Santa Clarita City Council
July 14, 2026

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of Analysis and Study Objectives
This Noise Impact Analysis has been prepared to determine the noise and vibration impacts associated with the proposed Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park project (proposed project).  The following is provided in this report:
 A description of the study area and the proposed project;  Information regarding the fundamentals of noise;
 Information regarding the fundamentals of vibration;
 An evaluation of the current noise environment;
 An analysis of the potential short‐term construction‐related noise impacts from the proposed project; and,
 An analysis of long‐term operations‐related noise impacts from the proposed project.

1.2 Site Location and Study Area
The project site is located in the northern portion of the City of Santa Clarita (City).  The project site includes nearly 500 acres of open space, including the Haskell Canyon Open Space and the Blue Cloud Open Space areas.  The project site is bounded by open space to the north, open space, canine training and boarding facilities and Blue Cloud Road to the east, open space and single‐family homes to the south, and open space and Pettinger Canyon Road to the west.  The proposed site plan and study area is shown in Figure 1.

Sensitive Receptors in Project Vicinity
The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are homes located within the canine training and boarding facilities to the east that are as near as 800 feet from the proposed areas to be disturbed as part of the project.  There are also single‐family homes as near as 1,700 feet west and 1,900 feet to the south of the areas to be disturbed as part of the project.

1.3 Proposed Project Description
The proposed project would consist of developing a mountain bike park consisting of approximately 15 miles of trails interspersed throughout the Project Site and two activity/programming areas – the Haskell Bike Park Core and the Blue Cloud Trailhead.  Trail types for all skill levels provided within the Blue Cloud Bike Park include approximately 3.7 miles of perimeter and climbing trails (beginner and intermediate), approximately 5.5 miles of downhill bike trails (beginner, intermediate, expert, and pro), and approximately 5 miles of multi‐use trails ((beginner, intermediate, and expert).   The proposed trail widths would range 4 to 6 feet wide.  The Project would also maintain approximately 1.6 miles of existing multi‐ use trails.

The Haskell Core would include a 56‐space parking lot and a parking/emergency turnaround with eight additional parking spaces, two American Disabilities Act (ADA) parking spaces, and four spaces for food trucks; an event plaza with picnic tables and a flexible stage; beginner, intermediate, and advanced pump tracks; a dual slalom course; progressive jumplines; and a progressive skills area.  Event/spectator areas

Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis City of Santa Clarita

would be provided adjacent to the main activity areas.  Other amenities within the Haskell Core include shade structures at the start zones of the dual slalom course and the progressive jumplines, vault restrooms, bike repair stations, a rest area with benches and shade structure, and cargo containers for storage areas.  Several trailheadsleading to perimeter, climbing, and multi‐use trails would also be located in the Haskell Core.

The Blue Cloud Trailhead would include a parking/emergency turnaround with 10 parking spaces and one ADA parking space.   This portion of the Project Site would feature a field station with gathering and restoration work spaces for volunteers, designated areas for potential future landscape restoration, and a multi‐use trailhead.  Visitor amenities that would be provided at the Blue Cloud Trailhead include vault restrooms, a bike repairstation, and the Saddle Trail Hub (meeting space forriders) with a shade structure.

Specifically, the proposed project is anticipated to disturb approximately 20 acres, would require the import of approximately 4,400 cubic yards of material for road and trail base, would include construction of approximately 3,500 square feet of structures, and would pave approximately 123,000 square feet for parking areas, walkways and event plaza areas.

1.4 Executive Summary
Standard Noise Regulatory Conditions
The proposed project will be required to comply with the following regulatory conditions from the City of Santa Clarita and State of California.

City of Santa Clarita Noise Regulations
The following lists the noise and vibration regulations from the Municipal Code that are applicable, but not limited to the proposed project.
 Section 11.44.040 Noise Limits
 Section 11.44.080 Construction Noise Exemptions
 Section 17.15.050 Vibration Performance Standards
State of California Noise Regulations
The following lists the State of California noise regulations that are applicable, but not limited to the proposed project.
 California Vehicle Code Section 2700‐27207 – On Road Vehicle Noise Limits  California Vehicle Code Section 38365‐38350 – Off‐Road Vehicle Noise Limits Summary of Analysis Results
The following is a summary of the proposed project’s impacts with regard to the State CEQA Guidelines noise checklist questions.

Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less than significant impact.

Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis City of Santa Clarita

Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than significant impact.

For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No impact.

1.5 Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project
This analysis found that through adherence to the noise and vibration regulations detailed in Section 1.4 above, all noise and vibration impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Figure 1
Proposed Site Plan and Study Area
SOURCE: Avid Trails.

HASKELL CANYON

ARCHERY RANGE
Multi-use, multi- -----...J.~
directional
Perimeter Trail
-u
-I
z
G)
rn
?J
n
}>
z
-<
0 z
?J
0 }>
CJ

ENVIRONMENTAL

HASKELL CANYON

OPEN SPACE
~·,=:t"'::..-c-- ..:....,.;~---+- BLUE CLOUD

TRAILHEAD
.' '-,il;"'4'-,,..,-,=~:':=-;,:"---,------,+- Multi-use connector trail
\
Trail connection
requires coordination
Legend
@ Trail Hub/Overlook
8 Bike Park Start Mound
(!) Trailhead
Perimeter Trail
Climbing/Return Trail
-a- Beginner Down hill Bike Trail
-a- Intermediate Dow nhill Bike Trail -0- Expert Dow nhill Bike Trail -a- Pro Downhill Bike Trail
Proposed Multi-use Trail Existing Multi-use Trail/Road to Remain
Note: All proposed trail alignments are
conceptual and requ ire field verification.

E9 0 200 400 800 ft
North

Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis City of Santa Clarita

2.0 NOISE FUNDAMENTALS
Noise is defined as unwanted sound.  Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it causes actual physical harm or when it has adverse effects on health.  Sound is produced by the vibration of sound pressure waves in the air.  Sound pressure levels are used to measure the intensity of sound and are described in terms of decibels. The decibel (dB) is a logarithmic unit which expresses the ratio of the sound pressure level being measured to a standard reference level.  A‐weighted decibels(dBA) approximate the subjective response of the human ear to a broad frequency noise source by discriminating against very low and very high frequencies of the audible spectrum.  They are adjusted to reflect only those frequencies which are audible to the human ear.

2.1 Noise Descriptors
Noise Equivalent sound levels are not measured directly, but are calculated from sound pressure levels typically measured in A‐weighted decibels (dBA).  The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period.

The Day‐Night Average Level (Ldn) is the weighted average of the intensity of a sound, with corrections for time of day, and averaged over 24 hours.  The time‐of‐day corrections require the addition of ten decibelsto sound levels at night between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.  While the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is similar to the Ldn, except that it has another addition of 4.77 decibels to sound levels during the evening hours between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m.  These additions are made to the sound levels at these time periods because during the evening and nighttime hours, when compared to daytime hours, there is a decrease in the ambient noise levels, which creates an increased sensitivity to sounds.  For this reason, the sound appears louder in the evening and nighttime hours and is weighted accordingly.

2.2 Tone Noise
A pure tone noise is a noise produced at a single frequency and laboratory tests have shown that humans are more perceptible to changes in noise levels of a pure tone.  For a noise source to contain a “pure tone,” there must be a significantly higher A‐weighted sound energy in a given frequency band than in the neighboring bands, thereby causing the noise source to “stand out” against other noise sources.  A pure tone occurs if the sound pressure level in the one‐third octave band with the tone exceeds the average of the sound pressure levels of the two contiguous one‐third octave bands by:
 5 dB for center frequencies of 500 hertz (Hz) and above  8 dB for center frequencies between 160 and 400 Hz
 15 dB for center frequencies of 125 Hz or less

2.3 Noise Propagation
From the noise source to the receiver, noise changes both in level and frequency spectrum.  The most obvious is the decrease in noise as the distance from the source increases.  The manner in which noise reduces with distance depends on whether the source is a point or line source as well as ground absorption, atmospheric effects and refraction, and shielding by natural and manmade features.  Sound from pointsources,such as air conditioning condensers, radiate uniformly outward asit travels away from the source in a spherical pattern.  The noise drop‐off rate associated with this geometric spreading is 6 dBA per each doubling of the distance (dBA/DD).  Transportation noise sources such as roadways are typically analyzed as line sources, since at any given moment the receiver may be impacted by noise from

Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis City of Santa Clarita

multiple vehicles at various locations along the roadway.  Because of the geometry of a line source, the noise drop‐off rate associated with the geometric spreading of a line source is 3 dBA/DD.

2.4 Ground Absorption
The sound drop‐off rate is highly dependent on the conditions of the land between the noise source and receiver.  To account for this ground‐effect attenuation (absorption), two types of site conditions are commonly used in traffic noise models, soft‐site and hard‐site conditions.  Soft‐site conditions account for the sound propagation loss over natural surfaces such as normal earth and ground vegetation.  For point sources, a drop‐off rate of 7.5 dBA/DD is typically observed over soft ground with landscaping, as compared with a 6.0 dBA/DD drop‐off rate over hard ground such as asphalt, concrete, stone and very hard packed earth.  For line sources a 4.5 dBA/DD is typically observed for soft‐site conditions compared to the 3.0 dBA/DD drop‐off rate for hard‐site conditions.  Caltrans research hasshown that the use ofsoft‐ site conditions is more appropriate for the application of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) traffic noise prediction model used in this analysis.

Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis City of Santa Clarita

3.0 GROUND‐BORNE VIBRATION FUNDAMENTALS
Ground‐borne vibrations consist of rapidly fluctuating motions within the ground that have an average motion of zero. The effects of ground‐borne vibrations typically only cause a nuisance to people, but at extreme vibration levels damage to buildings may occur.  Although ground‐borne vibration can be felt outdoors, it is typically only an annoyance to people indoors where the associated effects of the shaking of a building can be notable.  Ground‐borne noise is an effect of ground‐borne vibration and only exists indoors, since it is produced from noise radiated from the motion of the walls and floors of a room and may also consist of the rattling of windows or dishes on shelves.

3.1 Vibration Descriptors
There are several different methods that are used to quantify vibration amplitude such as the maximum instantaneous peak in the vibrations velocity, which is known as the peak particle velocity (PPV) or the root mean square (rms) amplitude of the vibration velocity.  Due to the typically small amplitudes of vibrations, vibration velocity is often expressed in decibels and is denoted as (Lv) and is based on the rms velocity amplitude.  A commonly used abbreviation is “VdB”, which in this text, is when Lv is based on the reference quantity of 1 micro inch per second.

3.2 Vibration Perception
Typically, developed areas are continuously affected by vibration velocities of 50 VdB or lower.  These continuous vibrations are not noticeable to humans whose threshold of perception is around 65 VdB.  Off‐ site sourcesthat may produce perceptible vibrations are usually caused by construction equipment,steel‐ wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads, while smooth roads rarely produce perceptible ground‐borne noise or vibration.

3.3 Vibration Propagation
The propagation of ground‐borne vibration is not as simple to model as airborne noise.  This is due to the fact that noise in the air travels through a relatively uniform median, while ground‐borne vibrations travel through the earth which may contain significant geological differences. There are three main types of vibration propagation; surface, compression, and shear waves.  Surface waves, or Rayleigh waves, travel along the ground’s surface.  These waves carry most of their energy along an expanding circular wave front,similar to ripples produced by throwing a rock into a pool of water.  P‐waves, or compression waves, are body waves that carry their energy along an expanding spherical wave front.  The particle motion in these waves is longitudinal (i.e., in a “push‐pull” fashion).   P‐waves are analogous to airborne sound waves.  S‐waves, orshear waves, are also body wavesthat carry energy along an expanding spherical wave front.  However, unlike P‐waves, the particle motion is transverse or “side‐to‐side and perpendicular to the direction of propagation.”
As vibration waves propagate from a source, the vibration energy decreases in a logarithmic nature and the vibration levels typically decrease by 6 VdB per doubling of the distance from the vibration source.  As stated above, this drop‐off rate can vary greatly depending on the soil but has been shown to be effective enough for screening purposes, in order to identify potential vibration impacts that may need to be studied through actual field tests.

Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis City of Santa Clarita

4.0 REGULATORY SETTING
The project site is located in the City of Santa Clarita. Noise regulations are addressed through the efforts of various federal, state, and local government agencies.  The agencies responsible for regulating noise are discussed below.

4.1 Federal Regulations
The adverse impact of noise was officially recognized by the federal government in the Noise Control Act of 1972, which serves three purposes:
 Promulgating noise emission standards for interstate commerce  Assisting state and local abatement efforts
 Promoting noise education and research
The Federal Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC) was initially tasked with implementing the Noise Control Act.  However, the ONAC has since been eliminated, leaving the development of federal noise policies and programs to other federal agencies and interagency committees.  For example, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) agency prohibits exposure of workers to excessive sound levels.  The Department of Transportation (DOT) assumed a significant role in noise control through its various operating agencies.  The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates noise of aircraft and airports.  Surface transportation system noise is regulated by a host of agencies, including the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).  Transit noise is regulated by the FTA, while freeways that are part of the interstate highway system are regulated by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).   Finally, the federal government actively advocates that local jurisdictions use their land use regulatory authority to arrange new development in such a way that “noise sensitive” uses are either prohibited from being sited adjacent to a highway or, alternately that the developments are planned and constructed in such a manner that potential noise impacts are minimized.

Although the proposed project is not under the jurisdiction of the FTA, the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA Manual), prepared by the FTA, September 2018, is a guidance document from a government agency that has defined what constitutes a significant noise impact from implementing a project.   The FTA standards are based on extensive studies by the FTA and other governmental agencies on the human effects and reaction to noise and a summary of the FTA findings are provided below in Table A.

Table A – FTA Project Effects on Cumulative Noise Exposure Existing Noise Exposure
(dBA Leq or Ldn)
Allowable Noise Impact Exposure dBA Leq or Ldn
Project Only Combined Noise Exposure Increase
45 51 52 +7
50 53 55 +5
55 55 58 +3
60 57 62 +2
65 60 66 +1
70 64 71 +1
75 65 75 0
Source: Federal Transit Administration, 2018.

Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis City of Santa Clarita

The FTA also provides guidance on construction noise and recommends developing construction noise criteria on a project‐specific basis that utilizes local noise ordinances if possible. However, local noise ordinances usually relate to nuisance and hours of allowed activity and sometimes specify limits in terms of maximum levels, but are generally not practical for assessing the noise impacts of a construction project.  Project construction noise criteria should take into account the existing noise environment, the absolute noise levels during construction activities, the duration of the construction, and the adjacent land uses.  The FTA standards are based on extensive studies by the FTA and other governmental agencies on the human effects and reaction to noise and a summary of the FTA findings for a detailed construction noise assessment are provided below in Table B.

Table B – FTA Construction Noise Criteria
Land Use Day (dBA Leq(8‐hour)) Night (dBA Leq(8‐hour)) 30‐day Average (dBA Ldn) Residential 80 70 75
Commercial 85 85 80(1)
Industrial 90 90 85(1)
Notes:
(1)  Use a 24‐hour Leq (24 hour) instead of Ldn (30 day).

Source: Federal Transit Administration, 2018.

Since the federal government has preempted the setting of standards for noise levels that can be emitted by the transportation sources, the City isrestricted to regulating the noise generated by the transportation system through nuisance abatement ordinances and land use planning.

4.2 State Regulations
Noise Standards
California Department of Health Services Office of Noise Control Established in 1973, the California Department of Health Services Office of Noise Control (ONC) was instrumental in developing regularity tools to control and abate noise for use by local agencies.  One significant model isthe “Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments Matrix,” which allows the local jurisdiction to clearly delineate compatibility of sensitive uses with various incremental levels of noise.

California Noise Insulation Standards
Title 24, Chapter 1, Article 4 of the California Administrative Code (California Noise Insulation Standards) requires noise insulation in new hotels, motels, apartment houses, and dwellings(other than single‐family detached housing) that provides an annual average noise level of no more than 45 dBA CNEL.  When such structures are located within a 60‐dBA CNEL (or greater) noise contour, an acoustical analysis is required to ensure that interior levels do not exceed the 45‐dBA CNEL annual threshold.  In addition, Title 21, Chapter 6, Article 1 of the California Administrative Code requires that all habitable rooms, hospitals, convalescent homes, and places of worship shall have an interior CNEL of 45 dB or less due to aircraft noise.

Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis City of Santa Clarita

Government Code Section 65302
Government Code Section 65302 mandates that the legislative body of each county and city in California adopt a noise element as part of its comprehensive general plan.  The local noise element must recognize the land use compatibility guidelines published by the State Department of Health Services.   The guidelines rank noise land use compatibility in terms of normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable.

California Vehicle Code Section 27200‐27207 – On‐Road Vehicle Noise California Vehicle Code Section 27200‐27207 provides noise limits for vehicles operated in California.  For vehicles over 10,000 pounds noise is limited to 88 dB for vehicles manufactured before 1973, 86 dB for vehicles manufactured before 1975, 83 dB for vehicles manufactured before 1988, and 80 dB for vehicles manufactured after 1987.  All measurements are based at 50 feet from the vehicle.

California Vehicle Section 38365‐38380 – Off‐Road Vehicle Noise California Vehicle Code Section 38365‐38380 provides noise limits for off‐highway motor vehicles operated in California.  92 dBA for vehicles manufactured before 1973, 88 dBA for vehicles manufactured before 1975, 86 dBA for vehicles manufactured before 1986, and 82 dBA for vehicles manufactured after December 31, 1985.  All measurements are based at 50 feet from the vehicle.

Vibration Standards
Title 14 of the California Administrative Code Section 15000 requires that all state and local agencies implement the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, which requires the analysis of exposure of persons to excessive groundborne vibration.  However, no statute has been adopted by the state that quantifies the level at which excessive groundborne vibration occurs.

Caltrans issued the Transportation‐ and Construction‐Induced Vibration Guidance Manual in 2004.  The manual provides practical guidance to Caltrans engineers, planners, and consultants who must address vibration issues associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of Caltrans projects.

However, this manual is also used as a reference point by many lead agencies and CEQA practitioners throughout California, asit provides numeric thresholdsfor vibration impacts.  Thresholds are established for continuous (construction‐related) and transient (transportation‐related) sources of vibration, which found that the human response becomes distinctly perceptible at 0.25 inch per second PPV for transient sources and 0.04 inch per second PPV for continuous sources.

4.3 Local Regulations
The City of Santa Clarita General Plan and Municipal Code establishes the following applicable policies related to noise and vibration.

City of Santa Clarita General Plan
Goal 1
To Protect the health and welfare of the residents of the City of Santa Clarita and the planning area by the elimination, mitigation, and prevention of significant existing and future noise levels.

Policies

1.2 Include noise impact considerations in land use planning decisions.

Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis City of Santa Clarita

1.3 Control noise sources adjacent to residential, recreational, and community facilities, and those land uses classified as noise sensitive land uses.

Goal 3
To prevent and mitigate significant noise levels in residential neighborhoods.

Policies

3.2 Ensure that special noise sources, such as construction activities, leaf blowers, motorized lawn mowers, garbage collection, truck deliveries, and any other activities, which produce significant discernible noise do not create undue disturbances in residential neighborhoods.

3.3 Require that those responsible for construction activities develop techniques to mitigate or minimize the noise impacts on residences, and adopt standards which regulate noise from noise construction activities which may occur near residential neighborhoods.

City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code
The City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code establishes the following applicable standards related to noise.

Chapter 11.44.040 Noise Limits
A. It shall be unlawful for any person within the City to produce or cause or allow to be produced noise which is received on property occupied by another person within the designated region, in excess of the following levels, except as expressly provided otherwise herein:

Region         Time   Sound Level dB
Residential zone    Day     65
Residential zone    Night     55
Commercial and manufacturing   Day     80
Commercial and manufacturing   Night     70
At the boundary line between a residential property and a commercial and manufacturing property, the noise level of the quieter zone shall be used.

Chapter 11.44.080 Special Noise Sources‐Construction and Building.

No person shall engage in any construction work which requires a building permit from the City on sites within three hundred (300) feet of a residentially zoned property except between the hours of seven a.m. to seven p.m., Monday through Friday, and eight a.m. to six p.m. on Saturday.  Further, no work shall be performed on the following public holidays: New Year’s Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas, Memorial Day and Labor Day.

Emergency work as defined in Section 11.44.020(D) is permitted at all times.

The Department of Community Development may issue a permit for work to be done “after hours”; provided, that containment of construction noise is provided.

Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis City of Santa Clarita

Chapter 17.15.050 Performance Standards: C and I Zones
C. Vibration.   No use, except a temporary construction operation, shall be permitted which generates inherent and recurrent ground vibration perceptible without instruments at the boundary of the lot on which the use is located.

Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis City of Santa Clarita

5.0 EXISTING NOISE CONDITIONS
To determine the existing noise levels, noise measurements have been taken in the vicinity of the project site.  The field survey noted that noise within the project area is generally characterized by vehicle traffic on the nearby roads and from dogs barking at the canine facilities.   The following describes the measurement procedures, measurement locations, noise measurement results, and the modeling of the existing noise environment.

5.1 Noise Measurement Equipment
The noise measurements were taken using a Larson‐Davis Model 831 Type 1 precision sound level meter programmed in “slow” mode to record noise levels in “A” weighted form as well as the frequency spectrum of the noise broken down into 1/3 octaves.   The sound level meter and microphone were mounted on a tripod five feet above the ground and were equipped with a windscreen during all measurements.  The sound level meter was calibrated before and after the monitoring using a Larson‐ Davis calibrator, Model CAL 200.   The accuracy of the calibrator is maintained through a program established through the manufacturer and is traceable to the National Bureau of Standards.  The unit meets the requirements of ANSI Standard S1.4‐1984 and IEC Standard 942: 1988 for Class 1 equipment.

All noise level measurement equipment meets American National StandardsInstitute (ANSI)specifications for sound level meters (S1.4‐1983 identified in Chapter 19.68.020.AA).

Noise Measurement Location
The noise monitoring locations were selected in order to obtain noise levels in the vicinity of the project site.  Descriptions of the noise monitoring sites are provided below in Table C and are shown in Figure 2.

Appendix A includes a photo index of the study area and noise level measurement locations.

Noise Measurement Timing and Climate
The noise measurements were recorded between 12:33 p.m. and 1:20 p.m. on Tuesday, March 26, 2024.

During the noise measurements, the sky was clear, the temperature was 64 degrees Fahrenheit, the humidity was 41 percent, barometric pressure was 28.45 inches of mercury, and the wind was blowing at an average rate of five miles per hour.

5.2 Noise Measurement Results
The results of the noise level measurements are presented in Table C and the noise monitoring data printouts are included in Appendix B.

Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis City of Santa Clarita

Table C – Existing (Ambient) Noise Level Measurements
Site
No. Description
Primary Noise
Sources
Start Time of
Measurement
Measured Noise Level
dBA Leq dBA Lmax
1 Located west of the bike park,
approximately 50 feet east of Pettinger
Canyon Road centerline and at turnoff to
proposed road to bike park.

Vehicles on
Pettinger Canyon
Road
12:33 p.m. 52.6 68.3
2 Located south of the bike park at Haskell
Canyon Trailhead, approximately 60 feet
north of Copper Hill Drive centerline.

Vehicles on Copper
Hill Drive 12:51 p.m. 67.3 78.1
3 Located east of the bike park between the
canine facilities, approximately 20 feet
west of Blue Cloud Road centerline.

Dogs barking at
canine facilities 1:10 p.m. 47.5 55.3
Source: Noise measurements taken on March 26, 2024.

Figure 2
Field Noise Monitoring Locations
SOURCE: LA County GIS-NET.

N
LEGEND
2 3 Noise Measurement Location
1 3
z
Ici:
...
fn
w
z
>
II:
0 z
:ii
w

Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis City of Santa Clarita

6.0 MODELING PARAMETERS AND ASSUMPTIONS

6.1 Construction Noise
The noise impacts from construction of the proposed project have been analyzed through use of the FHWA’s Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM).   The FHWA compiled noise measurement data regarding the noise generating characteristics of several different types of construction equipment used during the Central Artery/Tunnel project in Boston.  Table D below provides a list of the construction equipment anticipated to be used for each phase of construction as detailed in Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas EmissionsImpact Analysis Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project (Air Quality Analysis), prepared by Vista Environmental, April 1, 2024.

Table D – Construction Equipment Noise Emissions and Usage Factors Equipment Description
Number of
Equipment
Acoustical Use
Factor1 (percent)
Spec 721.560 Lmax at
50 feet2 (dBA, slow3)
Actual Measured Lmax
at 50 feet4 (dBA, slow3)
Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers 3 40 85 82
Tractors 2 40 84 N/A
Front End Loader 1 40 80 79
Backhoe 1 40 80 78
Grading
Excavators 2 40 85 81
Grader 1 40 85 83
Rubber Tired Dozer 1 40 85 82
Scrapers 2 40 85 84
Tractor 1 40 84 N/A
Front End Loader 1 40 80 79
Building Construction
Crane 1 16 85 81
Forklift (Gradall) 3 40 85 83
Generator 1 50 82 81
Tractor 1 40 84 N/A
Front End Loader 1 40 80 79
Backhoe 1 40 80 78
Welder 1 40 73 74
Paving
Paver 2 50 85 77
Paving Equipment 2 50 85 77
Roller 2 20 85 80
Architectural Coating
Air Compressor 1 40 80 78
Notes:
1 Acoustical use factor is the percentage of time each piece of equipment is operational during a typical workday. 2  Spec 721.560 is the equipment noise level utilized by the RCNM program. 3  The “slow” response averagessound levels over 1‐second increments. A “fast” response averagessound levels over 0.125‐second increments.   4 Actual Measured is the average noise level measured of each piece of equipment during the Central Artery/Tunnel project in Boston, Massachusetts primarily during the 1990s.

Source: Federal Highway Administration, 2006 and CalEEMod default equipment mix.

Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis City of Santa Clarita

Table D also shows the associated measured noise emissions for each piece of equipment from the RCNM model and measured percentage of typical equipment use per day.  Construction noise impacts to the nearby sensitive receptors have been calculated according to the equipment noise levels and usage factors listed in Table D and through use of the RCNM. For each phase of construction, each piece of equipment was placed at the shortest distance from the disturbed area to the sensitive receptor.

6.2 Vibration
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment used on the site.  Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance.  Buildings in the vicinity of the construction site respond to these vibrations with varying results ranging from no perceptible effects at the low levels to slight damage at the highest levels.   Table E gives approximate vibration levels for particular construction activities.  The data in Table E provides a reasonable estimate for a wide range of soil conditions.

Table E – Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity
(inches/second)
Approximate Vibration Level
(Lv)at 25 feet
Pile driver (impact) Upper range
typical

1.518

0.644
112
104
Pile driver (sonic) Upper range
typical

0.734

0.170
105
93 Clam shovel drop (slurry wall)   0.202 94
Vibratory Roller   0.210 94
Hoe Ram   0.089 87
Large bulldozer   0.089 87
Caisson drill   0.089 87
Loaded trucks   0.076 86
Jackhammer   0.035 79
Small bulldozer   0.003 58
Source: Federal Transit Administration, 2018.

The construction‐related vibration impacts have been calculated through the vibration levels shown above in Table E and through typical vibration propagation rates.  The equipment assumptions were based on the equipment lists provided above in Table D.

Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis City of Santa Clarita

7.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS

7.1 CEQA Thresholds of Significance
Consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to noise would occur if a proposed project is determined to result in:
 Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;
 Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; or  For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

7.2 Generation of Noise Levels in Excess of Standards
The proposed project would not generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.  The following section calculates the potential noise emissions associated with the temporary construction activities and long‐term operations of the proposed project and compares the noise levels to the City standards.

Construction‐Related Noise
Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed project would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location, sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities.

Section 11.44.080 of the Municipal Code exempts construction noise from the City noise standards that occurs between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no work allowed on Sundays and holidays. However, the City construction noise standards do not provide any limits to the noise levels that may be created from construction activities and even with adherence to the City standards, the resultant construction noise levels may result in a significant substantial temporary noise increase to the nearby homes and canine facilities.

In order to determine if the proposed construction activities would create a significant substantial temporary noise increase, the FTA construction noise criteria thresholds detailed above in Section 4.1 have been utilized, which shows that a significant construction noise impact would occur if construction noise exceeds 80 dBA at the nearest homes and 85 dBA at the canine facilities to the east.  The calculated construction noise results are shown below in Table F and the RCNM printouts are provided in Appendix C.

Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis City of Santa Clarita

Table F – Construction Noise Levels at the Nearby Receptors Construction Phase
Construction Noise Level (dBA Leq) at:

Canine Facilities to East Homes to West Homes to South
Site Preparation   62 56 55
Grading   64 57 56
Building Construction 63 56 55
Paving 58 51 50
Architectural Coating   50 43 42
FTA Construction Noise Threshold1 85 80 80
Exceed Threshold? No No No
Notes:
1 FTA Construction Noise Threshold obtained from Table B above.

Source: RCNM, Federal Highway Administration, 2006
Table F shows that the construction‐related noise levels for all phases of construction activities would be within the FTA construction noise standards.  Therefore, through adherence to allowable construction times provided in 11.44.080 of the Municipal Code, the construction activities for the proposed project would not create a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels that are in excess of applicable noise standards.  Impacts would be less than significant.

Operational‐Related Noise
The proposed project would consist of the development and operation of a bike park. Potential noise impacts associated with the operations of the proposed project would be from project‐generated vehicular traffic on the nearby roadways and from onsite noise sources to the nearby sensitive receptors.

The noise impacts created from project‐generated vehicular traffic on the nearby roadways and from onsite noise sources to the nearby sensitive receptors have been analyzed separately below.

Roadway Vehicular Noise Impact to Nearby Sensitive Receptors Vehicle noise is a combination of the noise produced by the engine, exhaust and tires.  The level of traffic noise depends on three primary factors (1) the volume of traffic, (2) the speed of traffic, and (3) the number of trucksin the flow of traffic.  The proposed project does not propose any usesthat would require a substantial number of truck trips and the proposed project would not alter the speed limit on any existing roadway so the proposed project’s potential offsite noise impacts have been focused on the noise impacts associated with the change of volume of traffic that would occur with development of the proposed project.

Neither the General Plan nor the Municipal Code defines what constitutes a “substantial permanent increase to ambient noise levels”.  As such, this impact analysis has utilized guidance from the FTA for a moderate impact that has been detailed above in Table A, which shows that the project contribution to the noise environment can range between 0 and 7 dB, which is dependent on the existing roadway noise levels.

According to the project applicant, the proposed project would generate up to 100 daily vehicle trips on weekends and during special event days.  According to the One Valley One Vision Draft Program EIR City of Santa Clarita, September 2010, Copper Hill east of McBean is the closest roadway segment with traffic data to the project site and it currently has 35,000 daily trips.  The proposed project would contribute up

Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis City of Santa Clarita

to 0.3 percent of the daily trips on Cooper Hill Drive.  In order for project‐generated vehicular traffic to increase the noise level on any of the nearby roadways by 3 dB, the average daily traffic (ADT) would have to double, or by 1.5 dB, the ADT would have to increase by 50 percent.  As such, the proposed project’s roadway noise impacts would be negligible and would not result in a quantitative increase in roadway noise levels.  Therefore, operational roadway noise impacts to the nearby sensitive receptors would be less than significant.

Onsite Noise Impacts
The project would create operational noise from the usage of the bike trails and parking lots, music associated with events at the bike park, and the operation of off‐road equipment that would include monthly use of a mini‐excavator or a trail dozer for trail maintenance and a small generator may be used for music events or food trucks.  Section 11.44.040 of the Municipal Code limits the project’s operational noise at the nearby homes to 65 dBA during the daytime and 55 dBA during the nighttime and at the canine facilities to the east to 80 dBA during the daytime and 70 dBA during the nighttime.

