.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 18 North Coastal Orange County 3195 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 19 Saddleback Valley 3812 58 34 0 0 18.1 116 19.9 17.3 0 8.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- --

RIVERSIDE COUNTY
22 Norco/Corona 4155 61 50 0 0 27.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 23 Metropolitan Riverside County 1 4144 122 75 0 7(5.7%) 32.8 351 46.5 32.0 4(1.1%) 13.2 60 131 64.3 0.01 0.01 6.7 0 23 Metropolitan Riverside County 2 4146 -- -- -- -- -- 115 43.7 27.3 2(1.7%) 11.0 59 88 45.0 0.01 0.01 5.0 0 23 Mira Loma 4165 60 89 0 25(41.7%) 42.3 340 54.2 36.1 8(2.4%) 15.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 24 Perris Valley 4149 61 51 0 1(1.6%) 28.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 25 Lake Elsinore 4158 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 29 Banning Airport 4164 60 55 0 1(1.7%) 21.8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 30 Coachella Valley 1** 4137 61 37 0 0 18.7 111 12.8 12.6 0 6.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 30 Coachella Valley 2** 4157 119 107 0 6(5%) 29.3 112 16.0 12.2 0 6.8 -- -- -- -- -- -- --

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 5175 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 59 86 46.7 0.01 0.01 10.1 0 33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 5817 60 87 0 3(5%) 31.8 112 46.1 31.2 1(0.9%) 13.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 34 Central San Bernardino Valley 1 5197 53 62 0 9(17%) 33.9 112 42.6 30.8 2(1.8%) 12.0 61 142 73.3 -- -- 6.3 0 34 Central San Bernardino Valley 2 5203 59 63 0 3(5.1%) 32.4 119 39.3 29.7 2(1.7%) 11.1 60 106 57.7 0.01 0.01 11.4 0 35 East San Bernardino Valley 5204 58 57 0 1(1.7%) 25.8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 37 Central San Bernardino Mountains 5181 57 39 0 0 18.9 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 38 East San Bernardino Mountains 5818 -- -- -- -- -- 53 35.4 27.5 0 8.4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- DISTRICT MAXIMUM 107 0 25 42.3 54.2 36.1 8 15.2 265 86.1 0.02 0.01 12.2 0 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN 89 0 34 42.3 54.2 36.1 13 15.2 265 86.1 0.02 0.01 12.2 0 ** Salton Sea Air Basin µg/m3 - Micrograms per cubic meter of air AAM = Annual Arithmetic Mean -- - Pollutant not monitored • In 2010, Particulate Matter concentrations met the Ambient Air Quality Standard levels for the federal PM10 Standard, the State and Federal Lead Standards, and the State Sulfate standard at the regular monitoring sites, listed above. d) - PM10 samples were collected every 6 days at all sites except for Station Numbers 4144 and 4157, where samples were collected every 3 days. The Federal annual PM10 standard (AAM > 50 µg/m3) was revoked in 2006.

State standard is annual average (AAM) > 20 µg/m3.
e) - PM2.5 samples were collected every 3 days at all sites except for station numbers 069, 072, 077, 087, 3176, 4144 and 4165, where samples were taken daily, and station number 5818 where samples were taken every 6 days.

Federal annual PM2.5 standard is annual average (AAM) > 15.0 µg/m3. State standard is annual average (AAM) > 12.0 µg/m3. f) - TSP Particulate, Lead and Sulfate samples were taken every 6 days at all sites monitored. • Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) continuous monitoring instruments were operated at some of the above locations for PM10 and PM2.5 monitoring. The Federal Reference Method (FRM) data is used for the above statistics.

For information on the current standard levels and most recent revisions please refer to the previous year “Air Quality” summary card or access the “Ambient Air Quality Standards“ chart at http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf.

Maps showing the source/receptor area boundaries can be accessed via the Internet by entering your address in the AQMD Current Hourly Air Quality Map, accessed from http://www2.aqmd.gov/webappl/gisaqi2/VEMap3D.aspx or at http://www.aqmd.gov/map/MapAQMD2.pdf . A map is also available free of charge from the AQMD Public Information Center at 1-800-CUT-SMOG. 2010
Printed on
Recycled
Paper
2011 AIR QUALITY
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MAAGEMET DISTRICT
Carbon
Monoxide a) Ozone itrogen Dioxide b) Sulfur Dioxide c) No. Days Standard Exceeded
Source/Receptor Area
No. Location
Station
No.

No.

Days of Data
Max Conc.
in
ppm
8-hour
No.

Days of Data
Max. Conc. in
ppm
1-hour
Max. Conc. in
ppm
8-hour
Fourth High Conc.
ppm
8-hour
Health Advisory≥ 0.15
ppm
1-hour
Old
Federal
> 0.124
ppm
1-hour
Current
Federal
> 0.075
ppm
8-hour
Current
State
> 0.09
ppm
1-hour
Current
State
> 0.070
ppm
8-hour
No.

Days of Data
Max Conc. in
ppb
1-hour
98th
Percentile
Conc.
ppb
1-hour
Annual
Average
AAM
Conc.
ppb
No.

Days
of Data
Max. Conc. in
ppb
1-hour
99th
Percentile
Conc.
ppb
1-hour

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
1 Central LA 087 365 2.4 365 0.087 0.065 0.060 0 0 0 0 0 365 109.6 67.0 23.1 331 19.8 11.0 2 Northwest Coastal LA County 091 360 1.3 360 0.098 0.068 0.061 0 0 0 2 0 360 81.3 58.2 13.9 -- -- -- 3 Southwest Coastal LA County 820 364 1.8 360 0.078 0.067 0.062 0 0 0 0 0 365 97.6 64.8 13.4 365 11.5 8.3 4 South Coastal LA County 1 072 365 2.6 363 0.073 0.061 0.059 0 0 0 0 0 365 106.4 67.6 17.7 365 14.8 10.7 4 South Coastal LA County 2 077 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4 South Coastal LA County 3 033 354 3.3 360 0.074 0.063 0.057 0 0 0 0 0 359 90.0 74.0 21.2 350 43.3 24.7 6 West San Fernando Valley 074 355 2.8 365 0.130 0.103 0.091 0 3 26 17 35 359 56.1 53.8 14.9 -- -- -- 7 East San Fernando Valley 069 365 2.4 364 0.120 0.084 0.081 0 0 6 8 10 365 67.8 56.2 22.1 363 9.0 5.2 8 West San Gabriel Valley 088 365 2.2 365 0.107 0.084 0.077 0 0 5 5 13 359 87.3 72.8 20.3 -- -- -- 9 East San Gabriel Valley 1 060 365 1.4 365 0.111 0.092 0.082 0 0 12 13 19 356 79.5 65.1 19.0 -- -- -- 9 East San Gabriel Valley 2 591 362 1.1 362 0.134 0.111 0.095 0 4 30 35 40 361 77.6 53.9 12.9 -- -- -- 10 Pomona/Walnut Valley 075 364 1.6 364 0.119 0.096 0.086 0 0 16 15 24 364 87.3 66.7 24.6 -- -- -- 11 South San Gabriel Valley 085 365 2.4 362 0.096 0.074 0.061 0 0 0 1 1 362 90.6 72.5 23.7 -- -- -- 12 South Central LA County 112 364 4.7 362 0.082 0.065 0.061 0 0 0 0 0 361 75.4 65.3 18.6 -- -- -- 13 Santa Clarita Valley 090 363 0.8 363 0.144 0.122 0.101 0 3 30 31 52 360 60.1 46.8 13.3 -- -- --

ORANGE COUNTY
16 North Orange County 3177 365 2.1 365 0.095 0.074 0.069 0 0 0 1 3 365 69.8 60.7 17.7 -- -- --17 Central Orange County 3176 365 2.1 365 0.088 0.072 0.064 0 0 0 0 1 365 73.8 60.8 16.8 -- -- -- 18 North Coastal Orange County 3195 344 2.2 360 0.093 0.077 0.063 0 0 1 0 2 350 60.5 52.8 10.0 357 7.7 4.8 19 Saddleback Valley 3812 365 0.8 365 0.094 0.083 0.074 0 0 2 0 5 -- -- -- -- -- --

RIVERSIDE COUNTY
22 Norco/Corona 4155 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 23 Metropolitan Riverside County 1 4144 365 1.4 365 0.128 0.115 0.106 0 4 67 52 92 359 63.3 56.5 16.6 365 51.3 12.5 23 Metropolitan Riverside County 2 4146 365 1.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 364 57.1 50.4 16.9 -- -- -- 23 Mira Loma 4165 361 1.4 362 0.126 0.104 0.096 0 1 36 32 63 364 58.8 51.8 15.3 -- -- -- 24 Perris Valley 4149 -- -- 364 0.125 0.112 0.094 0 2 54 44 77 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 25 Lake Elsinore 4158 365 0.7 365 0.133 0.106 0.092 0 1 28 19 45 365 50.3 41.3 9.6 -- -- -- 26 Temecula 4031 -- -- 355 0.105 0.085 0.073 0 0 14 1 27 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 29 Banning Airport 4164 -- -- 362 0.127 0.111 0.100 0 3 41 35 59 350 60.7 50.2 9.5 -- -- --30 Coachella Valley 1** 4137 350 0.6 350 0.124 0.098 0.092 0 0 49 21 69 350 44.7 39.4 8.0 -- -- -- 30 Coachella Valley 2** 4157 -- -- 360 0.099 0.090 0.085 0 0 19 3 42 -- -- -- -- -- -- --

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 5175 365 1.3 365 0.145 0.122 0.098 0 5 36 36 45 353 68.5 60.1 19.6 -- -- -- 33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 5817 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 34 Central San Bernardino Valley 1 5197 365 1.1 365 0.144 0.124 0.105 0 5 39 39 53 365 76.4 64.6 21.1 365 12.3 7.2 34 Central San Bernardino Valley 2 5203 365 1.7 365 0.135 0.121 0.101 0 2 39 40 66 365 61.9 52.9 16.9 -- -- -- 35 East San Bernardino Valley 5204 -- -- 364 0.151 0.133 0.113 1 7 80 64 96 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 37 Central San Bernardino Mountains 5181 -- -- 360 0.160 0.136 0.106 1 8 84 58 103 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 38 East San Bernardino Mountains 5818 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- DISTRICT MAXIMUM 4.7 0.160 0.136 0.113 1 8 84 64 103 109.6 74.0 24.6 51.3 24.7 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN 4.7 0.160 0.136 0.113 1 16 106 90 125 109.6 74.0 24.6 51.3 24.7 ppm - Parts Per Million parts of air, by volume ppb – Parts Per Billion parts of air, by volume AAM = Annual Arithmetic Mean -- - Pollutant not monitored ** Salton Sea Air Basin a) - The federal 8-hour standard (8-hour average CO > 9 ppm) and state 8-hour standard (8-hour average CO > 9.0 ppm) were not exceeded. The federal and state 1-hour standards (35 ppm and 20 ppm) were not exceeded either. b) - The NO2 federal 1-hour standard is 100 ppb and the annual standard is annual arithmetic mean NO2 > 0.0534 ppm (53.4 ppb). The state 1-hour and annual standards are 0.18 ppm (180 ppb) and 0.030 ppm (30 ppb). c) - The federal SO2 1-hour standard is 75 ppb (0.075 ppm). The state standards are 1-hour average SO2 > 0.25 ppm (250 ppb) and 24-hour average SO2 > 0.04 ppm (40 ppb).

Maps showing the source/receptor area boundaries can be accessed via the Internet by entering your address in the AQMD Current Hourly Air Quality Map, accessed from http://www2.aqmd.gov/webappl/gisaqi2/VEMap3D.aspx or at http://www.aqmd.gov/map/MapAQMD2.pdf . A map or copy of the AQMP Appendix II is also available free of charge from the AQMD Public Information Center at 1-800-CUT-SMOG. 2011
South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 www.aqmd.gov 2011 AIR QUALITY
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MAAGEMET DISTRICT
Suspended Particulates PM10 d) Fine Particulates PM2.5 f) Particulates TSP Lead h) PM10 Sulfate i) No.

Days
of Data
Max. Conc. in µg/m324-hour
No. (%) Samples
Exceeding Standards Annual.

Average
Conc. e)
(AAM)
µg/m3
No.

Days of Data
Max. Conc. in µg/m324-hour
98thPercentileConc. in µg/m324-hour
No. (%)
Samples
Exceeding
Federal Std
> 35 µg/m3
24-hour
Annual.

Average
Conc.
(AAM)
µg/m3
No.

Days of Data
Max. Conc. in µg/m324-hour
Annual.

Average
Conc.
(AAM)
µg/m3
Max. MonthlyAverageConc. µg/m3
Max. 3-MonthsRolling Averagesµg/m3
Max. QuarterlyAverageConc.µg/m3
No.

Days of Data
Max. Conc. in µg/m3 24-hour
Source/Receptor Area
No. Location
Station
No.

Federal
> 150
µg/m3
24-hour
State
> 50
µg/m3
24-hour

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
1 Central LA 087 59 53 0 1(2%) 29.0 331 49.3 31.5 4(1.2%) 13.0 60 84 53.7 0.012 0.011 0.011 58 8.0 2 Northwest Coastal LA County 091 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 59 155 49.3 -- -- -- -- -- 3 Southwest Coastal LA County 820 58 41 0 0 21.7 -- -- -- -- -- 55 69 36.1 0.008 0.005 0.005 58 5.9 4 South Coastal LA County 1 072 60 43 0 0 24.2 340 39.7 27.8 1(0.3%) 11.0 61 91 44.0 0.010 0.007 0.007 59 6.1 4 South Coastal LA County 2 077 60 50 0 0 28.7 346 42.0 26.6 3(0.9%) 10.7 56 81 43.9 0.013 0.009 0.009 60 5.9 4 South Coastal LA County 3 033 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 6 West San Fernando Valley 074 -- -- -- -- -- 117 39.8 23.6 1(0.9%) 10.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 7 East San Fernando Valley 069 55 61 0 2(4%) 28.4 321 47.8 33.5 5(1.6%) 13.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- 54 7.4 8 West San Gabriel Valley 088 -- -- -- -- -- 97 43.8 29.8 1(1.0%) 10.8 59 74 44.1 -- -- -- -- -- 9 East San Gabriel Valley 1 060 61 65 0 9(15%) 32.7 118 g) 49.5 g) 26.9 g) 1(0.8%) g) 11.4 g) 57 154 72.5 -- -- -- 60 6.6 9 East San Gabriel Valley 2 591 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 10 Pomona/Walnut Valley 075 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 11 South San Gabriel Valley 085 -- -- -- -- -- 114 41.2 31.5 1(0.9%) 12.5 59 140 64.4 0.011 0.010 0.010 -- -- 12 South Central LA County 112 -- -- -- -- -- 110 35.3 31.5 0 13.0 57 112 52.8 0.014 0.010 0.010 -- -- 13 Santa Clarita Valley 090 58 45 0 0 20.8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 58 6.1

ORANGE COUNTY
16 North Orange County 3177 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 17 Central Orange County 3176 60 53 0 2(3%) 24.8 352 39.2 28.1 2(0.6%) 11.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 60 6.5 18 North Coastal Orange County 3195 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 19 Saddleback Valley 3812 61 48 0 0 19.2 110 33.4 28.8 0 8.6 -- -- -- -- -- -- 61 4.8

RIVERSIDE COUNTY
22 Norco/Corona 4155 59 60 0 2(3%) 27.6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 56 5.1 23 Metropolitan Riverside County 1 4144 112 82 0 14(13%) 33.7 352 60.8 31.0 4(1.1%) 13.6 60 107 62.7 0.007 0.007 0.007 119 5.1 23 Metropolitan Riverside County 2 4146 -- -- -- -- -- 112 51.6 28.0 2(1.8%) 11.8 59 83 43.8 0.007 0.006 0.006 -- -- 23 Mira Loma 4165 59 79 0 25(42%) 41.3 343 56.3 36.6 8(3%) 15.3 -- -- -- -- -- -- 58 5.4 24 Perris Valley 4149 60 65 0 3(5%) 29.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 58 4.4 25 Lake Elsinore 4158 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 26 Temecula 4031 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 29 Banning Airport 4164 59 51 0 1(2%) 19.3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 59 4.4 30 Coachella Valley 1** 4137 61 g) 42 g) 0 g) 0 g) 18.5 g) 114 26.3 12.5 0 6.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 61 4.4 30 Coachella Valley 2** 4157 119 g) 106 g) 0 g) 3(3%) g) 28.5 g) 111 35.4 15.6 0 7.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- 110 5.7

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
32 Northwest San Bernardino Valley 5175 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 58 94 47.2 0.009 0.008 0.007 -- -- 33 Southwest San Bernardino Valley 5817 60 70 0 3(5%) 30.8 118 52.9 35.3 2(1.7%) 13.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- 60 5.5 34 Central San Bernardino Valley 1 5197 60 84 0 4(7%) 31.8 109 60.1 28.2 2(1.8%) 12.6 54 131 64.7 -- -- -- 59 6.0 34 Central San Bernardino Valley 2 5203 58 56 0 3(5%) 31.5 101 65.0 32.5 2(2%) 12.2 61 97 51.4 0.008 0.007 0.007 59 5.5 35 East San Bernardino Valley 5204 58 71 0 2(3%) 24.9 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 57 4.9 37 Central San Bernardino Mountains 5181 59 43 0 0 19.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 57 4.0 38 East San Bernardino Mountains 5818 -- -- -- -- -- 55 30.7 30.6 0 8.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- DISTRICT MAXIMUM 106 0 25 41.3 65.0 36.6 8 15.3 155 72.5 0.014 0.011 0.011 8.0 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN 84 g) 0 35 41.3 65.0 36.6 17 15.3 155 72.5 0.014 0.011 0.011 8.0 ** Salton Sea Air Basin µg/m3 - Micrograms per cubic meter of air AAM = Annual Arithmetic Mean -- - Pollutant not monitored d) - Federal Reference Method (FRM) PM10 samples were collected every 6 days at all sites except for Stations 4144 and 4157, where samples were collected every 3 days. PM10 statistics listed above are for the FRM data only. Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) PM10 continuous monitoring instruments were operated at some of the above locations. Max 24-hour average PM10 at sites with FEM monitoring was 152 µg/m3, at Mira Loma (155 µg/m3 is needed to exceed the PM10 standard). e) - Federal annual PM10 standard (AAM > 50 µg/m3) was revoked in 2006. State standard is annual average (AAM) > 20 µg/m3.f) - PM2.5 samples were collected every 3 days at all sites except for station numbers 069, 072, 077, 087, 3176, 4144 and 4165, where samples were taken daily, and station number 5818 where samples were taken every 6 days. PM2.5 statistics listed above are for the FRM data only. FEM PM2.5 continuous monitoring instruments were operated at some of the above locations. Max 24-hour average PM2.5 concentration recorded at FEM sites was 73.1 µg/m3, at Mira Loma. Federal annual PM2.5 standard is annual average (AAM) > 15.0 µg/m3. State standard is annual average (AAM) > 12.0 µg/m3. g) - High PM10 and PM2.5 data samples excluded in accordance with the EPA Exceptional Event Regulation due to the special events (i.e., high wind, firework activities, etc.) are as follows: PM10 (FRM) on August 28 at Indio (323 µg/m3); and PM2.5 (FRM) on July 5 at Station 060 (94.6 µg/m3). Also, the following high PM10 FEM data were excluded: July 3 (396 and 344 µg/m3) and August 28 (265 and 375 µg/m3), both dates recorded at Stations 4137 and 4157, respectively. h) – Federal lead standard is 3-months rolling average > 0.15 µg/m3; state standard is monthly average ≥ 1.5 µg/m3. Lead statistics listed above are for population-oriented sites only; standards were not exceeded at any of these sites. Lead standards were exceeded at source-oriented monitoring sites immediately downwind of stationary lead sources. Maximum monthly and 3-month rolling averages at source-oriented sites were 0.51 µg/m3 and 0.46 µg/m3, respectively. i) – State sulfate standard is 24-hour ≥ 25 µg/m3. There is no federal standard for sulfate.

Printed on
Recycled
Paper
2011
Lyons Avenue/Dockweiler Road Extension Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Appendix D
Biological Resources Assessment
Biological Resources Assessment, Jurisdictional
Delineation, and Impact Assessment
Dockweiler Road Extension Project
Santa Clarita, California
Prepared for:

Parker Environmental Consultants
25000 Avenue Stanford, Suite 209
Santa Clarita, California 91355
Prepared by:

Impact Sciences, Inc.
803 Camarillo Springs Road, Suite C
Camarillo, California 93012
April 2015
Impact Sciences, Inc. i Dockweiler Road Extension Project 1186.001 April 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page

1.0 Summary .......................................................................................................................................................1

2.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................1

3.0 Methods .........................................................................................................................................................1

3.1 Project Site Descriptions ................................................................................................................1

3.2 Literature Search ............................................................................................................................1

3.3 Field Surveys ..................................................................................................................................4

4.0 Results ............................................................................................................................................................5

4.1 General.............................................................................................................................................5

4.2 Literature Search ............................................................................................................................5

4.3 Field Surveys ..................................................................................................................................6

5.0 Project Impacts ............................................................................................................................................17

5.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 17

5.2 Direct Impacts ...............................................................................................................................17

5.3 Significance Threshold Criteria ..................................................................................................19

5.4 Indirect Impacts ............................................................................................................................24

6.0 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................................26

6.1 Direct Impacts ...............................................................................................................................26

7.0 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................................................................30 Appendices
A Special-Status Plant Species Recorded from the Project Vicinity B Special-Status Wildlife Species Recorded from the Project Vicinity C Jurisdictional Delineation Report

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Project Location ............................................................................................................................................3 2 Vegetation Communities .............................................................................................................................8

LIST OF TABLES
Figure Page
1 Survey Details Table ....................................................................................................................................4 Biological Resources Assessment and Jurisdictional Delineation Impact Sciences, Inc. 1 Dockweiler Road Extension Project 1186.001 April 2015

1.0 SUMMARY
The proposed project involves the extension of Dockweiler Drive from the Masters College site generally northward, connecting with the existing Arch Street at its intersection with Placerita Canyon Road and 12th Street. In addition, the proposed project includes a road extension that would connect the proposed Dockweiler Drive extension with Lyons Avenue. This extension would include a proposed bridge crossing of Newhall Creek (Figure 1). The proposed bridge will be comprised of four 25-foot-wide and 8-foot-deep openings in a concrete box bridge at the crossing of the Newhall Creek channel and the channel improvement to trapezoidal sections with 80-foot-wide soft base and 2:1 slopes. Elevations on the project site range from approximately 1,260 to 1,285 feet and the project site totals approximately

6.67 acres. Approximately 2 acres of this area is already paved or otherwise developed.

2.0 INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the methods and results of a literature search and field investigations conducted by Impact Sciences, Inc. These investigations focused on the identification of biological resources existing or potentially occurring on the project site.

The purpose of this report is to provide the project applicant, the City of Santa Clarita (City), and reviewing regulatory agencies information regarding current on-site biological resources, the suitability of on-site habitats to support sensitive biological resources, and analyze impacts to these resources should the project be implemented.

3.0 METHODS

3.1 Project Site Descriptions
Due to the irregular shape of the proposed project, several terms are used to describe the project site in this report. “Project site” is defined as the disturbance area associated with the proposed project inclusive of the road right-of-way and adjacent areas disturbed by grading. “Project area” includes the project site as well as a 200 foot buffer occurring on either side of the grading limit line. The “project region” includes the Newhall, California US Geologic Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle, in which the project site is located, as well as the following eight surrounding quadrangles: Mint Canyon, Green Valley, Warm Springs Mountain, Whitaker Peak, Val Verde, Santa Susana, Oat Mountain, and San Fernando.