In order to determine the noise impacts from the operational use of the bike trails and parking lots and from a music event at the bike park, reference noise measurements for similar operations were taken of each source and are shown in Table G and the reference noise measurement printouts are provided in Appendix D. In order to determine the noise impacts from the off‐road equipment, the RCNM Model was utilized where a backhoe and small generator were modeled.  All of the reference noise levels were calculated at the distances to the nearby receptors based on standard geometric spreading of noise of a drop‐off rate of 6 dB reduction for every doubling of distance between source and receptor.  It should be noted that the calculated noise levelsrepresent a worst‐case asthe noise calculations do not take account the hilly terrain of the bike park or the sound reduction provided by the vegetation.

Table G – Operational Noise Levels at the Nearby Sensitive Receptors Noise Source
Reference Noise Measurements1 Calculated Noise Levels (dBA Leq) at:

Distance Receptor
to Source (feet)
Reference Noise
Level (dBA Leq)
Canine Facilities to
East
Homes to
West
Homes to
South
Bike Trails 20 40.6 9 2 1
Parking Lots 10 51.7 8 6 1
Music Event 70 74.0 39 44 37
Off‐Road Equipment 50 75.1 50 43 42
Generator 50 73.6   32 37 30
Noise Level from All Sources Combined 50 46 43
City Noise Standards2 (day/night) 80/70 65/55 65/55
Exceed City Noise Standards (day/night)? No/No No/No No/No Notes:
1 The reference noise measurements printouts are provided in Appendix D. 2 From Section 11.44.040 of the Municipal Code.

Source: Noise calculation methodology from Caltrans, 2013 (see Appendix D).

Table G shows that the proposed project’s worst‐case (i.e., during a music event and trail maintenance) operational noise from the simultaneous operation of all noise sources on the project site would create a noise level as high as 50 dBA Leq at the canine facilities to the east, 46 dBA Leq at the homes to the west, and 43 dBA Leq at the home to the south, which would be within the applicable City’s daytime and nighttime noise standards as detailed in Section 11.44.040 of the Municipal Code.  Therefore, operation

Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis City of Santa Clarita

of the proposed project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels from onsite noise sources. Impacts would be less than significant.

Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.

7.3 Generation of Excessive Groundborne Vibration
The proposed project would not expose persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.  The following section analyzes the potential vibration impacts associated with the construction and operations of the proposed project.

Construction‐Related Vibration Impacts
Vibration impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed project would typically be created from the operation of heavy off‐road equipment. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are homes located within the canine training and boarding facilities to the east that are as near as 800 feet from the proposed areas to be disturbed as part of the project.

Section 17.15.050 of the Municipal Code limits vibration to what is perceptible at the boundary of the lot where it is created. However, Section 17.15.050 exempts construction activities from this vibration standard. Since the City construction vibration standards do not provide any limits to the vibration levels that may be created from construction activities, the Caltrans vibration guidance that is detailed above in Section 4.2 has been utilized, which defines the threshold of perception from transient sources at 0.25 inch per second PPV.

As detailed above, the primary source of vibration during construction would be from the operation of a dozer.  From Table E above a large bulldozer would create a vibration level of 0.089 inch per second PPV at 25 feet.  Based on typical propagation rates, the vibration level at the nearest offsite structures (800 feet away) would be 0.002 inch per second PPV.  The vibration level at the nearest offsite structure would be well below the 0.25 inch per second PPV threshold detailed above.   Impacts would be less than significant.

Operations‐Related Vibration Impacts
The proposed project would consist of the operation of a bike park.   The on‐going operation of the proposed project would not include the operation of any known vibration sources.  Therefore, a less than significant vibration impact is anticipated from the operation of the proposed project.

Level of Significance
Less than significant impact.

7.4 Aircraft Noise
The proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from aircraft. The nearest airport is Agua Dulce Airpark that is located approximately ten miles east of the project site.  The project site is located outside of the 60 dBA CNEL noise contours of Agua Dulce Airpark.  No impacts would occur from aircraft noise.

Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis City of Santa Clarita

Level of Significance
No impact.

Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis City of Santa Clarita

8.0 REFERENCES
California Department of Transportation, 2016 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State Highway System, 2018.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analytics Protocol, September 2013.

California Department of Transportation, Transportation‐ and Construction‐Induced Vibration Guidance Manual, September 2013.

City of Santa Clarita, Draft Program EIR for the City of Santa Clarita’s Proposed One Valley One Vision General Plan, September 2010.

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

City of Santa Clarita, Santa Clarita Municipal Code, July 14, 2020.

Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, September 2018.

U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide, January, 2006.

Vista Environmental, Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, April 1, 2024.

Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis City of Santa Clarita
Appendix  A

APPENDIX A
Field Noise Measurements Photo Index
Noise Measurement Site 1 - looking north Noise Measurement Site 1 - looking northeast Noise Measurement Site 1 - looking east Noise Measurement Site 1 - looking southeast Noise Measurement Site 1 - looking south Noise Measurement Site 1 - looking southwest Noise Measurement Site 1 - looking west Noise Measurement Site 1 - looking northwest Noise Measurement Site 2 - looking north Noise Measurement Site 2 - looking northeast Noise Measurement Site 2 - looking east Noise Measurement Site 2 - looking southeast Noise Measurement Site 2 - looking south Noise Measurement Site 2 - looking southwest Noise Measurement Site 2 - looking west Noise Measurement Site 2 - looking northwest Noise Measurement Site 3 - looking north Noise Measurement Site 3 - looking northeast Noise Measurement Site 3 - looking east Noise Measurement Site 3 - looking southeast Noise Measurement Site 3 - looking south Noise Measurement Site 3 - looking southwest Noise Measurement Site 3 - looking west Noise Measurement Site 3 - looking northwest

Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis City of Santa Clarita
Appendix  B

APPENDIX B
Field Noise Measurements Printouts
Measurement Report
Report Summary
Meter's File Name 831_Data.001 Computer's File Name SLM_0002509_831_Data_001.32.ldbin Meter 831
Firmware 2.403
User GT Location
Description Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park
Note Located approx 50 ft east of Pettinger Cyn Rd CL at proposed entrance road to Bike Park Start Time 2024-03-26 12:33:45 Duration 0:10:00.7
End Time 2024-03-26 12:43:46 Run Time 0:10:00.7 Pause Time 0:00:00.0 Results
Overall Metrics
LAeq 52.6 dB
LAE 80.4 dB SEA --- dB
EA 12.1 µPa²h
LZpeak 103.7 dB 2024-03-26 12:33:45
LASmax 68.3 dB 2024-03-26 12:41:21
LASmin 27.6 dB 2024-03-26 12:42:35
LAeq 52.6 dB
LCeq 64.1 dB LCeq - LA eq 11.5 dB
LAI eq 56.4 dB LAI eq - LAeq 3.8 dB
Exceedances Count Duration
LAS > 65.0 dB 3 0:00:10.8
LAS > 85.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LZpeak > 135.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LZpeak > 137.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LZpeak > 140.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
Community Noise LDN LDay LNight

52.6 dB 52.6 dB 0.0 dB
LDEN LDay LEve LNight

52.6 dB 52.6 dB --- dB --- dB
Any Data A C Z
Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp
Leq 52.6 dB 64.1 dB 78.8 dB
Ls(max) 68.3 dB 2024-03-26 12:41:21 78.6 dB 2024-03-26 12:40:13 94.0 dB 2024-03-26 12:40:14 LF(max) 70.7 dB 2024-03-26 12:39:57 83.1 dB 2024-03-26 12:40:13 98.6 dB 2024-03-26 12:33:45 LI(max) 75.1 dB 2024-03-26 12:39:57 86.1 dB 2024-03-26 12:39:56 101.6 dB 2024-03-26 12:33:45 LS(min) 27.6 dB 2024-03-26 12:42:35 41.8 dB 2024-03-26 12:43:01 49.0 dB 2024-03-26 12:42:55 LF(min) 25.3 dB 2024-03-26 12:43:07 39.5 dB 2024-03-26 12:42:43 44.0 dB 2024-03-26 12:42:44 LI(min) 26.9 dB 2024-03-26 12:42:34 42.4 dB 2024-03-26 12:42:34 51.3 dB 2024-03-26 12:42:55 LPeak(max) 90.0 dB 2024-03-26 12:39:57 93.4 dB 2024-03-26 12:39:56 103.7 dB 2024-03-26 12:33:45 Overloads Count Duration OBA Count OBA Duration
0 0:00:00.0 0 0:00:00.0
Statistics
LAS 5.0 61.2 dB
LAS 10.0 54.3 dB
LAS 33.3 39.9 dB
LAS 50.0 36.2 dB
LAS 66.6 33.2 dB
LAS 90.0 30.3 dB
Measurement Report
Report Summary
Meter's File Name 831_Data.002 Computer's File Name SLM_0002509_831_Data_002.26.ldbin Meter 831
Firmware 2.403
User GT Location
Description Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park
Note At Haskell Cyn Trailhead, approx 60 ft north of Copper Hill Dr CL Start Time 2024-03-26 12:51:00 Duration 0:10:00.5
End Time 2024-03-26 13:01:01 Run Time 0:10:00.5 Pause Time 0:00:00.0 Results
Overall Metrics
LAeq 67.3 dB
LAE 95.1 dB SEA --- dB
EA 356.7 µPa²h
LZpeak 102.5 dB 2024-03-26 12:51:00
LASmax 78.1 dB 2024-03-26 12:53:19
LASmin 40.6 dB 2024-03-26 12:54:05
LAeq 67.3 dB
LCeq 71.9 dB LCeq - LA eq 4.6 dB
LAI eq 69.2 dB LAI eq - LAeq 1.9 dB
Exceedances Count Duration
LAS > 65.0 dB 29 0:05:21.2
LAS > 85.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LZpeak > 135.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LZpeak > 137.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LZpeak > 140.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
Community Noise LDN LDay LNight

67.3 dB 67.3 dB 0.0 dB
LDEN LDay LEve LNight

67.3 dB 67.3 dB --- dB --- dB
Any Data A C Z
Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp
Leq 67.3 dB 71.9 dB 74.4 dB
Ls(max) 78.1 dB 2024-03-26 12:53:19 88.2 dB 2024-03-26 12:53:19 95.1 dB 2024-03-26 12:51:00 LF(max) 80.5 dB 2024-03-26 12:53:19 90.9 dB 2024-03-26 12:53:19 97.9 dB 2024-03-26 12:51:00 LI(max) 81.3 dB 2024-03-26 12:53:19 91.9 dB 2024-03-26 12:53:19 100.4 dB 2024-03-26 12:51:00 LS(min) 40.6 dB 2024-03-26 12:54:05 50.6 dB 2024-03-26 12:54:05 56.0 dB 2024-03-26 12:54:07 LF(min) 38.6 dB 2024-03-26 12:54:03 49.2 dB 2024-03-26 12:54:03 52.7 dB 2024-03-26 12:54:05 LI(min) 40.6 dB 2024-03-26 12:54:05 51.3 dB 2024-03-26 12:54:04 56.5 dB 2024-03-26 12:54:09 LPeak(max) 92.5 dB 2024-03-26 13:00:20 98.9 dB 2024-03-26 12:53:19 102.5 dB 2024-03-26 12:51:00 Overloads Count Duration OBA Count OBA Duration
0 0:00:00.0 0 0:00:00.0
Statistics
LAS 5.0 72.3 dB
LAS 10.0 71.2 dB
LAS 33.3 68.1 dB
LAS 50.0 64.7 dB
LAS 66.6 59.0 dB
LAS 90.0 50.4 dB
Measurement Report
Report Summary
Meter's File Name 831_Data.003 Computer's File Name SLM_0002509_831_D Meter 831
Firmware 2.403
User GT Location
Description Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park
Note Approx 20 ft west of Blue Cloud Rd CL, between Canine Country Club and Cesar Millan's Dog Psychology Center Start Time 2024-03-26 13:10:51 Duration 0:10:00.7
End Time 2024-03-26 13:20:51 Run Time 0:10:00.7 Pause Time 0:00:00.0 Results
Overall Metrics
LAeq 47.5 dB
LAE 75.3 dB SEA --- dB
EA 3.7 µPa²h
LZpeak 104.3 dB 2024-03-26 13:10:51
LASmax 55.3 dB 2024-03-26 13:11:19
LASmin 32.4 dB 2024-03-26 13:17:06
LAeq 47.5 dB
LCeq 55.4 dB LCeq - LA eq 7.9 dB
LAI eq 54.3 dB LAI eq - LAeq 6.9 dB
Exceedances Count Duration
LAS > 65.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LAS > 85.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LZpeak > 135.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LZpeak > 137.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LZpeak > 140.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
Community Noise LDN LDay LNight

47.5 dB 47.5 dB 0.0 dB
LDEN LDay LEve LNight

47.5 dB 47.5 dB --- dB --- dB
Any Data A C Z
Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp
Leq 47.5 dB 55.4 dB 73.5 dB
Ls(max) 55.3 dB 2024-03-26 13:11:19 75.8 dB 2024-03-26 13:10:51 95.9 dB 2024-03-26 13:10:51 LF(max) 62.2 dB 2024-03-26 13:20:51 77.5 dB 2024-03-26 13:17:23 99.9 dB 2024-03-26 13:10:51 LI(max) 67.7 dB 2024-03-26 13:20:51 81.0 dB 2024-03-26 13:17:23 102.4 dB 2024-03-26 13:10:51 LS(min) 32.4 dB 2024-03-26 13:17:06 42.3 dB 2024-03-26 13:19:28 50.1 dB 2024-03-26 13:18:28 LF(min) 27.5 dB 2024-03-26 13:15:46 38.4 dB 2024-03-26 13:18:28 44.4 dB 2024-03-26 13:18:28 LI(min) 35.4 dB 2024-03-26 13:17:08 43.2 dB 2024-03-26 13:16:38 51.9 dB 2024-03-26 13:19:36 LPeak(max) 79.4 dB 2024-03-26 13:17:23 87.4 dB 2024-03-26 13:17:23 104.3 dB 2024-03-26 13:10:51 Overloads Count Duration OBA Count OBA Duration
0 0:00:00.0 0 0:00:00.0
Statistics
LAS 5.0 51.5 dB
LAS 10.0 50.5 dB
LAS 33.3 47.9 dB
LAS 50.0 46.5 dB
LAS 66.6 44.9 dB
LAS 90.0 40.7 dB

Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis City of Santa Clarita
Appendix  C