3.2 Literature Search
Prior to any field investigations, documentation pertinent to biological resources that may occur on and near the proposed project site were reviewed and analyzed. Data sources reviewed included: (1) the Biological Assessment
Impact Sciences, Inc. 2 Dockweiler Road Extension Project 1186.001 April 2015
Federal Register listing package for the federally listed species known to occur in the area;1 (2) literature pertaining to habitat requirements of sensitive species potentially occurring on the project site; (3) the most recent updates of California Natural Diversity Data Base2 (CNDDB) information regarding sensitive species potentially occurring on and near the project site; and (4) the most recent updates of the California Native Plant Society3 (CNPS) database. The CNPS database query focused on the project region and as such, included the Newhall, California USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle, in which the project site is located, as well as the surrounding Mint Canyon, Green Valley, Warm Springs Mountain, Whitaker Peak, Val Verde, Santa Susana, Oat Mountain and San Fernando quadrangles.

Additional information pertinent to biological resources that may occur within the project site, area, and region was also reviewed and analyzed. The following documents and sources of information included the following.
 Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D. H. Wilken, editors. 2012.

The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California. Second Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley.
 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Diversity Database. September 2014. Special Animals List. Periodic publication. 52 pp.
 California Department of Fish and Game (January 2010). Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. Natural Heritage Division, Natural Diversity Data Base.  California Department of Fish and Game (September 2010). Natural Communities List. Available at:
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/vegcamp/pdfs/natcomlist.pdf  California Department of Fish and Game, Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations. September 2010. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/vegcamp/ natural_comm_list.asp
 Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. (FWS/OBS-79/31.) US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.  Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: California (Region 0). (Biological Report 88[26.10].) US Fish and Wildlife Service, Ft. Collins, Colorado.

1 US Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Animal Candidate Review for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species; Proposed Rule Federal Register 50, CFR Part 17. US Department of the Interior.

Washington, DC. 1996.
2 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB).

Commercial Version, Update September 2, 2014.
3 California Native Plant Society. Accessed September 2, 2014. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. Sacramento, CA. Web site. Available at: http://cnps.web.aplus.net/cgi-bin/inv/inventory.cgi Project Location
FIGURE 1
1186.001•03/15 n
SOURCE: USGS, October 2014

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
812 4060 812
Legend:

Project Location
Biological Assessment
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4 Dockweiler Road Extension Project 1186.001 April 2015
 Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition.

California Native Plant Society, Sacramento. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/vegcamp/ veg_manual.asp

3.3 Field Surveys
On June 17, July 17, and October 10, 2013, on-site field surveys were conducted by Impact Sciences biologists to delineate jurisdictional resources, inventory wildlife and plants, and map vegetation associations that occur within the project site and area. The entire project area was traversed along meandering transects (Table 1). Vegetation associations were mapped in the field using aerial photographs and direct observation.

For the jurisdictional delineation, features within the project area were assessed for indicators of stream, riparian, or wetland functions. Plant taxonomy used in the delineation followed the current flora of California4
Table 1
Survey Details Table
Survey Date Survey Type Time Period Methods Surveyors
6/17/2013 Jurisdictional
Delineation
0800–1400 Walking transects, soil evaluation test pits, stream channel measurements
Dr. Edith Read
7/17/2013 Wildlife Survey 0800–1500 Walking transects within and adjacent to project limits. Visual and audible
identifications.

Dave Crawford
10/10/2013 Vegetation Mapping 1230–1830 Walking transects, utilization of aerial photographs
Damini Sindhar
Nomenclature in this report is based on the following resources:

Plants:
 Munz, P. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.  Hickman, J.C. (Ed.). 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. Berkeley, California:

University of California Press.
 Baldwin, B 2012: The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, 2nd edition. Berkeley, California:

University of California Press.

4 Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D. H. Wilken, editors. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California.2
nd Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Biological Assessment
Impact Sciences, Inc. 5 Dockweiler Road Extension Project 1186.001 April 2015
 Jepson Flora Project (eds.) 2013. Jepson eFlora, http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/IJM.html, accessed on June 5 and Oct 4, 2013.

Wildlife:
 Reptiles and amphibians: The Center for North American Herpetology Academic Portal to North American Herpetology: http://www.cnah.org/index.asp
 Birds: The American Ornithologists’ Union Check-list of North American Birds:
http://www.aou.org/checklist/north/full.php
 Mammals: The Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History List of North American Mammals:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/mna/main.cfm or CNDDB when specific subspecies are listed.

Although focused special-status plant surveys were not conducted specifically for this project, they were conducted in spring of 2014 on the adjacent Masters College site situated to the east and included the eastern portion of this project’s boundaries. Similarly, focused US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocol surveys for California gnatcatcher were performed on the adjacent Master’s College site and the survey reach did extend to the west and included all suitable habitats within the project area associated with the proposed Dockweiler Road extension project.

4.0 RESULTS

4.1 General
As described, the proposed project involves the extension of Dockweiler Drive from the Masters College site generally northward, connecting with the existing Arch Street at its intersection with Placerita Canyon Road and 12th Street. In addition, the proposed project includes a road extension that would connect the proposed Dockweiler Drive extension with Lyons Avenue. This extension would include a proposed bridge crossing of Newhall Creek (Figure 1). As described above, elevations on-site range from approximately 1,260 to 1,285 feet and the project site totals approximately 2.32 acres.

Existing land uses in the vicinity of the project site include railroad tracks and a train station to the south, industrial and commercial development to the southwest, west, and northwest and north. Rural residential land uses occur to the northeast and undeveloped open space occurs east of the project site.

4.2 Literature Search
The literature search indicated several special-status plant and wildlife species have been recorded from the project region. Only observed species and those with a moderate to high potential of occurrence on the project site or area are described in this report. However, all species defined within a nine-quad search, including the project site, are presented, and analyzed in the Special Status Species Tables (Appendices A and B).

Biological Assessment
Impact Sciences, Inc. 6 Dockweiler Road Extension Project 1186.001 April 2015
Special status species include species listed as endangered, threatened, or rare under the federal or state Endangered Species Acts, Candidate Species for listing as endangered or threatened, California Fully Protected Species, and, pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15380(d), all other species tracked by the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) which are considered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to be those species of greatest conservation concern. Plant species with a California Rare Plant Rank (Rank) of 1 (plants presumed extinct in California, or rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere), Rank 2 (plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere), or Rank 4 (plants of limited distribution in California) are included in this definition. Plant species with a Rare Plant Rank of 3 (plants for which insufficient information is available to determine their status) are not included in this definition. Species tracked by the CNDDB are listed in CDFW’s lists of Special Plants and Special Animals.

4.3 Field Surveys

4.3.1 Vegetation Communities
Seven distinct native vegetation communities were identified within the project site. In descending order of prevalence, these include chamise chaparral, rubber rabbitbrush scrub, scale broom/mulefat scrub, California sagebrush/California buckwheat scrub, scale broom scrub, coast prickly pear scrub, and narrow-leaf willow thicket. Developed and disturbed areas were also mapped, and include developed/ornamental landscaping, cleared/disturbed areas, exotic trees, and components of the native plant communities listed above (Figure 2). Each of these vegetation communities is described below.

Chamise Chaparral (Adenostoma fasciculatum) Alliance (1.64 acres) This is the dominant native vegetation association within the project site. This community is dominated by chamise along with gray California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum var. polifolium), occasional chaparral yucca (Hesperoyucca whipplei). This alliance dominates the southeastern portion of the site and includes a small pocket of coast prickly pear cactus scrub (Opuntia littoralis).

Disturbed Chamise Chaparral (0.32 acre)
An area of Disturbed Chamise Chaparral Alliance also occurs in the southeastern portion of the site, adjacent to cleared/disturbed areas.

Biological Assessment
Impact Sciences, Inc. 7 Dockweiler Road Extension Project 1186.001 April 2015
Rubber Rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa) Scrub Alliance (0.74 acre) This Alliance is dominated by rubber rabbitbrush, along with occasional big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) and California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) and occurs in three areas of the site. Rubber rabbitbrush is a fast-growing shrub that develops quickly after disturbance.

Scalebroom–Mulefat Scrub (Lepidospartum squamatum–Baccharis salicifolia Shrubland Alliance) (0.43 acre)
Scalebroom-mulefat scrub occurs on the banks (0.32 acre) and in the active channel of Newhall Creek (0.11 acre). Dominant plants present within this alliance include scalebroom and mulefat, occurring together in densities ranging from 10 percent to 40 percent cover. Figure 2 illustrates the separation, but for the purposes of this discussion, it is considered one habitat.

Vegetation is sparse within the Newhall Creek channel. The most common species include scalebroom and mulefat, together resulting in less than 10 percent cover. With the exception of a small cluster of narrow-leaf willow (described below), the creek channel is characterized as a scoured sandy streambed.

California Sagebrush-California Buckwheat Scrub (Artemisia californica-Eriogonum fasciculatum Shrubland Alliance) (0.18 acre)
The area identified as California Sagebrush-California Buckwheat Scrub supports approximately 80 percent native cover where it occurs on a south-facing slope above Newhall Creek in the southwestern portion of the project site. Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf describe this plant community as Artemisia californicaEriogonum fasciculatum Shrubland Alliance since the dominant shrub is California sagebrush and the codominant shrub is California buckwheat. Other shrubs present include chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), black sage (Salvia mellifera), non-native grasses and forbs such as wild oats (Avena sp.), and brome (e.g., Bromus sp.).

Disturbed California Sagebrush-California Buckwheat Scrub (1.28 acres) An additional area of disturbed California Sagebrush-California Buckwheat Scrub occurs near the center of the site. This community has undergone disturbance in the recent past, evidenced by the sparse nature of the vegetation and influx of non-native species. Remnants of California sagebrush and California buckwheat remain, though the area is now co-dominated by non-native grasses and forbs including summer mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca) and yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis). The weedy native cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) is also present.

Vegetation Communities
FIGURE 2
1186.001•04/15
n
SOURCE: Google Inc., October 2014, Imagery December 2013

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
284 142 0 284
Legend:

Project Site
California Sagebrush/California Buckwheat Scrub
Disturbed California Sagebrush/California Buckwheat Scrub Scale Broom - Mulefat Scrub
Scalebroom Scrub
Active Channel (Scalebroom - Mulefat Scrub
Cleared/Disturbed
Developed/Ornamental Landscaping
Narrow-Leaf Willow Thicket
Rubber Rabbitbrush Scrub
Exotic Trees
California Live Oak
Federal Jurisdiction
State Jurisdiction
Chamise Chaparral
Disturbed Chamise Chaparral
Coast Prickly Pear Scrub
Biological Assessment
Impact Sciences, Inc. 9 Dockweiler Road Extension Project 1186.001 April 2015
Scalebroom Scrub (Lepidospartum squamatum Shrubland Alliance) (0.02 acre) Areas dominated by scalebroom are present on both sides of Newhall Creek in the south-western portion of the project site within a relatively flat area. This community includes a few scattered mulefat and big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) shrubs.

Coast Prickly Pear Scrub - Opuntia littoralis Shrubland Alliance (0.015 acre) One small patch of coast prickly pear is found in the extreme southeast extent of the property, surrounded entirely by chamise chaparral.

Narrow-Leaf (Sandbar) Willow Thickets - Salix exigua Shrubland Alliance (0.007 acre) Narrow-leaf willows occur in a small stand (25 feet x 12 feet) within the alignment of the proposed bridge. While this species is a wetland indicator, other wetland indicators are absent. The vegetation occurs on the opposite side of Newhall Creek from the ephemeral tributary, and likely receives periodic dry-season runoff from streets to the west.

Coast Live Oak (0.008 acre)
Two coast live oak trees (Quercus agrifolia) occur along with one blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea) immediately adjacent to and outside the development limits along Newhall Creek, north of the proposed bridge location.

Developed/Ornamental Landscaping (1.98 acre)
These areas support structures, pavement, or non-native ornamental landscaping associated with development. This is the second largest vegetation association within the project site. Two small clusters of non-native locust trees (Robinia sp.) are situated within the project site, between the railroad tracks and Newhall Creek in the southern portion of the project site, and occupy approximately 178 square feet (0.004 acre). These exotic (non-native) either volunteered or where planted. This species is considered undesirable because of its tendency to invade natural areas where it may out-compete native plants.

Cleared/Disturbed Areas (0.46 acre)
This area occurs in several small locations generally in the southern portion of the site. These areas are nearly devoid of vegetation, supporting mostly open bare soil.

Biological Assessment
Impact Sciences, Inc. 10 Dockweiler Road Extension Project 1186.001 April 2015

4.3.2 Wildlife
Weather during the surveys was warm and clear, providing conditions suitable for high wildlife activity.

However, due to the relatively small size of the project site and area, combined with the presence of nearby urban development and the associated human disturbance, wildlife diversity on the project site is relatively low. The only reptile observed on site was side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana). Tracks, scat, burrows, and other sign observed indicate the presence of California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) and Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae). Common bird species recorded during the field surveys included mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), California towhee (Melozone crissalis), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), and Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya). All of these species are relatively tolerant of human encroachment. Several additional avian species are expected to occur on site seasonally. Small rodents including Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) and deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) are likely present and evidence of California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) and evidence of coyote (Canis latrans) were observed.

4.3.3 Wildlife Movement
Habitat used by wildlife as a movement corridor generally link large areas of open space that are otherwise separated by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, human disturbance, or the encroachment of urban development. The fragmentation of natural habitat creates isolated ‘islands’ of vegetation that may not individually provide sufficient area to accommodate sustainable populations and can adversely impact genetic and species diversity. Corridors mitigate the effects of this fragmentation by: (1) allowing animals to move between remaining habitats, which allows depleted populations to be replenished and promotes genetic exchange with separate populations; (2) provide escape routes from fire, predators, and human disturbances, thus reducing the risk that catastrophic events (such as fire, flood, or disease) will result in population or species extinction; and (3) serving as travel paths for animals that require larger home ranges to meet their normal requirements of food, water and cover.

The proposed project site is generally surrounded on three sides by development, including road networks. However, Newhall Creek provides a passage through the developed areas between the Santa Clara River and the Angeles National Forest to the southeast.

Stream corridors in general are considered important movement corridors for wildlife, because they provide water, food, and often cover by riparian vegetation for protection from predators. On and near the proposed project site Newhall Creek does not flow year-round. Riparian vegetation on the project site is limited to sparse shrubs, and steep banks on the project site also limit available cover. However, Newhall Creek does provide, as stated above, a connection between the Santa Clara River and the Angeles National Forest to the southeast. Although, much of the length of the creek occurs adjacent to Biological Assessment
Impact Sciences, Inc. 11 Dockweiler Road Extension Project 1186.001 April 2015
dense development and wildlife activity is expected to be somewhat limited, Newhall Creek is considered part of a wildlife movement or migration corridor that connects larger areas of natural open space.

4.3.4 Special-Status Plant and Animal Resources
Based upon review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) database for special-status plant species of the Newhall, California and eight adjacent quadrangles, 37 special-status plant and 39 special-status animal species have been reported from the region.

The potential for special-status species to occur on the project site is based on the proximity of the project site to previously recorded occurrences in the CNDDB database, habitat requirements of each species, evaluation of on-site vegetation and habitat quality, topography, elevation, soils, surrounding land uses, and geographic ranges of special-status plant and wildlife species known to occur in the region. Potential special-status plant species that may occur on project site is summarized in Appendix A, Special-Status Plant Species Recorded from the Project Region. Likewise, special status wildlife species recorded in the region that may occur on the project site are summarized in Appendix B, Special-Status Wildlife Species Recorded from the Project Region.

The occurrence potential described in Appendices A and B are classified according to the following:

Not Expected: There is no suitable habitat present on the proposed project site (i.e., habitats on the proposed project site are clearly unsuitable for the species requirements [e.g., foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation hydrology, plant community, disturbance regime, etc.]). The species has an extremely low probability of being found on the proposed project site and no further surveys are required.

Low Potential: Either significantly limited quantity and/or quality of suitable habitat is present on the proposed project site (i.e., not enough area of the habitat is present to support the species, few of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present and/or the majority of habitat on the proposed project site is unsuitable or of very low quality). There are no or few recent known records of occurrence in the near vicinity of the proposed project site. The species has a low probability of being found on the proposed project site and no further surveys are required.

Moderate Potential: Some suitable habitat is present on the proposed project site (i.e., some of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present and/or the quantity the habitat on the proposed project site is marginal). Additionally, there are known records of occurrences in the region of the proposed project site, but not necessarily in the immediate vicinity. The species has a moderate probability of being found on the proposed project site and additional surveys may be required.

High Potential: Suitable quantity and quality of habitat is present on the proposed project site (i.e., all habitat components meeting the species requirements are present and/or habitat(s) on the proposed project site is highly suitable or of high quality). Additionally, there are recent known Biological Assessment
Impact Sciences, Inc. 12 Dockweiler Road Extension Project 1186.001 April 2015
records of occurrences in the vicinity of the proposed project site. Species having a high probability of being found on the proposed project site may require additional surveys to fully determine presence/absence.

Present: Species was observed on the proposed project site during surveys associated with this report or by other persons.

4.3.4.1 Special-Status Plants
Based on habitat conditions and the small size of the proposed project site, only general botanical surveys were conducted on project site and area. Focused rare plant surveys were performed adjacent to and east of the project site. The only special-status plants observed during the field investigations were two coast live oaks. No other special-status plants are considered to have a high potential for occurrence within the project site.

Native oak trees are protected under City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Ordinance (Ordinance No. 89-10 passed by the City Council on April 25, 1989). A permit is required for encroachment into the Protected Zone, defined as 5 feet outside the dripline and further defined as extending no less than 15 feet outward from the trunk of an oak tree.

4.3.4.2 Special-Status Wildlife
No special-status wildlife species were directly observed during field investigations conducted on the proposed project site or area. Although Newhall Creek traverses the project site, it is considered a seasonal drainage, and it is apparent within the project site, when flows do occur, they are rapid enough to scour the channel. Therefore, none of the special-status fish defined in Appendix B are expected to occur on site, with the possible exception of a potential temporary presence after storm events. Likewise, aquatic conditions are not suitable for special-status amphibians defined in Appendix B. In most areas of the proposed project site the banks of Newhall Creek are too severe for amphibians to traverse. As such, they too are expected to have no more than a low potential for occurrence. Some of the more highly motile species such as birds and bats may briefly and infrequently occur on site to forage. However, there is no on-site habitat of a size or quality that could reasonably support a sustainable resident population of any of the special-status wildlife species identified in Appendix B. Notwithstanding, one special-status reptile is considered to have a moderate potential to occur on site.

Silvery legless lizard (Anniella pulchra pulchra), California Species of Special Concern. This small lizard is often mistaken for a snake or worm since, as it has no limbs. Silvery legless lizard spends most of its life below surface soils where it forages on insects and larvae. It is most commonly found in and around the roots of trees and shrubs, often beneath leaf litter where its prey is most abundant. Moisture is a key ingredient in its habitat requirement. Silvery legless lizards will dig deeper into the soils to reach the Biological Assessment
Impact Sciences, Inc. 13 Dockweiler Road Extension Project 1186.001 April 2015
correct moisture level. As such, this species is rarely observed unless one actively seeks it out. Though apparently very dry at the surface, some of areas within the project site may have sub-surface soils with the moisture content necessary to support this species. Therefore silvery legless lizard is considered to have a moderate potential for occurrence on the proposed project site.

4.3.5 Jurisdictional Waters, Streambed, and Riparian Resources The portion of Newhall Creek present on the proposed project site is under the jurisdictional authority of federal and state regulatory agencies. Impacts to “Waters,” streambeds and adjacent riparian vegetation, as defined in the regulations cited below, typically require authorizations from these agencies. Regulatory agencies and the limits of their jurisdiction are discussed below.

4.3.5.1 US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Federal regulations of “Waters of the United States” stem from Section 10 of the Federal Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, enacted to regulate activities within navigable waters. In 1972, the federal Clean Water Act was passed. This act regulates discharges into Waters of the United States and Section 404 of this act regulates activities including fills placed into wetlands that are adjacent to navigable waters.

Waters of the United States are defined in 33 CFR 328.3(a) as:
 All waters that are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.  All interstate waters including interstate wetlands.
 All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters.  Waters that are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.  Waters from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.  Waters that are used or could be used for industrial purpose by industries in interstate commerce.  All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as Waters of the US under the definition.  The territorial seas.
 Tributaries of Waters of the US.
 Wetlands adjacent to Waters of the US.

Biological Assessment
Impact Sciences, Inc. 14 Dockweiler Road Extension Project 1186.001 April 2015
USACE jurisdiction in non-tidal waters typically extends to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM).

The OHWM for intermittent streams, for example, can be determined by “the fluctuations of water as indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural lines impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas” (33 CFR 328.3(e)). In arid areas of the southwest, the OHWM may occur at a lower level than where the typical physical indicators are present, due to unusually high flows not occurring on a typical annual cycle (Allen, et al. 2001). Most impacts to areas delineated as Waters of the United States, if determined to be jurisdictional by the USACE, require a project to obtain approval under the authority of the Clean Water Act and its implementing regulations.

4.3.5.2 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) The State of California regulates water resources under Sections 1600 to 1619 of the Fish and Game Code of California. Section 1602 mandates that:

An entity may not substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake or dispose of debris, waste, or other material where it may pass into any river stream, or lake.

Unless certain requirements are met, CDFW considers most natural drainages to be streambeds unless it can be demonstrated otherwise. Streambeds are defined in the California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 1, Section 1.72 as follows:

A stream is a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and that support fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation.

CDFW jurisdiction includes ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial watercourses, and is often extended to the limit of riparian habitats that are located contiguous to the water resource that function as part of the watercourse system. In this analysis, the area generally corresponding to the limit of riparian habitats located contiguous to the water resource is referred to as the “resource line.” Section 2785(e) of the Fish and Game Code of California states:

Riparian habitat means lands which contain habitat which grows close to and which depends on soil moisture from a nearby freshwater source.

4.3.5.3 Regional Water Quality Control Board
Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act authorizes the State of California to certify federal permits and licenses. The state’s implementing regulations to conduct certifications are codified under the California Biological Assessment
Impact Sciences, Inc. 15 Dockweiler Road Extension Project 1186.001 April 2015
Code of Regulations Title 23 Waters, Sections 3830–3869. Projects qualifying for an USACE Section 404 Permit must submit materials for review to the appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and request a Section 401 Certification. Much of the same information (project description, potential impacts, and mitigation measures) necessary to apply for USACE Section 404 and Fish and Game Code Section 1603 Permits is required for the Section 401 Certification.

Direct and indirect impacts on wetland and riparian areas may also be subject to the jurisdiction of several additional state and federal agencies, including the Los Angeles RWQCB.

4.3.6 Delineation Results
A delineation of regulatory agency jurisdictional limits was performed in September 2013 (Appendix C).

A map illustrating the topography of the region, as well as photographs showing the project site are provided in Appendix C. Figure 4 shows the vegetation and jurisdictional features in the survey area.

Two jurisdictional features are defined within the project site, area, and region:

1. Newhall Creek, upstream of its confluence with Placerita Creek and the south fork of the Santa Clara River. This creek is mapped by the USGS as a “blue-line” intermittent stream. On and near the project site the direction of flow is from southeast to northwest. Banks of the creek are nearly vertical, with the south bank containing artificial fill (pieces of concrete and asphalt). Railroad tracks and Railroad Avenue are situated to the west, beyond the top of the bank. Areas immediately east of the creek are vacant except for an industrial yard northeast of the proposed bridge location. No surface water was present during the April survey and sparse vegetation cover within the channel indicates frequent scour during the rainy season. Therefore, this wetland feature on the project site is best described as intermittent riverine, relatively permanent water (RPW) that has seasonal continuous flow, is a tributary to the Santa Clara River which flows into the Pacific Ocean, and can be defined as a traditionally navigable water (TNW).