APPENDIX C
RCNM Model Construction Noise Calculation Printouts
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 4/1/2024
Case Description: Blue Cloud Bike Park - Site Preparation ---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Canine Facilities to East Commercial 47.5 47.5 47.5
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Dozer No 40 81.7 800 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 800 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 800 0
Tractor No 40 84 800 0
Tractor No 40 84 800 0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 800 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 800 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Dozer 57.6 53.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 57.6 53.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 57.6 53.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Tractor 59.9 55.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Tractor 59.9 55.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Front End Loader 55.0 51.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Backhoe 53.5 49.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 60 62 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 4/1/2024
Case Description: Blue Cloud Bike Park - Site Preparation ---- Receptor #2 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Homes to West Residential 52.6 52.6 52.6
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Dozer No 40 81.7 1700 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 1700 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 1700 0
Tractor No 40 84 1700 0
Tractor No 40 84 1700 0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 1700 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 1700 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Dozer 51.0 47.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 51.0 47.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 51.0 47.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Tractor 53.4 49.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Tractor 53.4 49.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Front End Loader 48.5 44.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Backhoe 46.9 43.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 53 56 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 4/1/2024
Case Description: Blue Cloud Bike Park - Site Preparation ---- Receptor #3 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Homes to South Residential 67.3 67.3 67.3
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Dozer No 40 81.7 1900.0 0.0
Dozer No 40 81.7 1900.0 0.0
Dozer No 40 81.7 1900.0 0.0
Tractor No 40 84 1900.0 0.0
Tractor No 40 84 1900.0 0.0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 1900.0 0.0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 1900.0 0.0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Dozer 50.1 46.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 50.1 46.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 50.1 46.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Tractor 52.4 48.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Tractor 52.4 48.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Front End Loader 47.5 43.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Backhoe 46.0 42.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 52 55 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 4/1/2024
Case Description: Blue Cloud Bike Park - Grading
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Canine Facilities to East Commercial 47.5 47.5 47.5
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Excavator No 40 80.7 800 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 800 0
Grader No 40 85 800 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 800 0
Scraper No 40 83.6 800 0
Scraper No 40 83.6 800 0
Tractor No 40 84 800 0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 800 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Excavator 56.6 52.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 56.6 52.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Grader 60.9 56.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 57.6 53.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Scraper 59.5 55.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Scraper 59.5 55.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Tractor 59.9 55.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Front End Loader 55.0 51.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 61 64 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 4/1/2024
Case Description: Blue Cloud Bike Park - Grading
---- Receptor #2 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Homes to West Residential 52.6 52.6 52.6
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Excavator No 40 80.7 1700 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 1700 0
Grader No 40 85 1700 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 1700 0
Scraper No 40 83.6 1700 0
Scraper No 40 83.6 1700 0
Tractor No 40 84 1700 0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 1700 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Excavator 50.1 46.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 50.1 46.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Grader 54.4 50.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 51.0 47.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Scraper 53.0 49.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Scraper 53.0 49.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Tractor 53.4 49.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Front End Loader 48.5 44.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 54 57 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 4/1/2024
Case Description: Blue Cloud Bike Park - Grading
---- Receptor #3 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Homes to South Residential 67.3 67.3 67.3
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Excavator No 40 80.7 1900 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 1900 0
Grader No 40 85 1900 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 1900 0
Scraper No 40 83.6 1900 0
Scraper No 40 83.6 1900 0
Tractor No 40 84 1900 0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 1900 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Excavator 49.1 45.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 49.1 45.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Grader 53.4 49.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 50.1 46.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Scraper 52.0 48.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Scraper 52.0 48.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Tractor 52.4 48.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Front End Loader 47.5 43.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 53 56 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 4/1/2024
Case Description: Blue Cloud Bike Park - Building Construction ---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Canine Facilities to East Commercial 47.5 47.5 47.5
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Crane No 16 80.6 800 0
Gradall No 40 83.4 800 0
Gradall No 40 83.4 800 0
Gradall No 40 83.4 800 0
Generator No 50 80.6 800 0
Tractor No 40 84 800 0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 800 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 800 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 800 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Crane 56.5 48.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Gradall 59.3 55.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Gradall 59.3 55.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Gradall 59.3 55.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Generator 56.5 53.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Tractor 59.9 55.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Front End Loader 55.0 51.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Backhoe 53.5 49.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Welder / Torch 49.9 45.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 60 63 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 4/1/2024
Case Description: Blue Cloud Bike Park - Building Construction ---- Receptor #2 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Homes to West Residential 52.6 52.6 52.6
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Crane No 16 80.6 1700 0
Gradall No 40 83.4 1700 0
Gradall No 40 83.4 1700 0
Gradall No 40 83.4 1700 0
Generator No 50 80.6 1700 0
Tractor No 40 84 1700 0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 1700 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 1700 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 1700 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Crane 49.9 42.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Gradall 52.8 48.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Gradall 52.8 48.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Gradall 52.8 48.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Generator 50.0 47.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Tractor 53.4 49.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Front End Loader 48.5 44.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Backhoe 46.9 43.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Welder / Torch 43.4 39.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 53 56 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 4/1/2024
Case Description: Blue Cloud Bike Park - Building Construction ---- Receptor #3 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Homes to South Residential 67.3 67.3 67.3
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Crane No 16 80.6 1900 0
Gradall No 40 83.4 1900 0
Gradall No 40 83.4 1900 0
Gradall No 40 83.4 1900 0
Generator No 50 80.6 1900 0
Tractor No 40 84 1900 0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 1900 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 1900 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 1900 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Crane 49.0 41.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Gradall 51.8 47.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Gradall 51.8 47.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Gradall 51.8 47.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Generator 49.0 46.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Tractor 52.4 48.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Front End Loader 47.5 43.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Backhoe 46.0 42.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Welder / Torch 42.4 38.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 52 55 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 4/1/2024
Case Description: Blue Cloud Bike Park - Paving
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Canine Facilities to East Commercial 47.5 47.5 47.5
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Paver No 50 77.2 800 0
Paver No 50 77.2 800 0
Paver No 50 77.2 800 0
Paver No 50 77.2 800 0
Roller No 20 80 800 0
Roller No 20 80 800 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Paver 53.1 50.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Paver 53.1 50.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Paver 53.1 50.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Paver 53.1 50.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Roller 55.9 48.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Roller 55.9 48.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 56 58 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 4/1/2024
Case Description: Blue Cloud Bike Park - Paving
---- Receptor #2 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Homes to West Residential 52.6 52.6 52.6
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Paver No 50 77.2 1700 0
Paver No 50 77.2 1700 0
Paver No 50 77.2 1700 0
Paver No 50 77.2 1700 0
Roller No 20 80 1700 0
Roller No 20 80 1700 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Paver 46.6 43.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Paver 46.6 43.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Paver 46.6 43.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Paver 46.6 43.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Roller 49.4 42.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Roller 49.4 42.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 49 51 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 4/1/2024
Case Description: Blue Cloud Bike Park - Paving
---- Receptor #3 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Homes to South Residential 67.3 67.3 67.3
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Paver No 50 77.2 1900 0
Paver No 50 77.2 1900 0
Paver No 50 77.2 1900 0
Paver No 50 77.2 1900 0
Roller No 20 80 1900 0
Roller No 20 80 1900 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Paver 45.6 42.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Paver 45.6 42.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Paver 45.6 42.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Paver 45.6 42.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Roller 48.4 41.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Roller 48.4 41.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 48 50 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 4/1/2024
Case Description: Blue Cloud Bike Park - Painting
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Canine Facilities to East Commercial 47.5 47.5 47.5
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 800 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Compressor (air) 53.6 49.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 54 50 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #2 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Homes to West Residential 52.6 52.6 52.6
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 1700 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Compressor (air) 47.0 43.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 47 43 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 4/1/2024
Case Description: Blue Cloud Bike Park - Painting
---- Receptor #3 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Homes to South Residential 67.3 67.3 67.3
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Compressor (air) No 40.0 77.7 1900 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Compressor (air) 46.1 42.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 46 42 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project, Noise Impact Analysis City of Santa Clarita
Appendix  D

APPENDIX D
Onsite Noise Sources Reference Noise Measurements Printouts General Information
Serial Number 02509
Model 831
Firmware Version 2.301
Filename 831_Data.001
User GT
Job Description Peters Canyon Regional Park
Location 190 feet north of Intersection of Peters Cyn and Silverado Terrace Measurement Description
Start Time Tuesday, 2017 July 04 12:03:44
Stop Time Tuesday, 2017 July 04 12:18:45
Duration 00:15:00.5
Run Time 00:15:00.5
Pause 00:00:00.0
Pre Calibration Tuesday, 2017 July 04 12:01:08
Post Calibration None
Calibration Deviation ---
Note
Approximately 20' from dirt trail CL and 35' from Class 1 Bike Trail Noise from people talking, bicycles on dirt trail and vehicles on Peters Cyn Rd 83F, 29.61 in Hg, 52% Hu, 4 mph wind, clear sky
Overall Data
LAeq 40.6 dB
LASmax 2017 Jul 04 12:17:37 60.2 dB
LApeak (max) 2017 Jul 04 12:17:37 95.9 dB
LASmin 2017 Jul 04 12:09:17 31.6 dB
LCeq 53.8 dB
LAeq 40.6 dB
LCeq - LAeq 13.1 dB
LAIeq 49.2 dB
LAeq 40.6 dB
LAIeq - LAeq 8.6 dB
Ldn 40.6 dB
LDay 07:00-23:00 40.6 dB
LNight 23:00-07:00 --- dB
Lden 40.6 dB
LDay 07:00-19:00 40.6 dB
LEvening 19:00-23:00 --- dB
LNight 23:00-07:00 --- dB
LAE 70.2 dB
# Overloads 0
Overload Duration 0.0 s
# OBA Overloads 0
OBA Overload Duration 0.0 s
Statistics
LAS5.00 45.7 dBA
LAS10.00 44.2 dBA
LAS33.30 39.5 dBA
LAS50.00 37.5 dBA
LAS66.60 35.5 dBA
LAS90.00 33.6 dBA
LAS > 65.0 dB (Exceedence Counts / Duration) 0 / 0.0 s
LAS > 85.0 dB (Exceedence Counts / Duration) 0 / 0.0 s
LApeak > 135.0 dB (Exceedence Counts / Duration) 0 / 0.0 s LApeak > 137.0 dB (Exceedence Counts / Duration) 0 / 0.0 s LApeak > 140.0 dB (Exceedence Counts / Duration) 0 / 0.0 s Settings
RMS Weight A Weighting
Peak Weight A Weighting
Detector Slow
Preamp PRM831
Integration Method Linear
OBA Range Normal
OBA Bandwidth 1/1 and 1/3
OBA Freq. Weighting Z Weighting
OBA Max Spectrum Bin Max
Gain +0 dB
Under Range Limit 26.2 dB
Under Range Peak 75.8 dB
Noise Floor 17.0 dB
Overload 143.3 dB
1/1 Spectra
Freq. (Hz): 8.0 16.0 31.5 63.0 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 8k 16k LZeq 61.9 54.7 49.1 49.3 47.0 39.6 35.8 35.7 36.1 37.4 39.6 43.0 LZSmax 79.4 70.2 60.9 60.0 64.5 51.1 47.9 47.2 51.8 57.7 49.6 43.6 LZSmin 39.3 41.9 41.7 43.5 40.5 32.2 29.7 30.8 32.8 35.8 39.2 42.8 1/3 Spectra
Freq. (Hz): 6.3 8.0 10.0 12.5 16.0 20.0 25.0 31.5 40.0 50.0 63.0 80.0 LZeq 59.0 57.1 54.7 52.2 49.2 47.1 45.7 44.1 43.1 44.3 42.8 46.0 LZSmax 77.2 71.9 71.3 67.7 64.7 62.0 60.8 56.2 56.4 57.7 56.6 59.9 LZSmin 33.0 34.6 34.2 33.8 35.7 36.1 35.8 36.7 34.5 36.3 35.6 37.9 Freq. (Hz): 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1k 1.25k LZeq 44.8 40.9 38.5 36.4 34.8 32.3 31.2 30.8 31.3 31.3 30.8 30.8 LZSmax 64.8 51.5 53.2 49.1 47.5 44.6 46.6 43.3 43.6 45.6 43.0 46.3 LZSmin 36.4 35.0 31.7 29.1 26.2 24.6 24.4 24.1 24.9 25.0 26.0 26.5 Freq. (Hz): 1.6k 2k 2.5k 3.15k 4k 5k 6.3k 8k 10k 12.5k 16k 20k LZeq 31.1 31.5 31.4 32.0 33.0 32.8 33.6 34.7 35.8 37.0 37.8 39.5 LZSmax 43.3 49.4 47.5 49.8 55.7 50.1 47.6 45.0 38.5 38.2 38.5 39.8 LZSmin 27.0 27.7 28.6 29.8 30.8 31.9 33.1 34.3 35.5 36.7 37.6 39.3 Calibration History
Preamp Date dB re. 1V/Pa
PRM831 04 Jul 2017 12:01:07 -25.8
PRM831 22 Jun 2017 14:02:37 -26.3
PRM831 22 Jun 2017 12:06:39 -25.9
PRM831 06 Apr 2017 13:35:04 -25.9
PRM831 05 Apr 2017 10:29:19 -25.5
PRM831 28 Mar 2017 11:12:45 -25.8
PRM831 02 Nov 2016 10:44:45 -25.2
PRM831 22 Sep 2016 15:49:59 -26.5
PRM831 24 Aug 2016 19:03:10 -26.1
PRM831 26 Jul 2016 10:53:46 -26.0
PRM831 26 Jul 2016 09:33:01 -26.4
General Information
Serial Number 02509
Model 831
Firmware Version 2.301
Filename 831_Data.002
User GT
Job Description Peters Canyon Regional Park
Location East side of Parking Lot for Peters Canyon Regional Park Measurement Description
Start Time Tuesday, 2017 July 04 12:32:01
Stop Time Tuesday, 2017 July 04 12:47:01
Duration 00:15:00.6
Run Time 00:15:00.6
Pause 00:00:00.0
Pre Calibration Tuesday, 2017 July 04 12:01:07
Post Calibration None
Calibration Deviation ---
Note
On island between north and south sections of parking lot and approx 50' SW of pay station Noise from vehicles and people in parking lot, aircraft overflights and vehicles on Canyon View Ave 84F, 29.31 in Hg, 49% Hu, 7 mph wind, clear sky
Overall Data
LAeq 51.7 dB
LASmax 2017 Jul 04 12:40:31 69.7 dB
LApeak (max) 2017 Jul 04 12:32:16 85.1 dB
LASmin 2017 Jul 04 12:37:07 38.6 dB
LCeq 63.9 dB
LAeq 51.7 dB
LCeq - LAeq 12.1 dB
LAIeq 55.2 dB
LAeq 51.7 dB
LAIeq - LAeq 3.5 dB
Ldn 51.7 dB
LDay 07:00-23:00 51.7 dB
LNight 23:00-07:00 --- dB
Lden 51.7 dB
LDay 07:00-19:00 51.7 dB
LEvening 19:00-23:00 --- dB
LNight 23:00-07:00 --- dB
LAE 81.2 dB
# Overloads 0
Overload Duration 0.0 s
# OBA Overloads 0
OBA Overload Duration 0.0 s
Statistics
LAS5.00 55.4 dBA
LAS10.00 51.5 dBA
LAS33.30 45.9 dBA
LAS50.00 44.8 dBA
LAS66.60 43.6 dBA
LAS90.00 41.5 dBA
LAS > 65.0 dB (Exceedence Counts / Duration) 2 / 14.5 s LAS > 85.0 dB (Exceedence Counts / Duration) 0 / 0.0 s
LApeak > 135.0 dB (Exceedence Counts / Duration) 0 / 0.0 s LApeak > 137.0 dB (Exceedence Counts / Duration) 0 / 0.0 s LApeak > 140.0 dB (Exceedence Counts / Duration) 0 / 0.0 s Settings
RMS Weight A Weighting
Peak Weight A Weighting
Detector Slow
Preamp PRM831
Integration Method Linear
OBA Range Normal
OBA Bandwidth 1/1 and 1/3
OBA Freq. Weighting Z Weighting
OBA Max Spectrum Bin Max
Gain +0 dB
Under Range Limit 26.2 dB
Under Range Peak 75.8 dB
Noise Floor 17.0 dB
Overload 143.3 dB
1/1 Spectra
Freq. (Hz): 8.0 16.0 31.5 63.0 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 8k 16k LZeq 71.6 65.6 60.7 58.1 55.6 50.5 51.1 46.6 40.7 38.6 39.9 43.0 LZSmax 87.2 82.8 72.1 71.8 73.7 68.3 71.0 66.2 56.3 49.0 44.3 43.3 LZSmin 40.7 47.4 48.4 47.0 43.0 36.6 35.3 35.0 34.4 36.3 39.6 42.8 1/3 Spectra
Freq. (Hz): 6.3 8.0 10.0 12.5 16.0 20.0 25.0 31.5 40.0 50.0 63.0 80.0 LZeq 68.8 66.3 64.3 62.6 60.5 58.2 58.1 54.2 54.2 55.0 52.9 51.6 LZSmax 84.8 82.1 79.1 80.0 78.1 74.0 71.3 67.6 71.6 71.2 70.7 68.2 LZSmin 31.8 34.8 36.0 38.8 40.2 42.5 43.3 42.8 39.1 41.8 41.3 40.9 Freq. (Hz): 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1k 1.25k LZeq 52.2 51.5 48.4 46.7 45.7 44.6 44.9 46.3 47.2 44.1 40.6 39.4 LZSmax 71.8 69.8 65.3 64.0 65.3 62.8 64.0 66.1 68.1 65.5 58.9 59.0 LZSmin 32.2 37.3 34.1 32.8 31.2 30.1 29.8 29.8 29.5 29.8 30.3 30.3 Freq. (Hz): 1.6k 2k 2.5k 3.15k 4k 5k 6.3k 8k 10k 12.5k 16k 20k LZeq 37.1 35.3 34.9 34.3 33.7 33.5 34.0 34.9 36.3 37.0 37.9 39.7 LZSmax 52.4 50.6 50.5 46.0 44.2 41.7 39.6 42.9 37.7 37.4 38.6 40.3 LZSmin 29.3 29.3 29.7 30.6 31.3 32.1 31.9 33.6 35.9 36.7 37.7 39.5 Calibration History
Preamp Date dB re. 1V/Pa
PRM831 04 Jul 2017 12:01:07 -25.8
PRM831 22 Jun 2017 14:02:37 -26.3
PRM831 22 Jun 2017 12:06:39 -25.9
PRM831 06 Apr 2017 13:35:04 -25.9
PRM831 05 Apr 2017 10:29:19 -25.5
PRM831 28 Mar 2017 11:12:45 -25.8
PRM831 02 Nov 2016 10:44:45 -25.2
PRM831 22 Sep 2016 15:49:59 -26.5
PRM831 24 Aug 2016 19:03:10 -26.1
PRM831 26 Jul 2016 10:53:46 -26.0
PRM831 26 Jul 2016 09:33:01 -26.4
St Regis Wedding.txt
SLM & RTA Summary
Translated: 10-Feb-2010 10:05:45
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- File Translated: Z:\Vista Env\2009\090103-Napa St Regis\Noise Measurements\LD\St Regis Wedding.slmdl
Model Number: 824
Serial Number: A3176
Firmware Rev: 4.283
Software Version: 3.120
Name: Vista Environmental
Descr1: 1021 Didrikson Way
Descr2: Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Setup: SLM&RTA.ssa
Setup Descr: SLM & Real-Time Analyzer
Location: St. Regis Monarch Beach Resort
Note 1: 70' from 200 guest wedding reception w-amplified music Note 2: 150' from outdoor restaurant
Overall Any Data
Start Time: 31-May-2009 15:11:59
Elapsed Time: 00:11:00.3
A Weight C Weight Flat
Leq: 74.0 dBA 83.3 dBC 83.6 dBF
SEL: 102.2 dBA 111.5 dBC 111.8 dBF
Peak: 94.2 dBA 101.1 dBC 101.7 dBF
31-May-2009 15:16:18 31-May-2009 15:12:34 31-May-2009 15:19:49 Lmax (slow): 78.4 dBA 88.4 dBC 88.7 dBF
31-May-2009 15:20:35 31-May-2009 15:17:59 31-May-2009 15:17:59 Lmin (slow): 64.8 dBA 72.6 dBC 72.8 dBF
31-May-2009 15:15:29 31-May-2009 15:15:24 31-May-2009 15:15:24 Lmax (fast): 81.3 dBA 92.2 dBC 92.5 dBF
31-May-2009 15:20:34 31-May-2009 15:17:59 31-May-2009 15:17:59 Lmin (fast): 52.7 dBA 58.2 dBC 59.1 dBF
31-May-2009 15:15:24 31-May-2009 15:15:24 31-May-2009 15:15:24 Lmax (impulse): 83.6 dBA 94.2 dBC 94.4 dBF
31-May-2009 15:20:34 31-May-2009 15:19:49 31-May-2009 15:19:49 Lmin (impulse): 65.3 dBA 74.8 dBC 75.0 dBF
31-May-2009 15:15:29 31-May-2009 15:14:53 31-May-2009 15:14:53 Spectra
Start Time: 31-May-2009 15:11:59 Run Time: 00:11:00.3
Freq Leq 1/3 Leq 1/1 Max 1/3 Max 1/1 Min 1/3 Min 1/1