On the project site, vegetation and surface features indicate that seasonal flows migrate across the entire channel, which averages 35 feet in width at the base (federal jurisdiction). The distance between the tops of the banks (limits of state jurisdiction) average approximately 100 feet.

No indicators of prolonged water saturation or ponding, such as surface mud cracks, were observed on site during the field survey.

2. Un-named ephemeral tributary to Newhall Creek. This narrow tributary is about 3.5 feet in width at its base (federal jurisdiction) and is entirely within state jurisdiction over Newhall Creek. It is assumed that flow from this tributary enters the project area from a culvert underneath the railroad tracks and Railroad Avenue (this could not be confirmed during the survey due to presence of a homeless camp at the presumed culvert location). The distinct bed and bank structure of this feature, and regional topography, indicate this tributary is more than a “gully” resulting from localized erosion. Wetland indicators are absent from this feature.

Biological Assessment
Impact Sciences, Inc. 16 Dockweiler Road Extension Project 1186.001 April 2015
Appendix C provides details regarding the vegetation occurring within the delineation survey boundaries. Of the vegetation identified in this area, only narrow-leaf willow thicket is a wetland indicator (Salix exigua – Facultative Wet). However, it is concluded that this thicket is probably not a jurisdictional wetland at the federal or state level. More detail is provided in the discussion that follows.

4.3.7 Wetland Determination

4.3.7.1 Federal
Hydrology and soils present in the project area and site (floodplains/gravel bars and sand) are naturally problematic for wetland delineation. The following paragraphs include excerpts (in italics) from the Arid West supplement5 of the wetland determination procedure for problematic sites where soils may meet the definition of a hydric soil but do not exhibit typical indicators. Our observations are described for each step of the procedure.

1. Verify that one or more indicators of hydrophytic vegetation are present or that the vegetation is disturbed or problematic. If so, proceed to step 2.

Site observations: Narrow-leaf willow has an indicator ranking for the Arid West of Facultative Wetland. Therefore, it can be concluded hydrophytic vegetation is present.

2. Verify that at least one primary or two secondary indicators of wetland hydrology are present or that indicators are absent due to disturbance or other factors. If so, proceed to step 3. If indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and/or wetland hydrology are absent, then the area is probably no-wetland and no further analysis is required.

Site observations: No other primary indicators of wetland hydrology are present. Only one secondary indicator of wetland hydrology (dominance of Facultative Wet vegetation) is present.

Based on this information, and the observation that redoximorphic soil features are sparse and, where present, are faintly expressed, it can be concluded that the willow thicket (300 square feet or 0.007 acre) is probably not a federally jurisdictional wetland. Unfortunately, the Arid West procedure does not allow for a more definitive conclusion.

4.3.7.2 State
According to the wetland definition at the state level, it is concluded that the narrow-leaf willow thicket would not meet the definition of wetland. While narrow-leaf willow is a hydrophyte, there is no evidence of continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate and no evidence of anaerobic conditions are present.

5 USACE, 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version

2.0). Report No. ERDC/EL TR-08-28, issued September 2008.

Biological Assessment
Impact Sciences, Inc. 17 Dockweiler Road Extension Project 1186.001 April 2015

4.3.8 Non-Wetland Jurisdiction
The proposed bridge will impact Newhall Creek in a section of the creek that is classified as “riverine and relatively permanent water, with continuous flow at least seasonally.” The bridge may also impact a narrow, ephemeral tributary to Newhall Creek. The extent of permanent and temporary construction impacts need to be known in order to provide a more precise analysis of impacts.

5.0 PROJECT IMPACTS

5.1 Methodology
Direct impacts of a proposed project on biological resources typically involve the loss, modification, or disturbance of natural habitat (i.e., plant communities or other naturally occurring areas) which in turn, directly and indirectly affect plant and wildlife species dependent on that habitat. The significance of potential impacts on biological resource is determined by an evaluation of the overall biological value of a habitat area in comparison with significance threshold criteria that are described below. The relative value of each of the plant communities present on site is measured by such factors as disturbance history, biological diversity, importance to particular plant and wildlife species, uniqueness or sensitivity status, as well as the surrounding environment and the presence of special-status resources. The significance of impacts with respect to direct impacts on individuals or populations of plant and animal species takes into consideration the number of individual plants or animals potentially affected, how common or uncommon the species is both on the project site and from a regional perspective, and the sensitivity status if the species is considered special status by resource agencies. These factors are evaluated based on the results of on-site biological surveys and studies, results of literature and database reviews, and established and recognized ecological and biodiversity theories and assumptions.

5.2 Direct Impacts

5.2.1 Vegetation
As described in Section 4.3.1, eight vegetation communities occur on the project site that include:

California Sagebrush-California Buckwheat Scrub, Disturbed California Sagebrush- California Buckwheat Scrub, Scale Broom–Mulefat scrub, Scalebroom Scrub, Active Channel, Exotic Trees, Developed/Ornamental Landscaping, and Cleared (Figure 2). Site grading plans indicate that within the project site 2.32 acres of vegetation would be removed (100 percent of the vegetation resources present).

Of the vegetation communities impacted Disturbed California Sagebrush-California Buckwheat Scrub is the dominant plant community present by area and approximately 0.63 acre of this habitat would be lost through site grading and project implementation.

Biological Assessment
Impact Sciences, Inc. 18 Dockweiler Road Extension Project 1186.001 April 2015
Due to its proximity to adjacent developed areas, the site has been subject to historic disturbances.

Combined with its small size (2.32 acres), invasive plant species observed on the project site (e.g., mustard, tree tobacco, cocklebur, yellow star thistle) indicate a high percentage of plants that are generally associated with ruderal or highly disturbed places.

The loss of 2.32 acres of vegetation on the project site is considered adverse. However, due to the disturbance history, its small size, the lack of sensitive plant communities, the lack of structure for wildlife, and high percentage of invasive and non-native plant species generally associated with disturbed areas, impacts associated with the loss of 2.32 acres of vegetation present on-site is considered less than significant.

5.2.2 Wildlife
Construction activity and grading operations of the proposed project would disturb and/or threaten the survival of common wildlife species present. Some species would be expected to relocate to other areas of similar habitat within the local area. However, wildlife that migrates to off-site areas is vulnerable to mortality by predation, potential conflicts with people and cars, and unsuccessful competition for food and territory. It is expected that species of low mobility (particularly small mammals, amphibians, and reptiles) would be lost during site preparation, grading, and construction.

Site grading and project implementation would eliminate approximately 2.32 acres of natural habitat present on-site, and would result in an incremental reduction in native wildlife species abundance and diversity. However, due to nearby urban development and the associated human disturbance, field investigations indicate wildlife diversity and abundance on the project site is relatively low. The only reptile observed on site was side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana). Tracks, scat, burrows, and other sign observed indicate the presence of California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) and Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae). Small rodents including deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) are likely also present and evidence of coyote (Canis latrans) was observed. Common bird species recorded during the field surveys included mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), California towhee (Melozone crissalis), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), and Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya). All of these species are relatively tolerant of human encroachment. Several additional avian species are expected to occur on site seasonally. Because of the relatively common occurrence of these wildlife species that would be displaced or lost, project implementation is not expected to cause a current wildlife population on or adjacent to the project site to drop below self-sustaining levels. Therefore, impacts to common wildlife species is not considered significant.

Biological Assessment
Impact Sciences, Inc. 19 Dockweiler Road Extension Project 1186.001 April 2015

5.3 Significance Threshold Criteria
The City of Santa Clarita’s Environmental Guidelines are the City’s Thresholds of Significance for the purpose of CEQA. Because these guidelines incorporate all minimum thresholds of significance identified in the State CEQA Guidelines, thresholds of significance defined in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines are not repeated here.

5.3.1 City of Santa Clarita Environmental Guidelines/Thresholds of Significance According to the City of Santa Clarita Environmental Guidelines, a project would have a significant effect on the environment if it would:
 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 CDFW or USFWS;
 have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS;  have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;  interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;
 conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or
 conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state Habitat Conservation Plan.

The first five criteria in the Santa Clarita Environmental Guidelines are addressed in the Direct Impacts analysis provided below. The sixth criterion is not relevant to the proposed project, because the project site is not located within an area defined as a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan.

5.3.2 Consistency with Defined Thresholds of Significance

5.3.2.1 Threshold 1
Will the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS?
Biological Assessment
Impact Sciences, Inc. 20 Dockweiler Road Extension Project 1186.001 April 2015
Analysis
An assessment of biological resources present on the project site determined that one special-status wildlife species has a moderate potential to occur within the project site and could be directly impact through project implementation.

Silvery legless lizard is a California species of special concern. On the project site, some limited habitat suitable for this species is present in the sandier terraces of Newhall Creek and possibly within the areas of scrub habitat north of the creek.

This species is almost completely fossorial (i.e., occurring beneath the surface) and is dependent upon moisture levels in the soils where they live. During dry periods they will burrow deeper to find the necessary levels of moisture. As such, silvery legless lizard can be difficult to find, especially in dry seasons or years. Although sands within the Newhall Creek bed may currently be suitable for silvery legless lizard, they are unlikely to occur within the creek itself as it periodically supports storm flows and would scour any away legless lizards that could be seeking refuge. Therefore, the only suitable habitat remaining is a small area above the ordinary high water mark, north of the creek. This area may support individual species of silvery legless lizard, but is not likely to support a sustainable population.

The grading plan indicates the areas north of the site would be disturbed during grading and project construction. Although it can be concluded that bridge construction associated with the proposed project would not impact populations of silvery legless lizard, disturbances associated with grading and implementation of the road extension may impact individuals of this California species of special concern. Therefore, impacts are considered significant without mitigation.

Additionally, most native bird species when nesting, are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code, which prohibit the take (defined as destroy, harm, harass, etc.) of bird nests with eggs or young. Project-related activities associated with site preparation and construction could result in the direct loss of active nests or the abandonment of active nests by adult birds should grading occur during the nesting season. The loss of active bird nests would be in conflict with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code. As such, impacts to active nests are a significant impact without mitigation.

Conclusion
Without mitigation, the project could result in potentially significant impacts to silvery legless lizard and active nesting birds. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would reduce impacts to silvery legless lizard and nesting birds to a less than significant level.

Biological Assessment
Impact Sciences, Inc. 21 Dockweiler Road Extension Project 1186.001 April 2015

5.3.2.2 Threshold BIO-2
Will the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS? Analysis
Riparian habitat or other habitat defined as significant does not occur on the project site or within the project area.

Conclusion
Given that riparian habitat is not present on site direct impacts would not occur and impacts are not considered significant. No mitigation is proposed or is required.

5.3.2.3 Threshold BIO-3
Will the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Analysis
Based on field investigations, a small area of narrow-leaf willow thicket (300 square feet or 0.007 acre) is present. Where it occurs on-site, redoximorphic soil features are sparse and faintly expressed and as such the narrow-leaf willow thicket present on the project site is probably not a federally jurisdictional wetland. Further, according to the wetland definition at the state level, narrow-leaf willow thicket present on-site would not meet the criteria of wetland as defined by the State of California. While narrow-leaf willow is a hydrophyte, there is no evidence of continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate and no evidence of anaerobic conditions are present.

Two jurisdictional features do occur within the project site and area. Newhall Creek and a small ephemeral drainage that is a tributary to Newhall Creek occur on the project site and fall under the jurisdiction of the CDFW. Although these jurisdictional do not support riparian vegetation or sensitive wetland resources, Newhall Creek does support features that lie within the jurisdiction of CDFW.

As discussed in above, the proposed bridge and associated infrastructure would result in both temporary and permanent impacts to areas of the Newhall Creek and its associated tributary and are classified as “riverine and relatively permanent water, with continuous flow at least seasonally” and as such are Biological Assessment
Impact Sciences, Inc. 22 Dockweiler Road Extension Project 1186.001 April 2015
under CDFW jurisdiction. Without consultation with, and a formal agreement with CDFW, such impacts would be in violation of the Fish and Game Code and, are considered a significant impact.