12.5 Hz 53.9 53.5 28.1

16.0 Hz 49.2 56.3 46.8 56.5 25.0 35.3

20.0 Hz 49.8 52.5 33.9

25.0 Hz 50.7 52.6 38.3

31.5 Hz 52.2 64.1 55.5 66.5 38.4 43.7

40.0 Hz 63.6 66.0 39.9

50.0 Hz 68.2 73.5 43.2

63.0 Hz 68.9 77.9 74.3 81.3 42.1 47.0

80.0 Hz 76.8 79.3 41.3
100 Hz 78.6 81.4 42.2
125 Hz 76.7 81.0 78.5 83.5 43.8 47.1
160 Hz 68.1 71.3 40.2
200 Hz 68.2 72.1 41.4
250 Hz 67.1 71.5 72.1 75.6 40.0 44.6
315 Hz 64.0 65.4 37.3
400 Hz 61.7 68.7 38.8
500 Hz 63.6 68.7 65.1 74.7 41.3 48.0

St Regis Wedding.txt
630 Hz 65.7 72.7 46.3
800 Hz 65.3 75.3 45.1
1000 Hz 66.3 69.8 76.9 80.4 42.6 48.3
1250 Hz 62.9 74.3 42.2
1600 Hz 63.9 71.2 41.2
2000 Hz 61.4 66.9 72.4 76.0 39.9 45.3
2500 Hz 60.4 69.5 40.5
3150 Hz 58.5 64.7 38.0
4000 Hz 54.0 60.3 61.4 66.7 35.0 40.6
5000 Hz 50.4 55.1 33.2
6300 Hz 46.2 47.8 30.1
8000 Hz 42.6 48.2 45.6 50.5 27.3 32.5
10000 Hz 37.5 42.2 23.2
12500 Hz 32.4 37.4 20.2
16000 Hz 24.2 33.4 27.2 37.9 19.1 24.5
20000 Hz 22.4 23.3 19.7
Ln Start Level: 15 dB
L (1.00) 0.0
L (5.00) 0.0
L (50.00) 0.0
L (90.00) 0.0
L (95.00) 0.0
L (99.00) 0.0
Detector: Slow
Weighting: A
SPL Exceedance Level 1: 85.0 dB Exceeded: 0 times
SPL Exceedance Level 2: 120.0 dB Exceeded: 0 times
Peak-1 Exceedance Level: 105.0 dB Exceeded: 0 times
Peak-2 Exceedance Level: 100.0 dB Exceeded: 0 times
Hysteresis: 2
Overloaded: 0 time(s)
Paused: 0 times for 00:00:00.0
Current Any Data
Start Time: 31-May-2009 15:11:59
Elapsed Time: 00:11:00.3
A Weight C Weight Flat
Leq: 74.0 dBA 83.3 dBC 83.6 dBF
SEL: 102.2 dBA 111.5 dBC 111.8 dBF
Peak: 94.2 dBA 101.1 dBC 101.7 dBF
31-May-2009 15:16:18 31-May-2009 15:12:34 31-May-2009 15:19:49 Lmax (slow): 78.4 dBA 88.4 dBC 88.7 dBF
31-May-2009 15:20:35 31-May-2009 15:17:59 31-May-2009 15:17:59 Lmin (slow): 64.8 dBA 72.6 dBC 72.8 dBF
31-May-2009 15:15:29 31-May-2009 15:15:24 31-May-2009 15:15:24 Lmax (fast): 81.3 dBA 92.2 dBC 92.5 dBF
31-May-2009 15:20:34 31-May-2009 15:17:59 31-May-2009 15:17:59 Lmin (fast): 52.7 dBA 58.2 dBC 59.1 dBF
31-May-2009 15:15:24 31-May-2009 15:15:24 31-May-2009 15:15:24 Lmax (impulse): 83.6 dBA 94.2 dBC 94.4 dBF
31-May-2009 15:20:34 31-May-2009 15:19:49 31-May-2009 15:19:49 Lmin (impulse): 65.3 dBA 74.8 dBC 75.0 dBF
31-May-2009 15:15:29 31-May-2009 15:14:53 31-May-2009 15:14:53 Calibrated: 31-May-2009 11:57:31 Offset: -48.5 dB
Checked: 31-May-2009 11:57:31 Level: 94.0 dB

St Regis Wedding.txt
Calibrator not set Level: 94.0 dB
Cal Records Count: 0
Interval Records: Disabled Number Interval Records: 0
Time History: Disabled Number History Records: 0
Run/Stop Records: Number Run/Stop Records: 2

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 4/1/2024
Case Description: Blue Cloud Bike Park - Operations
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Canine Facilities to East Commercial 47.5 47.5 47.5
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Backhoe No 40 77.6 800 0
Generator (<25KVA, VMS signs) No 50 72.8 4100 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Backhoe 53.5 49.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Generator (<25KVA, VMS signs) 34.5 31.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 54 50 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #2 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Homes to West Residential 52.6 52.6 52.6
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Backhoe No 40 77.6 1700 0
Generator (<25KVA, VMS signs) No 50 72.8 2300 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Backhoe 46.9 43.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Generator (<25KVA, VMS signs) 39.6 36.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 47 44 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 4/1/2024
Case Description: Blue Cloud Bike Park - Operations
---- Receptor #3 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Homes to South Residential 67.3 67.3 67.3
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Backhoe No 40 77.6 1900 0
Generator (<25KVA, VMS signs) No 50 72.8 5200 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Backhoe 46.0 42.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Generator (<25KVA, VMS signs) 32.5 29.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 46 42 N/A N/A N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

APPENDIX H:

ASSEMBLY BILL 52 DOCUMENTATION

BangO
tC.

F
940 Califorme
June 10, 2024
Sent via email to JMORRI S ON (asanta-clarita. com
Re: City of Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Park Project
Dear Jeff Morrison,

FTBMI PROJECT ESTIMATE
Category: Estimated Number of Days/Hours
Tribal Monitor 2 Monitors/ 16 Hours
Total Estimate: $
1019 Second Street, Suite 1 | San Fernando | California, 91340 | (818)837-0794 | Fax (818) 837-0796 | [email protected] Jeff Morrison
Open Space and Trails Administrator
City of Santa Clarita
The Cultural Resources Management (CRM) Division of the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians (FTBMI) has requested to engage in consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 for the proposed City of Santa Clarita Blue Cloud Bike Project. The CRM Division of the FTBMI recommends site survey by Tribal Monitors procured by the FTBMI occur prior to holding a consultation meeting and providing Mitigation Measures. The FTBMI has maintained a professional Tribal Monitoring (TM) service for decades by aligning its traditional framework of preserving cultural, spiritual, and emotional ties to the land with effective options for mitigating potential damages to cultural resources.

The Tribal Historic and Cultural Preservation (THCP) Department’s field services for the Project, located in the City of Santa Clarita, CA consist of TM pedestrian survey, and documentation of work activity and artifact discoveries through daily monitoring logs and photographs. The CRM Manager shall oversee Tribal coordination, correspondence, and reporting, but is not necessarily a full-time and/or field position.

Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians
Tribal Historic & Cultural Preservation Department
2 wO
/s
/ 0/
/67
3/ rdg
Respectfully submitted by
22 Accepted by
1019 Second Street, Suite 1 | San Fernando | California, 91340 | (818)837-0794 | Fax (818) 837-0796 | [email protected] By:

Name:

Title:

CLIENT:

City of Santa Clarita
TRIBE:

FERNANDENO TATAVIAM BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
Contact Information
Sarah Brunzell Manager
Cultural Resources Management Division
1019 Second Street
San Fernando, CA 91340 Office
Contact: 818-837-0794
E-mail: [email protected]
By:

Name: Sarah Brunzell
Title: CRM Manager
HASKELL CANYON BIKE PARK PROJECT: TRIBAL CONSULTATION LOG 02/7/2025 Email
Phone Call2/14/2025
2/18/2025 Phone Call Receptionist2/25/2025 Email2/26/2025 Email 3/2/2025 Email

City of Santa Clarita (City)
Amber Rodriguez, Management Analyst, City of Santa Clarita Agency and/or Consultant
Representative(s)
(name, title, affiliation)City of Santa Clarita (City)
Amber Rodriguez, Management Analyst, City of Santa Clarita City of Santa Clarita (City)
Amber Rodriguez, Management Analyst, City of Santa Clarita City of Santa Clarita (City)
Amber Rodriguez, Management Analyst, City of Santa Clarita City of Santa Clarita (City)
Amber Rodriguez, Management Analyst, City of Santa Clarita City of Santa Clarita (City)
Amber Rodriguez, Management Analyst, City of Santa Clarita City of Santa Clarita (City)
Amber Rodriguez, Management Analyst, City of Santa Clarita Kimia Fatehi, Chief of Staff, Fernandeno Tatavium Band of Mission Indians Receptionist The City informed FTBMI that a new project manager has taken over the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project and that Jeff Morrison is no longer involved. They confirmed that the consultation process has officially begun, welcomed FTBMI to visit the site, and offered the completed Phase I Cultural Assessment for review, with the CEQA document set to be released soon.

Miguel Luna, Chief
Administrative Officer,
Fernandeno Tatavium Band of Mission IndiansKimia Fatehi, Chief of Staff, Fernandeno Tatavium Band of Mission IndiansMiguel Luna, Chief Administrative Officer,
Fernandeno Tatavium Band of Mission Indians
Date
02/7/2025
Tribal Representative(s)
(name, title, affiliation)
Sarah Brunzell, CRM Manager,
Fernandeno Tatavium Band of Mission Indians
Type of
Communication
Email
Description/Summarv of Communication
Initial contact with Sarah Brunzell to provide notification about the City’s plan to build Haskell Canyon Bike Park and asked to set up a meeting to discuss the project. Email was rejected and said undelivered.

Followed-up with the Chief of Staff since the initial email was rejected. This email notified the tribe for a request to set up a meeting about the project.

Amber Rodriguez called the main office line to follow-up with Kimia on the email that was sent on February 7, 2025.

Amber Rodriguez called the main office line to follow-up on the email that was sent on February 7, 2025 and asked for a call back to setup a meeting.

Kimia sent an emailing responding to the City’s request regarding the project and connected City staff with Miguel Luna (Chief Administrative Officer) Miguel Luna responded to the email Amber Rodriguez sent on February 14, 2025 and followed up on their June 2024 discussions with Jeff Morrison regarding a contract for Tribal Monitors to conduct a cultural survey prior to the AB 52 consultation. They attached their formal request and estimate, and confirmed they're available to survey the site alongside the project archaeologists.

Tribal Consultation Log - Haskell Canyon Bike Park
04/26/2025
3/10/2025 Email
4/8/2025 Email
EmailEmailEmail
Zoom

April 18. 2025April 10, 2025April 16, 2025April 11, 2025 City of Santa Clarita (City)
Amber Rodriguez, Management Analyst, City of Santa Clarita City of Santa Clarita (City)
Amber Rodriguez, Management Analyst, City of Santa Clarita City of Santa Clarita (City)
Amber Rodriguez, Management Analyst, City of Santa Clarita City of Santa Clarita (City)
Amber Rodriguez, Management Analyst, City of Santa Clarita City of Santa Clarita (City)
Amber Rodriguez, Management Analyst, City of Santa Clarita City of Santa Clarita (City)
Amber Rodriguez, Management Analyst, City of Santa Clarita Miguel Luna, Chief
Administrative Officer,
Fernandeno Tatavium Band of Mission IndiansMiguel Luna, Chief Administrative Officer,
Fernandeno Tatavium Band of Mission IndiansMiguel Luna, Chief Administrative Officer,
Fernandeno Tatavium Band of Mission IndiansMiguel Luna, Chief Administrative Officer,
Fernandeno Tatavium Band of Mission IndiansMiguel Luna, Chief Administrative Officer,
Fernandeno Tatavium Band of Mission IndiansMiguel Luna, Chief Administrative Officer,
Fernandeno Tatavium Band of Mission Indians
The City and Tribe met via Zoom to review the Tribe’s
recommendations and reached an agreement on the revised terms.The FTBMI clarified that their discussions with Jeff Morrison were about having Tribal Monitors participate in a pedestrian survey before starting consultation, and they were unaware a Phase I report had already been completed. They requested the City complete the Tribe’s project intake and consultation forms, and upload all archaeological reports so they can review the site and begin formal consultation.

The City followed up on a project intake form submitted on March 27, noting that the Tribe’s response is the final item needed before publishing the CEQA document. They also requested an in-person meeting to discuss the project and offer any needed information.

The Tribe classified the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project as Medium Sensitivity and asked the City to complete their consultation form accordingly. They also requested available dates to hold a government-to-government consultation before the MND is published.

The City informed the Tribe that they’ve been unable to submit the consultation form due to technical issues and asked for guidance or an alternative method. They provided their availability for consultation, requested to receive the Tribe’s recommendations in advance, and emphasized the urgency of publishing the MND within the next week and a half.

Miguel Luna sent an email to schedule a meeting between the tribe and the City.

Tribal Consultation Log - Haskell Canyon Bike Park
04/26/2025
Amber T. Rodriguez
Hi Miguel,
Thank you so much for all your help!
CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments.

Yes, can you please send out a calendar invite for me and Ms. Ortega cc'd here.

Bang°
k
67 8
r
°corm"
&IIi
l
Any chance you guys can send over your recommendations prior to the meeting? This would allow us to finalize the consultation by the end of this week.

From: Miguel Luna, Chief Administrative Officer <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 1:31 PM
To: Amber T. Rodriguez <[email protected]>
Cc: THCP CRMD <[email protected]>; Itati Ortega, Administrative Assistant <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Haskell Canyon Bike Park
IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. if you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.

Amber T. Rodriguez
Wednesday, April 16, 2025 3:02 PM
'Miguel Luna, Chief Administrative Officer'
THCP CRMD; Itati Ortega, Administrative Assistant
RE: Haskell Canyon Bike Park
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Miguel Luna
Chief Administrative Officer
©Tribal Administration
1 Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians
& 818-837-0794
1019 2nd Street, San Fernando, CA 91340
? Native Sovereign Nation of Northern Los Angeles County Fll
Sorry for missing your call. I'm available on Friday. Does 3pm work for you? CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments.

Amber - how's this Friday looking for you between the hours of 2pm-5pm online? If not, perhaps Monday next week 4-5pm? Let me know.
2 Fernandeno Tataviam
Band of Mission Indians
Proactively establishing entities
to overcome systemic barriers:

5. From: Amber T. Rodriguez <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 at 1:23 PM
To: Miguel Luna, Chief Administrative Officer <[email protected]> Cc: THCP CRMD <[email protected]>, Itati Ortega, Administrative Assistant <itati.ortega@tataviamnsn.us> Subject: RE: Haskell Canyon Bike Park
From: Miguel Luna, Chief Administrative Officer <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 1:22 PM
To: Amber T. Rodriguez <[email protected]>
Cc: THCP CRMD <[email protected]>; Itati Ortega, Administrative Assistant <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Haskell Canyon Bike Park
Importance: High
[CAUTION] EXTERNAL Email. Exercise caution.

Hi Miguel,
w“
B
F

0. Califorme
E l
VPCoy,O,
Son,roo"
N 35.
3 f
Fernandeno Tataviam
Band of Mission Indians
Proactively establishing entities
to overcome systemic barriers:

Thank you for sending over the link to the form. I've attempted to submit it about four times now, but each time it remains stuck in "processing." I'm not sure if that's typical, but I'd appreciate your guidance on how to move forward or if there's an alternate way to submit it.

Regarding scheduling, I'm available Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., and I'm happy to adjust to a time that works best for you to begin the government-to-government consultation. Please let me know your earliest availability.

IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.

From: Amber T. Rodriguez <[email protected]> Date: Friday, April 11, 2025 at 2:12 PM
To: Miguel Luna, Chief Administrative Officer <[email protected]> Cc: THCP CRMD <[email protected]>, Itati Ortega, Administrative Assistant <itati.ortega@tataviamnsn.us> Subject: RE: Haskell Canyon Bike Park
Miguel Luna
Chief Administrative Officer
[CAUTION] EXTERNAL Email. Exercise caution.

Hi Miguel,
©Tribal Administration
1 Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians
& 818-837-0794
@ 1019 2nd Street, San Fernando, CA 91340
? Native Sovereign Nation of Northern Los Angeles County /67 SLte
il19
Please let me know the best way to submit the form and how we can continue moving forward.

Thank you,
CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments.

Dear Amber,
https://www.tataviam-nsn.us/proiect-consultation-form/
SB SB 0
4 The proposed Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project has been categorized as Medium Sensitivity. Please submit a consultation form at the link below and select Medium Sensitivity:

Please also provide your availability to engage in government-to-government consultation, which should occur prior to the MND being published.

Additionally, if possible, I'd appreciate receiving the tribe's recommendations in advance so I can review them ahead of our meeting. That way, we can focus our time on any outstanding items and make the most of the discussion.

From: Miguel Luna, Chief Administrative Officer <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2025 1:42 PM
To: Amber T. Rodriguez <[email protected]>
Cc: THCP CRMD <[email protected]>; Itati Ortega, Administrative Assistant <[email protected]> Subject: Haskell Canyon Bike Park
Lastly, I want to reiterate the City's goal of publishing the MND within the next week and a half in order to meet critical deadlines.

Amber Rodriguez
Management Analyst
(661) 284-1414
LTribal Administration
LFernandeo Tataviam Band of Mission Indians
□ 818-837-0794
41019 2nd Street, San Fernando, CA 91340
L Native Sovereign Nation of Northern Los Angeles County Miguel Luna
Chief Administrative Officer
a
o
kB
F
$r
A orn"
OACA
EilI
N 3.
5 @ I f
Fernandeno Tataviam
Band of Mission Indians
Proactively establishing entities
to overcome systemic barriers:

IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.

IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.

Miguel Luna
Chief Administrative Officer
©Tribal Administration
Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians
8818-837-0794
@ 1019 2nd Street, San Fernando, CA 91340
? Native Sovereign Nation of Northern Los Angeles County /w67
tCo,,
□
Bang
‘r Caliform”
EE
VN..Co.,, OAC4,
\
“orenvico"
N I
6 Fernandeno Tataviam
Band of Mission Indians
Proactively establishing entities
to overcome systemic barriers:
/w6
IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.

Miguel Luna
Chief Administrative Officer
©Tribal Administration
1 Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians
& 818-837-0794
@ 1019 2nd Street, San Fernando, CA 91340
? Native Sovereign Nation of Northern Los Angeles County Fils
Amber T. Rodriguez
CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments.

Hi Amber,
If the pedestrian survey was already performed, please complete the mandatory project intake form at the link below:
https://www.tataviam-nsn.us/project-intake/
Bang
IB
iform”
is o
l
There seems to be a bit of a disconnect. Our conversations with Jeff Morrison were regarding the fact that the CRM Division of the FTBMI requested Tribal Monitors perform a pedestrian survey prior to engaging in consultation and providing Mitigation Measures. We were not aware that a Phase I survey and report had already been completed.

Also, the CRM Division of the FTBMI requires a project intake form and consultation form prior to engaging in consultation. Please see the FTBMI's attached fee schedule for more information.

The intention was for Tribal monitors to participate in the pedestrian survey per the proposal provided, not for the Tribe to visit the site.

Once the project intake form is received, we can review the project and confirm the level of sensitivity. Once the consultation form is received, we can engage in government-to-government consultation.

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Attachments:

One reason the CRM Division of the FTBMI requested to participate in the pedestrian survey, is due to some unknowns about the location. Please ensure the Phase I Pedestrian Survey and any additional archaeological reports are uploaded with the project intake form. If the City of Santa Clarita is not the project applicant, please ensure the project applicant provides the requested information.

Miguel Luna
Chief Administrative Officer
/w67
Miguel Luna <[email protected]>
Monday, March 10, 2025 12:21 PM
Amber T. Rodriguez

THCP CRMD
Re: City of Santa Clarita-Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project FTBMI CONSULTATION SERVICES FEE SCHEDULE-V3.2024.pdf
©Tribal Administration
1 Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians
& 818-837-0794
@ 1019 2nd Street, San Fernando, CA 91340
? Native Sovereign Nation of Northern Los Angeles County AMRCo,,,
E %
N
xi
Thank you for your email regarding the City's Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project (formerly Blue Cloud Bike Park).

The draft CEQA document will be released for its 30-day public comment period in the next two weeks.

I look forward to working with you.
2 Fernandeno Tataviam
Band of Mission Indians
Proactively establishing entities
to overcome systemic barriers:

From: Amber T. Rodriguez <[email protected]> Date: Sunday, March 2, 2025 at 1:13 PM
To: Miguel Luna <[email protected]>
Cc: THCP CRMD <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: City of Santa Clarita-Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project I have taken over as project manager, and Jeff Morrison is no longer associated with it. However, he provided a history of his interaction with the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians (FTBMI).

The City understands that the FTBMI would like to engage in a government-to-government consultation and provide recommended mitigation measures; please consider this a notification that the consultation has begun, and we look forward to receiving FTBMI's recommendations. The project location and description are attached, and please find attached an exhibit showing the project layout.

IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.

FTBMI members are welcome to visit the site and evaluate it. If FTBMI members intend to visit the site, please notify me in advance of their visit.

We are happy to provide FTMBI with the completed Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Blue Cloud Bike Park Project (April 2024) if you would like to review it.

Amber Rodriguez
Management Analyst
(661) 284-1414
[CAUTION] EXTERNAL Email. Exercise caution.

Mr. Luna,
CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments.

Moving Ms. Fatehi to Bcc.

Ms. Rodriguez:

Thanks,
on
“r
Caliform”
% 818-837-0794
IS
3 @ I f
©Tribal Administration
4 Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians
IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof. /x” /67
From: Miguel Luna <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2025 3:20 PM
To: Amber T. Rodriguez <[email protected]>
Cc: THCP CRMD <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: City of Santa Clarita-Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Please copy [email protected] on all future emails as this will ensure a prompt response. Let me know if you have any additional questions.

Thank you for reaching out regarding the Blue Could Bike Park Project (Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project). The conversation left off in June 2024 with Jeff Morrison working on a contract/what a contract should look like for us to provide Tribal Monitors to survey the site prior to holding a AB 52 consultation meeting and providing Mitigation Measures. Attached is the Cultural Resources Management (CRM) Division of the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians' (FTBMI) formal request and survey estimate that was submitted to Jeff per his request June 10, 2024. We had been in communication with Jeff since April of 2024.

Also, the CRM Division informed Jeff we're happy to perform this pedestrian survey at the same time as the project archaeologist(s).
0 1019 2nd Street, San Fernando, CA 91340
? Native Sovereign Nation of Northern Los Angeles County Miguel Luna
Chief Administrative Officer
Un Co,, SASA
F J
N 1
Dear Amber,
6 3
O, orni?
& 818-837-0794
4 f
Fernandeno Tataviam
Band of Mission Indians
Proactively establishing entities
to overcome systemic barriers:
® Office of the Tribal President
“17 Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians
Kimia Fatehi
Chief of Staff
Thank you,
Kimia
IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.

Please excuse this late reply. I am SO sorry that I missed your original email. Thank you for checking in with me and bumping this up my inbox. I've copied the email address that reaches our CRM team. They will review and get back to you shortly. Please don't hesitate to email me for anything else.

From: Kimia Fatehi <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 10:19 PM
To: Amber T. Rodriguez <[email protected]>; THCP CRMD <[email protected]> Subject: Re: City of Santa Clarita-Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project 0 1019 2nd Street, San Fernando, CA 91340
9 Native Sovereign Nation of Northern Los Angeles County Vefowne
vano,Co,,WAC, S fy
E!
Somranao"
N §
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Thank you,
Hi Kimia,
I hope you're doing well.
5 Fernandeno Tataviam
Band of Mission Indians
Proactively establishing entities
to overcome systemic barriers:

I initially reached out to Sarah Brunzell, but my emails were returned as undeliverable. Is there someone new in her role that I can connect with?
From: Amber T. Rodriguez <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 6:20:47 PM
To: Kimia Fatehi <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: City of Santa Clarita-Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project From: Amber T. Rodriguez
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2025 2:09 PM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]> Subject: City of Santa Clarita-Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project I hope all is well. Following up on my last email regarding the City's Haskell Canyon Bike Park project. I am trying to finalize the CEQA survey and want to ensure that we finalize any necessary conversations with the tribe before finalizing.

My name is Amber Rodriguez, and I work for the City of Santa Clarita. I recently took over as the project manager for the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project, previously known as Blue Cloud Bike Park. I'd like to follow up on where the previous project manager left off with your team.

Amber Rodriguez
Management Analyst
(661)284-1414
V
[CAUTION] EXTERNAL Email. Exercise caution.

Hi Kimia,

1. t
Thank you,
6 Amber Rodriguez
Management Analyst
(661)284-1414

HASKELL CANYON/BLUE-CLOUD BIKE PARK
XVIII., TRIBAL CULTURE RESOURCES/TRIBAL CONSULTATION - MITIGATION MEASURES Tribal Consultation concluded on 04/18/2025 with the City and the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians agreeing to the following mitigation measures.

TCR-1 Document Release
Any and all archaeological documents created as a part of the project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, and monitoring reports) shall be provided to the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians.

TCR-2 Cultural Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan In the event of an inadvertent discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources, its importance will be determined by the Tribal Monitor, the project archaeologist, and the City. If determined to be important, a Cultural Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (CRMMP) shall be prepared, in consultation with the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians. The CRMMP will provide details regarding the process for in-field treatment of inadvertent discoveries and the disposition of inadvertently discovered non-funerary resources.

TCR-3 Full Time Monitoring, Initial Pass, (1) Monitor
The project applicant shall retain a professional Tribal Monitor procured by the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians to observe all ground-disturbing activities including, but not limited to, clearing, grubbing, grading, excavating, digging, trenching, plowing, drilling, tunneling, quarrying, leveling, driving posts, auguring, blasting, stripping topsoil or similar activity during the initial pass (the first disturbance of all soil to the total depth of which it will be disturbed). If Cultural Resources are not encountered after observing the initial pass of all ground-disturbance, additional Tribal Monitoring is not required. If Cultural Resources are encountered during the initial pass, they shall be assessed by the Tribal Monitor, the project archaeologist, and the City. If determined to be important, the Tribal Monitor(s) shall continue observing ground disturbing activities to the satisfaction of the Tribal Monitor, project archaeologist, and the City to insure important Tribal Cultural Resources are identified. Tribal Monitoring Services will continue until confirmation is received from the project applicant, in writing, that all scheduled activities pertaining to Tribal Monitoring are complete, be it initial pass or all disturbance, dependent upon inadvertent discovery. If the Project’s scheduled activities require the Tribal Monitor(s) to leave the Project for a period of time and return, confirmation shall be submitted to the Tribe by Client, in writing, upon completion of each set of scheduled activities and 5 days’ notice (if possible) shall be submitted to the Tribe by project applicant, in writing, prior to the start of each set of scheduled activities. If cultural resources are encountered, the Tribal Monitor will have the authority to request that ground-disturbing activities cease within 60 feet of discovery and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards retained by the project applicant as well as the Tribal Monitor shall assess the find.

TCR-4 In the Event of an Inadvertent Discovery
If cultural resources are discovered during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards retained by the project applicant shall assess the find. Work on the portions of the Projects outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. The Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians (FTBMI) shall be contacted about any pre-contact and/or post-contact finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes their initial assessment of the nature of the find, to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.

TCR-5 Human Remains
In the inadvertent discovery of human remains or funerary objects during any activities associated with the Project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and that code shall be enforced for the duration of the Project.

Inadvertent discoveries of human remains and/or funerary object(s) are subject to California State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and the subsequent disposition of those discoveries shall be decided by the Most Likely Descendant (MLD), as determined by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), should those findings be determined as Native American in origin.

CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Lead Agency: City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard,
Suite 120
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
(661) 284-1414
Contact: Amber Rodriguez

Prepared by:
3760 Kilroy Airport Way, Suite 270
Long Beach, CA 90806
Office: (562) 200-7165
JUNE 2025

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
June 2025 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
1 The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project (Project) has been prepared in conformance with Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097, which require all state and local agencies to establish monitoring or reporting programs whenever approval of a project relies upon a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report. The MMRP ensures implementation of the measures being imposed to mitigate or avoid the significant adverse environmental impacts identified through the use of monitoring and reporting. Monitoring is generally an ongoing or periodic process of project oversight; reporting generally consists of a written compliance review that is presented to the decision-making body or authorized staff person.

This MMRP provides a framework to document implementation of the required mitigation measures, identifies monitoring/reporting responsibility for each mitigation measure, and provides a record of the monitoring/reporting to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures identified in the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) that are required to minimize impacts associated with the Project.

The mitigation measures identified in the table below were incorporated into the approval for this Project in order to reduce potentially significant environmental impacts. A signature and compliance date for each mitigation measure indicates that the measure has been implemented and fulfills the City of Santa Clarita’s monitoring requirements with respect to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. The mitigation measures are numbered as presented in the IS/MND for the Project.