Conclusion
Without mitigation, the project would result in potentially significant impacts to CDFW jurisdictional resources (i.e., Newhall Creek and its associated tributary). Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would reduce impacts to jurisdictional resources to a less than significant level.

5.3.2.4 Threshold BIO-4
Would the project, interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites
Analysis
The proposed project site is generally surrounded on three sides by development and road networks.

However, Newhall Creek does extend through the site and provides a passage through developed areas between the Santa Clara River and the Angeles National Forest to the southeast.

Though much of the length of the creek occurs adjacent to dense development and wildlife activity is expected to be somewhat limited, Newhall Creek is considered part of a wildlife movement or migration corridor that connects larger areas of natural open space.

To limit impacts to wildlife movement, an open span bridge is proposed where the proposed roadway extension crosses Newhall Creek. As designed, this bridge would not result in any barrier to wildlife movement and would serve to protect Newhall Creek as a functioning wildlife movement corridor.

Conclusion
The project as proposed would not result in significant impacts to wildlife movement. No mitigation measures are proposed or are required.

Biological Assessment
Impact Sciences, Inc. 23 Dockweiler Road Extension Project 1186.001 April 2015

5.3.2.5 Threshold BIO-5
Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.

Analysis
The City of Santa Clarita Open Space Element includes several goals that focus on the preservation and protection of biological resources. Each relevant goal is defined below followed by an analysis of the consistency of this project with that goal of the Open Space Element.

Goal 3: Goal 3 of the Santa Clarita General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element is “to protect significant ecological resources and ecosystems, including, but not limited to, sensitive flora and fauna habitat areas.”
Consistency: Riparian habitat or other sensitive biological habitat does not occur on the project site or within the project area. As such, no impact to riparian or sensitive other sensitive biological resources would occur as a result of project implementation. The project is consistent with Goal 3 of the City of Santa Clarita Open Space Element.

Policy 3.1: Incorporate standards for a Significant Ecological Areas (SEA) Overlay Zone in the Municipal Zoning Code.

Consistency: The project site does not occur in an area defined by the City of Santa Clarita as a Significant Ecological Area (SEA). Given that this project would not disturb any portion of a defined SEA the project is considered consisted with Policy 3.1 of the City of Santa Clarita Open Space Element.

Policy 3.2: Encourage the preservation of oak woodlands, oak savannahs, and individually significant oak trees through enforcement and revisions to the Oak Tree Ordinance.

Consistency: Oak trees, oak woodlands, or oak savannah do not occur on the project site and none would be directly or indirectly impacted by project implementation. Therefore, the project as proposed is considered consisted with Policy 3.2 of the City of Santa Clarita Open Space Element.

Policy 3.7: Preserve to the extent feasible natural riparian habitat and ensure that adequate setback is provided between riparian habitat and surrounding urbanization.

Biological Assessment
Impact Sciences, Inc. 24 Dockweiler Road Extension Project 1186.001 April 2015
Consistency: Riparian habitat does not occur on the project site or within the project area. As such no impact to riparian habitat would occur as a result of project implementation. The project is consistent with Policy 3.7 of the City of Santa Clarita Open Space Element.

Policy 3.10: Development shall consider to the extent feasible, preservation of wildlife corridors and provide adequate setbacks.

Consistency: The proposed project site is generally surrounded on three sides by development, including road networks. However, Newhall Creek does extend through the site and provides a passage through developed areas between the Santa Clara River and the Angeles National Forest to the southeast.

Stream corridors in general are considered important movement corridors for wildlife, because they provide water, food, and often cover by riparian vegetation for protection from predators. On and near the proposed project site, Newhall Creek does not flow year-round. Riparian vegetation on the project site is limited to sparse shrubs, and steep banks on the project site limit available cover. However, Newhall Creek does provide a connection between the Santa Clara River and the Angeles National Forest. Although, much of the length of the creek occurs adjacent to dense development in the vicinity of the project site, wildlife activity is expected to be somewhat limited. However, Newhall Creek is considered part of a wildlife movement or migration corridor that connects larger areas of natural open space.

To limit impacts to wildlife movement, an open span bridge is proposed where the proposed roadway extension crosses Newhall Creek. As designed, this bridge would eliminate any barrier to wildlife movement and would serve to protect Newhall Creek as a functioning wildlife movement corridor.

Therefore, the project as proposed would not result in direct or indirect impacts to wildlife movement and no mitigation measures are proposed or are required. Therefore, the project is consistent with Policy 3.7 of the City of Santa Clarita Open Space Element.

5.4 Indirect Impacts
Indirect impacts to biological resources would occur in those habitat areas that remain proximal to the project site subsequent to project construction and operation. It is expected that implementation of the proposed project would result in indirect impacts to biological resources in the following ways:
 Construction activity;
 Increase in populations of non-native plant species;
 Increased light and glare;
Biological Assessment
Impact Sciences, Inc. 25 Dockweiler Road Extension Project 1186.001 April 2015
 Stormwater runoff
Indirect impacts associated with the proposed project are not quantifiable but are reasonably foreseeable.

As such, the discussion that follows provides a common-sense identification of the types and magnitude of indirect or secondary impacts such that decision makers and the general public are aware of this project’s indirect impact potential. This type of analysis is consistent with the requirements of CEQA.

5.4.1 Construction Activity
Project construction (particularly site clearing and grading operations and implementation of the road surface) would have the potential to impact surrounding areas including adjacent plant communities and plant and animal species. Specifically, these impacts can include displacement and disturbance of wildlife, which could result in possible nest or den abandonment during the breeding season, siltation and erosion into drainages, excessive dust accumulation on vegetation that could result in the degradation or loss of some plant species, and soil compaction.

Construction-related activities could have adverse effects on plant and wildlife habitat, and together, would be considered a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-4 would reduce these construction-related impacts to levels that are not considered significant.

5.4.2 Increase in Populations of Non-Native Species
Subsequent to project completion, the number of non-native plant and wildlife species occurring in the vicinity of the roadway alignment would be expected to increase. These species are more adapted to urban environments could potentially displace native species because of their ability to compete more effectively for resources. Non-native plants tend to be more adaptable to urban or disturbed settings and can out-compete native plants for available resources.

However, observations indicate historical and ongoing development in the vicinity of the project site have already supported continual and ongoing increases and proliferation of non-native plant and wildlife species populations in the area adjacent to the project site. Consequently, the proposed project is not expected to substantially increase the distribution of non-native plants and wildlife in adjacent open space areas situated to the east.

Therefore, impacts to the remaining natural areas as a result of potential increases in non-native plants and wildlife resulting from project implementation are expected to be less than significant, given compliance with Mitigation Measure BIO-5.

Biological Assessment
Impact Sciences, Inc. 26 Dockweiler Road Extension Project 1186.001 April 2015

5.4.3 Increased Light and Glare
It is logical to assume that nighttime headlamp illumination would increase in areas adjacent to the project site. Nighttime light can disturb breeding and foraging behavior and can potentially alter breeding cycles of birds, mammals, and nocturnal invertebrates. Headlamp illumination could deter some animal species, especially the larger mammals, from using Newhall Creek as a wildlife movement corridor. If uncontrolled, such light could adversely impact the composition and behavior of the animal species that occur in these areas. The project site is currently surrounded on three sides by development, and much of the site and nearby natural area already receives some nighttime illumination from the adjacent urban areas. However, the project would increase light and glare effects proximal to the Newhall Creek corridor. Mitigation Measure BIO-6 would decrease this impact to less than significant.

5.4.4 Stormwater and Urban Runoff
It is expected that stormwater runoff would be limited to pavement runoff during periodic storm events.

Runoff from paved surfaces can increase eutrophication, deplete oxygen levels, increase long-term buildup of toxic compounds and heavy metals, and other adverse effects to biological resources associated with aquatic systems. Although this impact is not quantifiable, it is reasonable to assume runoff could substantially affect special-status species potentially occurring downstream from the project site and incrementally diminish habitat values for fish, wildlife, or plants, and degrade the quality of the environment.

As described above, any runoff that flows into the Newhall Creek could result in increased eutrophication, depleted oxygen levels, long-term build-up of toxic compounds and heavy metals downstream as Newhall Creek connects to the Santa Clara River. Although potentially significant, the City’s standard stormwater requirements are specifically designed to minimize these effects. Therefore, with implementation of the required design criteria, impacts to Newhall Creek resulting from stormwater runoff would be less than significant.

6.0 MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation measures defined in defined below would eliminate impacts associated with this project to levels that are not considered significant.

6.1 Direct Impacts
Mitigation Measures
BIO-1: The applicant shall retain a qualified biologist with a CDFW Scientific Collection Permit and Memorandum of Understanding to conduct preconstruction surveys for the silvery Biological Assessment
Impact Sciences, Inc. 27 Dockweiler Road Extension Project 1186.001 April 2015
legless lizard within the project site and area. In the event this species is located on the project site during preconstruction surveys all individuals shall be relocated, with the concurrence of the City and CDFW, to an approved site with suitable habitat. Surveys and relocation of silvery legless lizard may occur prior to construction; however, focused surveys must occur within 30 days prior to construction. Survey and relocation methods shall be approved by CDFW prior to commencement of grading.

BIO-2: Active nests of native bird species are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 704) and the California Fish and Game Code (Section 3503). If activities associated with construction or grading are planned during the bird nesting/breeding season, generally January through March for early nesting birds (e.g., Coopers hawks or hummingbirds) and from mid-March through September for most bird species, the applicant shall have a qualified biologist conduct surveys for active nests. The project management shall endeavor to avoid the breeding season.

In the event it is not feasible to avoid the nesting season, a qualified biologist shall perform weekly nesting bird surveys beginning 30 days prior to initiation of grounddisturbing activities, with the last survey conducted no more than three days prior to the start of clearance/construction work. If ground-disturbing activities are delayed, additional pre-construction surveys shall be conducted so that no more than three days have elapsed between the survey and ground-disturbing activities.

Surveys shall include examination of natural habitat for nesting birds. Several bird species such as killdeer and night hawks are known to nest on bare ground. Protected bird nests that are found within the construction zone shall be protected by a buffer deemed suitable by a qualified biologist, and verified by CDFW. Typically, a 300-foot buffer is required for most species and a 500-foot buffer for raptor species. Buffer areas shall be delineated with orange construction fencing or other exclusionary material that would inhibit access within the buffer zone. Installation of the exclusionary material delineating the buffer zone shall be verified by a qualified biologist prior to initiation of construction activities. The buffer zone shall remain intact and maintained while the nest is active (i.e., occupied or being constructed by the adults bird(s)) and until young birds have fledged and no continued use of the nest is observed, as determined by a qualified biologist.

Biological Assessment
Impact Sciences, Inc. 28 Dockweiler Road Extension Project 1186.001 April 2015
BIO-3: Prior to project construction, the following is required to mitigate impacts to jurisdictional resources:

Areas of impact proposed by the project shall be calculated and permits for these proposed impacts shall be obtained (the discharge of fill into USACE jurisdictional areas will require a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and a 401 Certification from the State Water Resources Control Board, and any modification to a streambed, including removal of riparian vegetation, will require a streambed alteration agreement from CDFW pursuant to Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code).

Both the streambed alteration agreement and the 401 and 404 permits will require specific mitigations for any impacts within their respective jurisdictions.

Because the proposed bridge is a ‘span’ design, it does not require footings within the bed of the stream.

However, plan designs do include approximately 450 feet of bank stabilization on both sides of the stream that would lie within CDFW, USACE and Regional Water Quality Control Board jurisdiction.

Since little vegetation exists within this drainage, it is uncertain what mitigation these regulatory agencies may require.

The stream in the impacted area would not be conductive to re-vegetation as the area of the project is deeply incised with little existing vegetation and newly planted vegetation would likely be washed away with the next storm event.

Mitigation can be completed off site. Because there is essentially no riparian vegetation being removed with implementation of this project, revegetation off site, in a location approved by the City and CDFW, would be accomplished at a 1:1 area ratio.

Upon City and agency approval of a suitable location, a detailed restoration plan shall be prepared that provides a planting palette, planting methods, and irrigation plan (as appropriate). The plan will also include a five-year monitoring effort to ensure success of the restoration effort. The monitoring plan will include monitoring methods, monitoring frequency, success criteria, and contingency actions should the success criteria not be met for any reason. Annual monitoring reports shall be provided to both CDFW and the City.

Biological Assessment
Impact Sciences, Inc. 29 Dockweiler Road Extension Project 1186.001 April 2015
BIO-4: The following guidelines shall be implemented to minimize impacts on remaining biological resources on the site as a result of construction and grading activities and to ensure that potential impacts on these resources will remain less than significant.

A City-approved biologist shall be retained by the applicant as a construction monitor to ensure that incidental construction impacts on retained biological resources are avoided or minimized. Responsibilities of the construction monitor shall include the following:
 Attend all pre-grading meetings to ensure that the timing and location of construction activities do not conflict with mitigation requirements.  Conduct meetings with the contractor and other key construction personnel, describing the importance of restricting work to within the project boundaries and outside of the preserved areas. The monitor shall also work with the contractor to determine the most appropriate staging/storage areas for equipment and materials.  Guide the contractor in marking/flagging the construction area limits, in accordance with the final approved grading plan.
 Periodically and routinely visit the site during construction to coordinate and monitor compliance with the above provisions.

The construction contractor shall install temporary erosion control measures to reduce impacts to and protect on site drainages from excess sedimentation, siltation, and erosion. These measures shall consist of minimization of existing vegetation removal; the use of temporary soil covers, such as hydro-seeding with native species, mulch/binder and erosion control blankets to protect exposed soil from wind and rain erosion; and/or the installation of silt fencing, berms, and dikes to protect storm drain inlets and drainages.

No changing of oil or other fluids, or discarding of any trash or other construction waste materials shall occur on the project site. Vehicles carrying supplies, such as concrete, shall not be allowed to empty, clean out, or otherwise place materials into natural areas on or immediately adjacent to the site.

Any equipment or vehicles driven and/or operated within or adjacent to drainages shall be checked and maintained daily, to prevent leaks of materials that if introduced to water could be deleterious to aquatic life. No equipment maintenance shall be conducted within the drainage channels or within 50 feet of channels. (Fuel-powered vehicles and equipment shall not be left idling or operated beyond periods needed to accomplish approved tasks.)
Biological Assessment
Impact Sciences, Inc. 30 Dockweiler Road Extension Project 1186.001 April 2015
Construction personnel shall be prohibited from entry into areas outside the designated construction area, except for necessary construction related activities, such as surveying.

All such construction activities in or adjacent to remaining open space areas shall be coordinated with the project biologist.

Standard dust control measures of the South Coast Air Quality Management District shall be implemented to reduce impacts on nearby plants and wildlife. This includes a variety of options to reduce dust including replacing ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as possible, watering active sites regularly, and suspending all excavating and grading operations during periods of high winds.

Upon completion of construction, the contractor shall be held responsible to restore any haul roads, access roads, or staging areas that are outside of approved grading limits.

This restoration shall be done in consultation with the project biologist.

BIO-5: Any landscaping plan(s) associated with the project shall be reviewed by a qualified biologist or resource specialist, who shall recommend appropriate provisions to prevent invasive plant species from colonizing in natural areas. These provisions may include the following: (1) review and screening of proposed plant palette and planting plans to identify and avoid the use of invasive species; (2) weed removal during the initial planting of landscaped areas; and (3) the monitoring for and removal of weeds and other invasive plant species as part of ongoing landscape maintenance activities.

BIO-6: All street lighting shall be downcast luminaries or directional lighting with light patterns directed away from natural areas.

7.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
As discussed, the development of the project site would potentially result in impacts to biological resources if left unmitigated. The outlined mitigation measures would reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. There are no proposed developments in the immediate vicinity of the site. The only exception to this would be the proposed Masters College project situated to the east, which is currently being evaluated. However, the impacts from both the Masters College project and the Dockweiler Road extension that is the subject of this analysis have been previously evaluated as part of the City’s General Plan. The extension of Dockweiler Road would not be growth inducing as this project is consistent with the City’s General Plan for this area. Therefore, development associated with the proposed project and other development in the vicinity of the project site in the City Santa Clarita, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to biological resources.

APPENDIX A
Special-Status Plant Species Recorded From the Project Vicinity Appendix A
Special-Status Plant Species Recorded From the Project Vicinity Scientific and Common Name
Status
Habitat Requirements
Elevation Range,
Life Form, and
Flowering Period Potential Occurrence Federal State CNPS Nevin’s barberry
Berberis nevinii
FE SE 1B.1 Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub,
riparian scrub; sandy or gravelly
274–825 m
S(e)
March–June
Low Potential; subject parcel is in
species’ range and limited suitable
habitat is present. This perennial
shrub was not observed on site.

Potential is low due to it not being
seen and the high level of
disturbance on site.

Round-leaved filaree
California macrophylla
-- -- 1B.1 Cismontane woodland, valley
and foothill grassland; clay soils
15–1200 m
AH
March–May
Not Expected. No suitable habitat
present on site.

Slender mariposa lily
Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis
-- -- 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley
and foothill grassland
360–1,000 m
PH(b)
March–June
Low Potential. Very limited suitable
habitat present on site.

Late-flowered mariposa lily
Calochortus fimbriatus
-- -- 1B.3 Chaparral, cismontane
woodland; riparian woodland;
often serpentinite
275–1,905 m
PH(b)
June–August
Not Expected. No suitable habitat
present on site.

Plummer’s mariposa lily
Calochortus plummerae
-- -- 4.2 Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub, lower
montane coniferous forest,
valley and foothill grassland
within granitic/rocky substrate
100–1,700 m
PH(b)
May–July
Low Potential; Only a small amount
of marginally suitable habitat is
present and the site does not contain
granitic/rocky substrate.

Pierson’s morning-glory
Calystegia peirsonii
-- -- 4.2 Chaparral, chenopod scrub,
cismontane woodland, coastal
scrub, lower montane coniferous
forest, valley and foothill
grassland
30–1,500 m
RH
April–June
Low Potential; Very limited suitable
habitat is present on site. None
observed during general botanical
surveys.

San Fernando Valley spineflower
Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina
FC SE 1B.1 Coastal scrub, valley and foothill
grassland; sandy soils
150–1,220 m
AH
April–July
Low Potential; subject parcel is in
species’ range but typical habitat is
lacking. The plant was not observed
on site.

Parry’s spineflower
Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi
-- -- 1B.1 Coastal scrub, chaparral,
cismontane woodlands, valley
and foothill grassland; sandy or
rocky openings
275–1,220 m
AH
April–June
Low Potential; subject parcel is in
species’ range but typical habitat is
lacking. The plant was not observed
on site.

Scientific and Common Name
Status
Habitat Requirements
Elevation Range,
Life Form, and
Flowering Period Potential Occurrence Federal State CNPS Santa Susana tarplant
Deinandra minthornii
-- CR 1B.2 Chaparral and coastal scrub;
associated with sandstone
outcroppings and rocky areas.
280–760 m
S (d)
July–November
Not Expected. No suitable habitat
present on site.

Slender-horned spineflower
Dodecahema leptoceras
FE SE 1B.1 Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub (alluvial
fan); sandy
200–760 m
AH
April–June
Low Potential. Typical habitat and
alluvial fan soils not present on site.

San Gabriel bedstraw
Galium grande
-- -- 1B.2 Broadleaf upland forest,
chaparral, cismontane
woodland, lower montane
coniferous forest
425–1,500 m
S(d)
January–July
Not Expected. No suitable habitat
present on site.

Palmer’s grapplinghook
Harpagonella palmeri
-- -- 4.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley
and foothill grassland; clay
20–955 m
AH
March–May
Low Potential. Limited suitable
habitat and no suitable clay soils.

Newhall sunflower
Helianthus inexpectatus
-- -- 1B.1 Marshes and swamps, riparian
woodland; freshwater, seeps.

None listed
RH
August–October
Not Expected. No suitable habitat
present on site.

Ross’ pitcher sage
Lepechinia rossii
-- -- 1B.2 Chaparral, in soil derived from
reddish fine-grained
sedimentary rock.
305–790 m
S(e)
May–September
Not Expected. No suitable habitat
present on site.

Robinson’s pepper-grass
Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii
-- -- 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub 1–885 m
AH
January–July
Not Expected. No suitable habitat
present on site.

Davidson’s bush mallow
Malacothamnus davidsonii
1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub,
riparian woodland
185–855 m
S(e)
June–January
Low Potential; subject parcel is in
species’ range and limited suitable
habitat is present. This perennial
shrub was not observed on site.

Potential is low due to it not being
seen and the high level of
disturbance on site.

Spreading navarretia
Navarretia fossalis
FT 1B.1 Chenopod scrub, marshes and
swamps, playas, vernal pools
30–655 m
AH
April–June
Not Expected. No suitable habitat
present on site.

Ojai navarretia
Navarretia ojaiensis
FT -- 1B.1 Chaparral (openings), coastal
scrub (openings), valley and
foothill grassland
275–620 m
AH
May–July
Low Potential; subject parcel is in
species’ range but typical habitat is
lacking. The plant was not observed
on site.

Scientific and Common Name
Status
Habitat Requirements
Elevation Range,
Life Form, and
Flowering Period Potential Occurrence Federal State CNPS Piute Mountains navarretia
Navarretia setiloba
-- -- 1B.1 Cismontane woodland, pinyon
and juniper woodland, valley
and foothill grassland; clay or
gravelly loam
285–2,100 m
AH
April–July
Not Expected. No suitable habitat
present on site.

Short-joint beavertail
Opuntia basilaris var. brachyclada
-- -- 1B.2 Chaparral, Joshua tree
woodland, Mojavean desert
scrub, pinyon and juniper
woodland
425–1,800 m
PSS
April–August
Not Expected. No suitable habitat
present on site.

California orcutt grass
Orcuttia californica
FE SE 1B.1 Vernal pools 15–660 m
AH
April–August
Not Expected. No suitable habitat
present on site.

Chaparral ragwort
Senecio aphanactis
-- -- 2.2 Dry alkaline flats within
cismontane woodland, coastal
scrub.
15–800 m
AH
Jan–April
Not Expected. No suitable habitat
present on site.

Greata’s aster
Symphyotrichum greatae
-- -- 1B.3 Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub on
drying alkaline flats.
15–800 m
AH
Jan–April
Not Expected. No suitable habitat
present on site.

STATUS KEY:

Federal
FE: Federally Endangered
FT: Federally Threatened
FC: Federal Candidate for listing
State
CE: State Endangered
CR: State Rare
CNPS
List 1B: Plants rare and endangered in California and elsewhere List 2: Plants rare, threatened and endangered in CA but more common elsewhere
1: Seriously Endangered in California
2: Fairly Endangered in California
LIFE FORM KEY:

AH: Annual Herb (b): bulb
PH: Perennial Herb (d): deciduous
RH: Rhizomatous Herb (e): evergreen
S: Shrub
PSS: Perennial stem succulent

APPENDIX B
Special-Status Wildlife Species Recorded From the Project Vicinity Appendix B
Special-Status Wildlife Species Recorded From the Project Vicinity Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Habitat Requirements
Potential Occurrence on the Project
Federal State Site

INVERTEBRATES
Monarch butterfly (wintering sites)
Danaus plexippus
-- sa Winter roost sites
located in windprotected tree groves
(gum trees, Monterey
pine, and cypress
trees), with water
sources nearby.

Not Expected. Individual monarchs may
periodically occur, but no suitable
wintering roost sites are present within or
adjacent to survey area.