Any modifications to the terms and/or timing of the mitigation measures in this MMRP shall provide a level of environmental protection equal to, or greater than the approved mitigation measure.

The City of Santa Clarita Department of Neighborhood Services, in conjunction with any appropriate agencies or city departments, shall determine the adequacy of any proposed modifications and, if necessary, may refer said determination to the City Council. No changes to the MMRP shall be permitted unless the MMRP continues to satisfy the requirements of CEQA as determined by the City of Santa Clarita, the lead agency for the Project.

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
City of Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project
June 2025 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
2 Mitigation Measures Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Agency or
Party
Signature/Date
of Compliance
Biological Resources
MM BIO-1 Prior to the construction of the proposed Project, a preconstruction survey shall be conducted by qualified
botanists within the appropriate blooming period(s) to ensure no special-status plant species are present or will be
impacted within the proposed impact areas. If no specialstatus plant species are found during the preconstruction survey, no further mitigation is required and there will be no impact to special-status plant species.

If populations of special-status plants are found during the preconstruction survey and they are located within permanent or temporary impact areas, avoidance and minimization
measures shall be explored to protect the special-status plant population(s). If avoidance is not possible, consultation with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) will be required prior to project initiation to identify suitable compensatory mitigation for the unavoidable loss of these species. Preparation of a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) detailing relocation, salvage, and/or restoration of impacted species and subsequent maintenance and
monitoring; payment of an in-lieu fee to an agency approved mitigation bank; or acquisition of off-site lands to be held in a restrictive deed for perpetuity would be required to
compensate for the loss of habitat occupied by any non-listed special-status plant species found onsite. In the unlikely event a State or federally-listed plant species is present and avoidance is not feasible, consultation with CDFW and/or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) would be required prior to initiating any onsite project activities to coordinate any take permits pursuant to State and/or federal regulations and requisite compensatory mitigation. With implementation of these actions, impacts to special-status plant species would be reduced to less than significant.

Prior to
construction
City of Santa
Clarita,
Department of
Neighborhood
Services
City of Santa
Clarita,
Department of
Neighborhood
Services and, if
needed,
CDFW and/or
USFWS

2.0 MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
City of Brea DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
June 2025 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
3 Mitigation Measures Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Agency or
Party
Signature/Date
of Compliance
MM BIO-2 Prior to the start of construction, every individual working on the Project must attend a Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program training session delivered by the project biologist.

The biological awareness training shall include a description of special-status species and sensitive habitats, species
identification characteristics, best management practices to be implemented, project-specific avoidance measures that must be followed, and the steps necessary if special-status species are encountered at any time.

Prior to
construction
City of Santa
Clarita,
Department of
Neighborhood
Services
City of Santa
Clarita,
Department of
Neighborhood
Services
MM BIO-3 A qualified biological monitor shall be present during vegetation clearing and ground disturbance activities to conduct daily clearance surveys of work areas for specialstatus reptile species. If any wildlife species are found, the project biologist shall relocate the animal(s) to appropriate habitat off-site. Daily monitoring logs will be prepared to document work activities and any relocations that were
conducted.

During
vegetation
clearing and
ground
disturbance
activities
City of Santa
Clarita,
Department of
Neighborhood
Services
City of Santa
Clarita,
Department of
Neighborhood
Services
MM BIO-4 All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures that are stored in the Project area during construction for one or more overnight periods shall be either securely capped prior to storage or thoroughly inspected by the contractor and/or the biological monitor for special-status wildlife species or other animals before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way.

During
construction
City of Santa
Clarita,
Department of
Neighborhood
Services
City of Santa
Clarita,
Department of
Neighborhood
Services
MM BIO-5 To prevent inadvertent entrapment of special-status wildlife species or other animals during construction, the project biologist and/or construction foreman/manager shall ensure all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more than 6 inches deep are provided with one or more escape ramps
constructed of earthen fill or wooden planks. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they shall be thoroughly
inspected for trapped animals by the project biologist and/or construction foreman/manager.

During
construction
City of Santa
Clarita,
Department of
Neighborhood
Services
City of Santa
Clarita,
Department of
Neighborhood
Services

2.0 MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
City of Brea DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
June 2025 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
4 Mitigation Measures Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Agency or
Party
Signature/Date
of Compliance
MM BIO-6 If vegetation removal is required during the migratory bird nesting season (February 15 to August 31), a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted within one week prior to vegetation removal.

A minimum 300-foot no-disturbance buffer shall be
established around any active nest of migratory birds and a minimum 500-foot no-disturbance buffer shall be established around any nesting raptor or California Endangered Species Act/Endangered Species Act listed species. A reduced buffer can be established if determined appropriate by the project biologist. The contractor shall immediately stop until the appropriate buffer is established and is prohibited from conducting work that could disturb the birds until a qualified biologist determines the young have fledged or the nest is inactive. In the unlikely event that a State and/or federally listed species is detected, the buffer shall not be reduced and CDFW and/or USFWS shall be notified immediately to coordinate any further measures to avoid impacts to a listed species. The project biologist shall monitor any known identified nest site(s) within or adjacent to the project site to confirm buffers are sufficient to avoid impacts to nesting birds and track nesting status.

Prior to
construction
during the
migratory bird
nesting
season
(February 15
to August 31)
City of Santa
Clarita,
Department of
Neighborhood
Services
City of Santa
Clarita,
Department of
Neighborhood
Services and, if
needed,
CDFW and/or
USFWS
MM BIO-7 Temporary and/or permanent impacts to jurisdictional features resulting from the proposed Project shall require a Water Discharge Requirement from the Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) pursuant to the California PorterCologne Water Quality Control Act prior to impacts occurring within jurisdictional areas. Compensatory mitigation for impacts would be determined during the formal notification process and must be approved by RWQCB prior to work
occurring. Mitigation is anticipated to include one or more of the following: restoration of impacted features and /or preservation of unaffected features onsite; payment of an inlieu fee to an agency approved mitigation bank; or acquisition Prior to
construction
City of Santa
Clarita,
Department of
Neighborhood
Services
City of Santa
Clarita,
Department of
Neighborhood
Services and, if
needed,
RWQCB
and/or CDFW

2.0 MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
City of Brea DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
June 2025 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
5 Mitigation Measures Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Agency or
Party
Signature/Date
of Compliance
of off-site lands that contain similar jurisdictional features that would be held in a restrictive deed for perpetuity.

The CDFW regulates alterations to lakes, streambeds, and riparian habitats pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code. Therefore, formal notification to and subsequent authorization from the CDFW shall be
required prior to commencement of any construction activities within the CDFW jurisdictional areas. Compensatory
mitigation for impacts would be determined during the formal notification process and must be approved by CDFW prior to work occurring. Mitigation is anticipated to include one or more of the following: restoration of impacted features and /or preservation of unaffected features onsite; payment of an inlieu fee to an agency approved mitigation bank; or acquisition of off-site lands that contain similar jurisdictional features that would be held in a restrictive deed for perpetuity.

MM BIO-8 Project materials shall not be cast from the Project Site into nearby habitats; further, project-related debris, surplus spoils, and trash shall be contained and removed to a proper disposal facility.

During
construction
City of Santa
Clarita,
Department of
Neighborhood
Services
City of Santa
Clarita,
Department of
Neighborhood
Services
MM BIO-9 All construction equipment shall be cleaned prior to use in the Project Site footprint and inspected by the project biologist to confirm it is free of non-native plant material in order to minimize the importation of such material into the Project Site.

All mulch, topsoil, and seed mixes used during postconstruction landscaping activities and erosion control best management practices shall be free of invasive plant species propagules. A weed abatement program shall be implemented should invasive plant species colonize the area within the project footprint post-construction.

During
construction
City of Santa
Clarita,
Department of
Neighborhood
Services
City of Santa
Clarita,
Department of
Neighborhood
Services

2.0 MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
City of Brea DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
June 2025 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
6 Mitigation Measures Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Agency or
Party
Signature/Date
of Compliance
Cultural Resources
MM CUL1 Archaeological monitoring shall occur in the area of potential effect during all soil-disturbing and grubbing/grading/excavation/ trenching activities, which could impact archaeological resources. The monitor will observe construction activities to determine if cultural resources are present below the surface.

The Principal Investigator (PI) will submit a request to the City during construction, requesting a modification to the
monitoring program when field conditions occur that could reduce or increase the potential for resources to be present.

Such field conditions may include modern disturbance postdating the previous grading/trenching activities, presence of fossil formations, or when native soils are encountered.

Ground-disturbing activities include, but are not limited to, geotechnical boring, trenching, grading, excavating, and the demolition of building foundations. Monitoring shall be conducted by an archaeological monitor who is working
under the guidance of a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification
Standards for archaeology (48 Federal Register 44738). The archaeological monitor shall observe ground-disturbing
activities in all areas with the potential to contain significant cultural deposits. The archaeological monitor shall maintain and submit monitoring logs at the conclusion of monitoring. If discoveries are made during ground-disturbing activities, additional work may be required in accordance with the terms specified in the cultural resources monitoring and discovery plan.

At the completion of grading, excavation, and grounddisturbing activities on the site, a monitoring report shall be submitted to the City that documents monitoring activities conducted by the Project archaeologist within 60 days of completion of monitoring. This report shall document the daily archaeological monitoring results; describe how each mitigation measure was fulfilled; document the type of
During
grounddisturbance
activities
City of Santa
Clarita,
Department of
Neighborhood
Services
City of Santa
Clarita,
Department of
Neighborhood
Services

2.0 MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
City of Brea DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
June 2025 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
7 Mitigation Measures Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Agency or
Party
Signature/Date
of Compliance
cultural resources recovered and the disposition of such resources; and, in a confidential appendix, include the daily/weekly monitoring notes from the qualified
archaeologist. Final monitoring reports will be submitted to the City and the South Central Coastal Information Center.

Any unanticipated archaeological finds and subsequent
evaluation or data recovery efforts will be documented in the report.

MM CUL2In the event an archaeological resource is unearthed during excavation, all excavations shall be halted within 50 feet of the find. Work shall stop immediately, and the discovery shall be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (48 Federal Register 44738), pursuant to the procedures set forth at CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 60.4. Depending on the nature of the find, the determination of significance may require additional excavation, potentially including the preparation and execution of a Phase II Archaeological
Testing Plan. As the lead agency, the City shall make a determination of significance on the basis of the
recommendations of the qualified archaeologist.

If the resource is determined not to be significant, then resource-specific work shall be completed, and construction may proceed. If the resource is determined to be significant and avoidance is not feasible, then a resource-specific archaeological resources treatment plan shall be prepared and executed in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-3 prior to recommencing ground-disturbing activities that may impact the resource.

During
construction, if
archaeological
resources are
discovered
City of Santa
Clarita,
Department of
Neighborhood
Services
City of Santa
Clarita,
Department of
Neighborhood
Services
MM CUL3Avoidance and preservation-in-place are the preferred treatment for historical resources, but avoidance is not always feasible. In the event that a historical resource is discovered and disturbance to such a resource cannot be avoided, one of the following treatments shall be implemented: avoidance, site During
construction if
cultural
resources are
discovered
City of Santa
Clarita,
Department of
Neighborhood
Services
City of Santa
Clarita,
Department of
Neighborhood
Services

2.0 MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
City of Brea DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
June 2025 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
8 Mitigation Measures Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Agency or
Party
Signature/Date
of Compliance
capping, creation of conservation easements, or
archaeological data recovery.

If avoidance, site capping, or creation of a conservation easement is determined infeasible, then a Phase III data recovery excavation will be required, pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5 and Section 106 36 Code of
Federal Regulations 800.13, to document the resource’s
scientifically consequential information. The Phase III data recovery plan shall be prepared in consultation with the consulting tribe(s) if the discovery is associated with a precontact or ethnohistoric context. The Phase III study shall consist of the recovery and analysis of a statistically significant sample of the site through archaeological excavation,
radiocarbon dating of organic materials or other kinds of dating, cataloging, specialist analysis, and report writing designed to document the resource in perpetuity.

During the course of construction, all discovered resources shall be temporarily curated in a secure location onsite or at the offices of the qualified archaeologist. The removal of any artifacts from the area of potential effect for cataloging and analysis will need to be thoroughly inventoried with tribal monitor oversight of the process if the discovery is associated with a precontact or ethnohistoric context. The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods, and all archaeological artifacts and nonhuman remains, as part of the required mitigation for impacts to cultural resources. The applicant shall relinquish the artifacts through one or more of the following methods and provide the City with evidence of final disposition of the cultural material collection:
 Accommodate the process for onsite reburial of the
discovered items with the consulting tribe(s). This shall include measures and provisions to protect the future
reburial area from any future impacts. Reburial shall not

2.0 MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
City of Brea DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
June 2025 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
9 Mitigation Measures Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Agency or
Party
Signature/Date
of Compliance
occur until all cataloguing and basic recordation have
been completed.
 A curation agreement with an appropriate qualified
repository in Los Angeles County that meets federal
standards per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 79,
and therefore will be professionally curated and made
available to other archaeologists/researchers for further study. The collections and associated records shall be
transferred, including title, to an appropriate curation facility in Los Angeles County, to be accompanied by
payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation.
 If more than one Native American tribe is involved with the Project and the tribes cannot come to a consensus as to the disposition of cultural materials, they shall be curated at an appropriate qualified repository determined by the City.

MM CUL4If human skeletal remains are found during earth-moving activities, work shall be suspended and the Los Angeles County Coroner’s Office shall be notified. Standard
guidelines set by California law provide for the treatment of skeletal material of Native American origin (California Public Resources Code, Sections 5097.98 et seq.; Health and
Safety Code, Section 7050.5). If the remains are found to be archaeological in their disposition, then after the coroner releases the site, the qualified professional archaeologist, in consultation with the most likely descendant, shall prepare an archaeological treatment plan in accordance with
Mitigation Measure CUL-3 that also incorporates the
guidance in “A Professional Guide for the Preservation and Protection of Native American Remains and Associated
Grave Goods,” published by the California Native American Heritage Commission.

During ground
disturbance
activities if
human
remains are
found
City of Santa
Clarita,
Department of
Neighborhood
Services
City of Santa
Clarita,
Department of
Neighborhood
Services

2.0 MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
City of Brea DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
June 2025 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
10 Mitigation Measures Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Agency or
Party
Signature/Date
of Compliance
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
MM HAZ1 Prior to commencement of construction activities, a Construction Fire Prevention Plan shall be prepared for the Project to specify the construction phase restrictions and fire safety requirements that would be implemented to reduce risk of ignitions and pre-plans for responding to an unlikely ignition. Prior to bringing lumber or combustible materials onto the Project Site, improvements within the active
development area shall be in place, including an approved, temporary roadway surface and fuel modification zones
established. These improvements shall also be included in the Construction Fire Prevention Plan, which shall be
submitted to the Los Angeles County Fire Department
(LACoFD) for review and approval.

Prior to
construction
City of Santa
Clarita,
Department of
Neighborhood
Services
City of Santa
Clarita,
Department of
Neighborhood
Services and, if
needed,
LACoFD
MM HAZ2Three (3) days prior to a scheduled event at the Project Site with more than 50 visitors (including riders, spectators, staff, and volunteers), the City will coordinate LACoFD to
determine the fire danger. If there is a red flag warning issued for the Project area within 24 hours of a scheduled event, the event shall be cancelled in accordance with Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 14.06.230, Emergency or
Temporary Closure of Parks, Public Places, Trails, and
Recreational Areas, which states that, in an emergency or when the City Manager determines that the public interest, public health, public morals, maintenance purposes, or public safety demands such action, any park, public place, grounds, trails, or recreation facility, or any part or portion thereof, may be closed to the public, and all persons may be excluded therefrom until such emergency or other reason upon which such determination of the City Manager is based has ceased, at which time the park, public place, grounds, trails, or recreation facility, or part or portion thereof so closed shall be reopened to the public by the City Manager.