FISHES
Santa Ana sucker
Catostomus santaanae
FE
(excludes
Santa Clara
River
population)
SSC Rivers and streams Low Potential. May occur temporarily when water is present, though it appears
water only occurs within survey reach
during and shortly after storm events.

Unarmored threespine stickleback
Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni
FE SE Slow-moving or back
water sections of warm
to cool streams
Not Expected. It appears water only
occurs within survey reach during and
shortly after storm events. This species is
not able to swim in swift currents so it is
not expected to be present on site even
when water is present.

Arroyo chub
Gila orcutti
-- SSC Rivers and streams Low Potential. May occur temporarily when water is present, though it appears
water only occurs within survey reach
during and shortly after storm events.

Santa Ana speckled dace
Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 3
-- SSC Rivers and streams Not Expected. This species does not occur within the Santa Clara River
watershed.

Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Habitat Requirements
Potential Occurrence on the Project
Federal State Site

AMPHIBIANS & REPTILES
Arroyo toad
Anaxyrus californicus
FE SSC Semi-arid regions near
washes or intermittent
streams including
valley foothill and
desert riparian
streams. Rivers with
sandy terraces,
riparian trees.

Not Expected. No suitable breeding
pools or adjacent upland habitat is
present within or adjacent to the project
limits.

Western spadefoot
Spea hammondii
-- SSC Open sandy, gravelly
areas in mixed
woodlands,
grasslands, alluvial
fans, playas, vernal
pools where rainpools
do not contain
predators.

Not Expected. No suitable habitat on
site.

California red-legged frog
Rana draytonii
FT SSC Lowlands and foothills
in or near permanent
sources of deep water
with dense, shrubby, or
emergent riparian
vegetation.

Not Expected. No suitable habitat within
or adjacent to proposed project area.

Sierra Madre yellow-legged frog
Rana muscosa
FE SC Lakes, ponds, meadow
streams, isolated pools
and sunny riverbanks.

Not Expected. No suitable habitat within
or adjacent to proposed project area.

Western pond turtle
Emys marmorata
-- SSC Streams, rivers, ponds,
freshwater marshes,
and lakes with growth
of aquatic vegetation.

Not Expected. No suitable habitat within
or adjacent to proposed project area.

Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Habitat Requirements
Potential Occurrence on the Project
Federal State Site
Silvery legless lizard
Anniella pulchra pulchra
-- SSC Sandy or loose loamy
soils under sparse
vegetation. Soil
moisture is essential.

Moderate Potential. Upland areas
relatively disturbed and surrounded by
development. However, species is known
to occur in disturbed habitats.

Coast horned lizard
Phrynosoma blainvillii
-- SSC Relatively open
grasslands,
scrublands, and
woodlands with fine,
loose soil.

Low Potential. Upland areas relatively
disturbed and surrounded by
development. Not typical of occupied
habitat.

Coastal whiptail
Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri
-- sa Open areas in semiarid
grasslands,
scrublands, and
woodlands.

Low Potential. Limited suitable open
scrub areas are present within the
proposed project area. However they are
highly disturbed and are not typical of
occupied habitat.

Rosy boa
Charina trivirgata
-- sa Woodlands, grassland,
chaparral, and scrub
habitats; often found in
mesic areas under
rocks, logs, and debris.

Low Potential. Limited suitable
grassland and remnant scrub areas are
present within the proposed project area.

However they are highly disturbed and
are not typical of occupied habitat.

Two-striped garter snake
Thamnophis hammondii
-- SSC Perennial and
intermittent streams
and man-made lakes
and stock ponds;
requires dense riparian
vegetation.

Not Expected. No suitable habitat within
or adjacent to proposed project area.

BIRDS
Cooper's hawk
Accipiter cooperi
-- WL
(Nesting)
Dense stands of live
oaks and riparian
woodlands.

Low Potential. Species may occur as
infrequent forager, but no suitable
roosting or nesting habitat on site.

So. California rufous-crowned sparrow
Aimophila ruficeps canescens
-- WL
(Nesting)
Chaparral, Coastal
sage scrub.

Low Potential. Very limited suitable
foraging and no suitable nesting habitat
present on site.

Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Habitat Requirements
Potential Occurrence on the Project
Federal State Site
Grasshopper sparrow
Ammodramus savannarum
-- WL Grasslands and
marshes.

Not Expected. No suitable habitat
present on site.

Bell’s sage sparrow
Amphispiza belli belli
-- WL Coastal sage scrub
and chamise
chaparral.

Low Potential. Very limited suitable
foraging and no suitable nesting habitat
present on site.

Burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
-- SSC
(Burrow
sites, some
wintering
sites)
Open, dry annual or
perennial grasslands,
deserts and scrublands
with low-growing
vegetation
Low Potential. Very limited suitable
foraging habitat. Some limited suitable
burrow habitat present upstream on the
north side of the creek in association with
the rip-rap. Occasional migrant could
occur infrequently.

Western yellow-billed cuckoo
Coccyzus americanus occidentalis
FC SE
(Nesting)
Riparian forest nester,
along the broad, lower
flood-bottoms of larger
river systems. Nests in
riparian jungles of
willow, often mixed
with cottonwoods, with
dense understory.

Not Expected. No suitable habitat
present on site.

Yellow warbler
Dendroica petechial brewsteri
-- SSC Riparian Woodland Not Expected. No suitable habitat present on site.

White-tailed kite
Elanus leucurus
-- CFP Open vegetation and
uses dense woodlands
for cover.

Low Potential. Species may occur as
infrequent forager, but no suitable
roosting or nesting habitat on site.

California horned lark
Eremophila alpestris actia
-- WL Grasslands, disturbed
areas, agriculture
fields, and beach
areas.

Low Potential. May occur as infrequent
forager, but surrounding disturbance
likely precludes this species from
occurring.

California condor
Gymnogyps californianus
FE SE Chaparral, valley and
foothill grassland
Not Expected. This species typically
avoids human activity. No suitable
nesting habitat present on site.

Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Habitat Requirements
Potential Occurrence on the Project
Federal State Site
Yellow-breasted chat
Icteria virens
-- SSC
(Nesting)
Riparian forest,
riparian scrub, riparian
woodland
Not Expected. No suitable habitat
present on site.

Loggerhead shrike
Lanius ludovicianus
-- SSC
(Nesting)
Grasslands, open
scrub, disturbed areas,
agriculture fields
Low Potential. May occur as infrequent
seasonal forager. No suitable nesting
habitat present on site.

California gnatcatcher
Polioptila californica
FT SSC Coastal sage scrub in
areas of flat or gently
sloping terrain.

Not Expected. No suitable habitat
present on site.

Bank swallow
Riparia riparia
-- ST
(Nesting)
Riparian scrub, riparian
woodland
Low Potential. May occur as infrequent
seasonal forager. No suitable nesting
habitat present on site.

Least Bell’s vireo
Vireo bellii pusillus
FE SE
(Nesting)
Low riparian scrub in
vicinity of water or in
dry river beds.

Not Expected. No suitable habitat
present on site.

MAMMALS
Spotted bat
Euderma maculatum
-- SSC Variety of habitats from
arid deserts and
grasslands to mixed
coniferous forests;
feeds over water and
washes.

Not Expected. Very limited and seasonal
aquatic foraging habitat and no suitable
roosting habitat present on site.

California leaf-nosed bat
Macrotus californicus
-- SSC Desert riparian, desert
wash, desert scrub,
alkali scrub & pond
oases; rocky terrain
with mines or caves for
roosting.

Not Expected. Very limited and seasonal
aquatic foraging habitat and no suitable
roosting habitat present on site.

Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Habitat Requirements
Potential Occurrence on the Project
Federal State Site
Hoary bat
Lasiurus cinereus
-- sa Dense trees for cover
and open areas or
habitat edges for
feeding; requires water
Not Expected. No suitable foraging or
roosting habitat on site.

Pallid bat
Antrozous pallidus
-- SSC Deserts, grasslands,
woodlands & forests;
open dry habitats with
rocky areas for
roosting
Low Potential. May occur as infrequent
forager, but very limited suitable roosting
habitat present on site.

Western mastiff bat
Eumops perotis californicus
-- SSC Arid and semi-arid
habitats including
conifer & deciduous
woodlands, coastal
scrub, chaparral,
grasslands; roosts in
crevices in cliff faces,
high buildings, trees &
tunnels
Not Expected. May occur as infrequent
forager, but species uncommon in area
and no suitable roosting habitat present
on site.

San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit
Lepus californicus bennettii
-- SSC Open chaparral,
coastal sage scrub,
and grasslands.

Low Potential. Very little suitable habitat
present on site and adjacent surrounding
development and lack of refugia likely
precludes this species from occurring
here.

Lodgepole chipmunk
Neotamias speciosus speciosus
-- sa Open mixed coniferous
forests
Not Expected. No suitable habitat
present on site.

San Diego desert woodrat
Neotoma lepida intermedia
-- SSC Chaparral and coastal
sage scrub; rock
outcrops, rocky cliffs
and slopes
Not Expected. No suitable habitat
present on site.

Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Habitat Requirements
Potential Occurrence on the Project
Federal State Site
Southern grasshopper mouse
Onychomys torridus ramona
-- SSC Desert scrub, washes,
succulent scrub, and
other desert habitats.

Not Expected. No suitable habitat
present on site,
KEY:
(nesting) = For most taxa the CNDDB is interested in sightings for the presence of resident populations. For some species (primarily birds), the CNDDB only tracks certain parts of the species range or life history (e.g., nesting locations). The area or life stage is indicated in parenthesis after the common name.

Status:

Federal -- US Fish and Wildlife Service
FE: Federally endangered
FT: Federally threatened
FC: Proposed for federal Listing
State -- California Department of Fish and Wildlife
SE: State-listed endangered Species
ST: State-listed threatened Species
SC: State Candidate for listing as endangered or threatened CFP: California Fully Protected Species
SSC: California Species of Special Concern
WL: CDFW Watch List
sa : California Special Animal (species with no official federal or state status, but are included on CDFW’s Special Animals list as CDFW is interested in collecting distribution and population data)

APPENDIX C
Jurisdictional Delineation Report
Federal and State Jurisdictional
Waters and Wetlands
Proposed Dockweiler Road Bridge
Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, CA

September 10, 2013

Prepared For: Impact Sciences, Inc.

Camarillo, CA
Prepared By: Edith Read, PhD
E Read and Associates, Inc.

Orange, CA (714) 366-8857
JD – Dockweiler Bridge
Page ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................ 4 2 METHODS ........................................................................................................... 4

2.1 DOCUMENT REVIEW ................................................................................................ 4

2.2 FIELD SURVEY ....................................................................................................... 5

2.3 DELINEATION CRITERIA............................................................................................ 5 CDFW ................................................................................................................... 5 USACE .................................................................................................................. 5 RWQCB ................................................................................................................. 6 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................................................................. 7

3.1 WATERSHED CONNECTIVITY, GEOMORPHOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY...................................... 7

3.2 VEGETATION......................................................................................................... 8

3.3 SOIL ................................................................................................................... 9

3.4 WETLAND DETERMINATION....................................................................................... 9

3.4.1 Federal ...................................................................................................... 9

3.4.2 State ........................................................................................................ 10

3.5 NON-WETLAND JURISDICTION................................................................................. 10 4 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................... 11 5 SOURCES CITED ................................................................................................ 11 Figures (all follow text)
FIGURE 1. PROJECT LOCATION ................................................................................. 13 FIGURE 2. REGIONAL TOPOGRAPHY .......................................................................... 14 FIGURE 3. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS ................................................................................. 15 FIGURE 4. WILLOW THICKET AND SOIL EVALUATION ................................................. 16 FIGURE 4. VEGETATION TYPES AND JURISDICTION LIMITS.......................................... 17 Appendix 1: Jurisdictional Determination Form.

Appendix 2: Arid West Wetland Determination Form.

JD – Dockweiler Bridge
Page iii

LIST OF ACRONYMS
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
JD – Dockweiler Bridge

Page 4 ends

Santa Clarita City CouncilNovember 26, 2024

Santa Clarita City Council
November 26, 2024