Three (3)
days prior to a
scheduled
event at the
Project Site
with more
than 50
visitors
City of Santa
Clarita,
Department of
Neighborhood
Services
City of Santa
Clarita,
Department of
Neighborhood
Services and, if
needed,
LACoFD

2.0 MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
City of Brea DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
June 2025 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
11 Mitigation Measures Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Agency or
Party
Signature/Date
of Compliance
Tribal Cultural Resources
MM TCR1 Document Release: Any and all archaeological documents created as a part of the Project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, and monitoring reports) shall be provided to the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission
Indians.

Prior to
construction
City of Santa
Clarita,
Department of
Neighborhood
Services
City of Santa
Clarita,
Department of
Neighborhood
Services
MM TCR2Cultural Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan: In the event of an inadvertent discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources, its importance will be determined by the Tribal Monitor, the Project archaeologist, and the City. If determined to be important, a Cultural Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (CRMMP) shall be prepared, in consultation with the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians. The CRMMP
will provide details regarding the process for in-field treatment of inadvertent discoveries and the disposition of inadvertently discovered non-funerary resources.

During ground
disturbance
activities
City of Santa
Clarita,
Department of
Neighborhood
Services
City of Santa
Clarita,
Department of
Neighborhood
Services and, if
needed,
Fernandeño
Tataviam Band
of Mission
Indians
MM TCR3Full Time Monitoring, Initial Pass, (1) Monitor: The Project applicant shall retain a professional Tribal Monitor procured by the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians to observe all ground-disturbing activities including, but not limited to, clearing, grubbing, grading, excavating, digging, trenching, plowing, drilling, tunneling, quarrying, leveling, driving posts, auguring, blasting, stripping topsoil or similar activity during the initial pass (the first disturbance of all soil to the total depth of which it will be disturbed). If cultural resources are not encountered after observing the initial pass of all grounddisturbance, additional Tribal Monitoring is not required. If cultural resources are encountered during the initial pass, they shall be assessed by the Tribal Monitor, the Project
archaeologist, and the City. If determined to be important, the Tribal Monitor(s) shall continue observing ground disturbing activities to the satisfaction of the Tribal Monitor, Project archaeologist, and the City to ensure important Tribal Cultural Resources are identified. Tribal Monitoring Services will continue until confirmation is received from the Project During ground
disturbance
activities
City of Santa
Clarita,
Department of
Neighborhood
Services
City of Santa
Clarita,
Department of
Neighborhood
Services and, if
needed,
Fernandeño
Tataviam Band
of Mission
Indians

2.0 MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
City of Brea DJT4 Parcel Delivery Facility Project
June 2025 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
12 Mitigation Measures Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Agency or
Party
Signature/Date
of Compliance
applicant, in writing, that all scheduled activities pertaining to Tribal Monitoring are complete, be it initial pass or all disturbance, dependent upon inadvertent discovery. If the Project’s scheduled activities require the Tribal Monitor(s) to leave the Project for a period of time and return, confirmation shall be submitted to the Tribe by Client, in writing, upon completion of each set of scheduled activities and 5 days notice (if possible) shall be submitted to the Tribe by Project applicant, in writing, prior to the start of each set of scheduled activities. If cultural resources are encountered, the Tribal Monitor will have the authority to request that grounddisturbing activities cease within 60 feet of discovery and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards retained by the Project applicant as well as the Tribal Monitor shall assess the find.

MM TCR4 In the Event of an Inadvertent Discovery: If cultural resources are discovered during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards retained by the Project applicant shall assess the find. Work on the portions of the Project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period.

The Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians shall be contacted about any pre-contact and/or post-contact finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes their initial assessment of the nature of the find, to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.

During
construction if
cultural
resources are
discovered
City of Santa
Clarita,
Department of
Neighborhood
Services
City of Santa
Clarita,
Department of
Neighborhood
Services and, if
needed,
Fernandeño
Tataviam Band
of Mission
Indians
MM TCR5Human Remains: In the inadvertent discovery of human remains or funerary objects during any activities associated with the Project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100- foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and that code shall be enforced for the duration of the Project.

During
construction if
human
remains are
found
City of Santa
Clarita,
Department of
Neighborhood
Services
City of Santa
Clarita,
Department of
Neighborhood
Services

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AND ERRATA
After publication of the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration in May 2025, these parties submitted comments within the comment period (“Agency Comments”):

California Department of Fish and Wildlife Agency 6/12/25 County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department Agency 6/12/25 Ventura County Public Works Department Agency 5/20/25
A preliminary review of the Agency Comments suggest that none identify the need for recirculation of the IS/MND. Implementation of mitigation measures to address the comments is sufficient and may be implemented to ensure that – with mitigation – the Project will not have a significant impact on the environment.

In the interest of fully informing the City Council regarding the Agency Comments, the Neighborhood Services Department chose to provide preliminary responses and additional mitigation measures (to be included in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program or “MMRP”) as part of this Errata. Attached, and incorporated by this reference, are the additional mitigation measures for the MMRP.

Below are staff’s responses to comments, corrections to errors and omissions and supplemental testimony. This document is being filed to meet the City Council meeting schedule to consider this matter on June 24, 2025.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT JUNE 12, 2025 COMMENTS:

COM-1: The project is expected to have a less than significant impact on law enforcement services provided by the Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff’s Station, despite a potential minor increase in emergency response needs.

COM-2: The project will increase the population in the area, leading to a higher demand for law enforcement services due to its remote location.

COM-3: The Station is currently understaffed, and there may be challenges in providing additional law enforcement services as required by the project.

COM-4: The project includes a parking lot for 40 vehicles, but there is potential for up to 100 vehicles, which could lead to emergency access issues.

COM-5: Roads leading to the project site should have a minimum clearance of 26 feet to accommodate emergency vehicles.

A Construction Traffic Management Plan is recommended to address traffic congestion and ensure emergency access during construction.

STAFF RESPONSE : COM-1 to COM-3 are noted. The City of Santa Clarita contracts with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for law enforcement needs. Staffing, response times, and equipment requirements are governed through that agreement and are found to meet the needs for this Project. COM-4 and COM-5 are addressed in Section IX of the IS/MND (pp.62. to 64).

No additional response is required.

VENTURA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MAY 20, 2025
COMMENTS:

COM-6: The project is located about 50,000 feet from the Santa Clara River, a jurisdictional redline channel, and does not propose new stormwater drainage connections to this channel.

COM-7: The increase in impervious area due to the project will require mitigation to ensure runoff is released at no greater than the existing flow rate, preventing adverse downstream impacts.

COM-8: The project design, with imposed conditions, mitigates impacts to flood control facilities and watercourses, resulting in a less than significant environmental impact.

STAFF RESPONSE : COM-6 to COM-7 are received. COM-8 is received, appreciated, and noted.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE JUNE 12, 2025 COMMENTS:

COM-9: CDFW recommends specific mitigation measures, including public education, trash management, activity restrictions, and compensatory mitigation to offset habitat loss.

COM-10: For mountain lions, CDFW suggests evaluating habitat use, obtaining incidental take permits, and setting aside replacement habitat.

COM-11: For Crotch’s bumble bee, CDFW advises conducting focused surveys and obtaining take authorization if detected.

COM-12: For coastal California gnatcatcher, CDFW recommends pre-construction surveys and consultation with the USFWS.

COM-13: CDFW also suggests revising the MND to include discussions on impacts to rare plants and bats, and to incorporate appropriate mitigation measures.

STAFF RESPONSE: Generally, staff notes that the IS/MND addresses most of the matters raised by COM-9 to COM-13. The biological resources technical report (BRTR) prepared for the project (and referenced in CDFW’s comments) inventoried the plant and animal life observed on the project site. No known sensitive plant or animal species were identified during the site surveys.

Responding to COM-10, the BRTR did not detect any mountain lions on the project site. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires that preconstruction surveys be conducted to ensure no mountain lions will be impacted during construction. This comment states that the Project may impact mountain lions through vegetation removal, grading activities, and construction activities, and through exposing lions to human presence.

As noted in COM-10, BRTR Section 5.2.5 states “[a] number of other species are expected to be resident within the region and may use the project site to forage or for cover, including mountain lion (Puma concolor).” COM-10 also states that “it is predicted that the Project area provides medium to high habitat suitability for mountain lion.” While mountain lion is known to exist in the area due to the species’ extensive range, and chaparral habitat occurring on-site provides potentially suitable habitat for mountain lion, this species is only expected to occur as a transient through the Project site. The species is most abundant in riparian vegetation, which is absent from the Project site, and prefer habitat with tree/brush edges. Trees are also generally absent from the Project site, further reducing the Project site’s suitability to support mountain lion. Moreover, mountain lions are not expected to occur within the Project site during breeding or have a natal den within the Project site as caves and other natural cavities suitable for denning were not observed within the Project site. Further, denning mountain lions have been known to avoid roads and human disturbances, both of which are present within and around the Project site under existing conditions.

Regarding vegetation removal, approximately 35.38 acres of permanent impacts associated with installation of the trail system and amenities would occur across the 380-acre Project site, often coinciding with areas that have previously experienced some form of human disturbance. As a result, a substantial portion of the Project site would remain undisturbed, further reducing the potential for impacts to mountain lions and on-site habitats. Vast undisturbed areas occur north of the Project site in the Angeles National Forest, where more suitable habitat for mountain lion, including cavities for denning and a mix of tree and scrub habitats, are present. Thus, while mountain lions are expected to pass through the Project site, adverse impacts to mountain lions are not expected. The City also has approximately 13,000 acres of open space, further reducing the potential for the Project to significantly decrease the availability of suitable habitat for mountain lions within the City.

Regarding construction activities and increased human presence during construction and operation, any transient mountain lion that may occur would be expected during nighttime, when the proposed bike park would be closed, reducing the potential for human disturbances to the species. Additionally, construction activities would not occur during nighttime. Thus, construction noise and nighttime lighting have no potential to impact the species. Moreover, while the Project site is primarily vacant and undeveloped, there are existing formal and informal trails throughout the site and the Project site is regularly used for off-road recreational activities. The existing conditions of the Project site already include anthropogenic disturbances related to recreational use of the site. The Project site also contains several LADWP transmission towers and the ruins of a mining site which was only closed in 2016. Although the Project would increase human presence within the Project site, the more intensive recreational activities would be concentrated within the two proposed programming areas. Vehicle access to the Project site would be limited to the parking areas for the Haskell Core and the Blue Cloud Trailhead. Accordingly, the 380-acre Project site would remain predominantly undisturbed with implementation of the Project.

Based on the above, the Project would not result in significant impacts to mountain lions and no mitigation measures are warranted.

Responding to COM-11, site surveys did not detect any Crotch’s bumble bees on the project site.

Further, no Crotch’s bumble bees have been known to occur on property within three miles of the project site. As discussed above, however, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 already requires preconstruction surveys to ensure no Crotch’s bumble bees are impacted during construction.

Responding to COM-12, known habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher exists in the southern portions of City of Santa Clarita. There is no known habitat, however, inside the Project site or in its proximity. Additionally, no coastal California gnatcatchers were identified on the project site during site surveys. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 will ensure no coastal California gnatcatchers will be impacted during construction.

ATTACHMENT A: ADDITIONAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM (MMRP)
Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible
Party
Mitigation Measure #1: Public Education – The City will install appropriate public information signage at trailheads and/or along trails to: 1) educate and inform the public about wildlife present in the area; 2) advise on proper avoidance measures to reduce human-wildlife conflicts; 3) advise on proper use of open space trails in a manner respectful to wildlife (e.g., dogs on leash, proper waste disposal); and, 4) provide local contact information to report injured or dead wildlife.

Signs cannot be made of materials harmful to wildlife such as spikes or glass.

During Project
Construction
and Ongoing
City
Mitigation Measure #2: Trash – Trash receptacles will be placed only at trailheads to avoid creating an unnatural food source that may attract nuisance wildlife and to minimize waste in core habitat areas.

During Project
Construction
and Ongoing
City
Mitigation Measure #3: Activity Restriction – The City must regulate activities allowed in some areas, such as prohibiting dogs or restricting use of trails near breeding habitat, to aid in minimizing disturbance to environmental surroundings. Pets must always be kept on leash and on trails. Hikers must clean up after their dogs and discourage animal waste.

During Project
Construction
and Ongoing
City
Mitigation Measure #4: Rodenticides -The City will prohibit use of any rodenticides and second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides within the Project area.

Ongoing City
Mitigation Measure #5: Mitigation Measure BIO-1 - Before the construction of the proposed Project, a preconstruction survey must be conducted by qualified botanists within the appropriate blooming period(s) to ensure no special-status plant species are present or will be impacted within the proposed impact areas. Methods during the survey must adhere to guidance provided in CDFW’s Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. Findings from the surveys must be provided to CDFW before ground disturbing activities. If no special-status plant species are found during the preconstruction survey, no further mitigation is required.

If populations of special-status plants are found during the preconstruction survey and they are located within permanent or temporary impact areas, the City must coordinate with CDFW before project initiation to identify suitable compensatory mitigation for impacts on these species. Such mitigation must be reflected in a Habitat Before Project
Initiation
City
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) detailing relocation, salvage, and/or restoration of impacted species and subsequent maintenance and monitoring; payment of an in-lieu fee to an agency approved mitigation bank; or acquisition of off-site lands to be protected under a conservation easement in perpetuity. The HMMP must outline initial and long-term management and maintenance activities that would occur on mitigation lands. The HMMP must provide measurable goals and success criteria for establishing self-sustaining populations (e.g., percent survival rate, absolute cover). Maintenance activities outlined in the HMMP must include measures pertaining to control of exotic vegetation, irrigation schedule, and protection from future maintenance activities. If a State or federally-listed plant species is present, consultation with CDFW and/or USFWS is required before initiating any onsite project activities to coordinate any take permits pursuant to State and/or federal regulations and requisite compensatory mitigation. With implementation of these actions, impacts to special-status plant species would be reduced to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure # 6 - Nesting Bird. If vegetation removal is required during the bird nesting season (February 15 to August 31), a preconstruction nesting bird survey must be conducted not more than three days before vegetation removal. Surveys must encompass all suitable areas including trees, shrubs, bare ground, burrows, cavities, and structures.

A minimum 300-foot no-disturbance buffer must be established around any active nest of birds and a minimum 500-foot nodisturbance buffer must be established around any nesting raptor or California Endangered Species Act/Endangered Species Act listed species. A reduced buffer may be established if determined appropriate by the project biologist. The contractor must immediately stop until the appropriate buffer is established and is prohibited from conducting work that could disturb the birds until a qualified biologist determines the young have fledged or the nest is inactive. In the unlikely event that a State and/or federally listed species is detected, the buffer may not be reduced and CDFW and/or USFWS must be notified immediately to coordinate any further measures to avoid impacts to a listed species.

The project biologist must monitor any known identified nest site(s) within or adjacent to the Project area to confirm buffers are sufficient to avoid impacts to nesting birds and track nesting status.

Before Project
Initiation
City
Recommendation #7: Landscaping. CDFW recommends the MND provide the Project’s landscaping plant palette and replacement tree species list. CDFW recommends the City use only native species found in naturally occurring vegetation communities within or adjacent to the Project area. The City should not plant, seed, or otherwise introduce non-native, invasive plant species to areas that are adjacent to and/or near native habitat areas. Accordingly, CDFW recommends the City restrict use of any species, particularly ‘moderate’ or ‘high’ listed by the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC 2024). These species are documented to have substantial and severe ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal communities, and vegetation structure.

Before Project
Initiation/Duri
ng Project
Construction
Lead
Agency/City
State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director South Coast Region
3883 Ruffin Road
San Diego, CA 92123
wildlife.ca.gov
Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870
June 12, 2025
Amber Rodriguez
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard
Suite 120
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
[email protected]
SUBJECT: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE HASKELL CANYON BIKE PARK PROJECT, SCH NO. 2025050436, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA Dear Amber Rodriguez:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) from the City of Santa Clarita (City) for the Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project (Project) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines1.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife.

Likewise, CDFW appreciates the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code.

CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a)). CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (Fish & G. Code, § 1802). Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.

CDFW may also act as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise

1 CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.

Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51C1E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez
City of Santa Clarita
June 12, 2025

regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for example, the Project may be subject to CDFW’s lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.). Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in “take” as defined by State law2 of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA; Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.) or the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA; Fish & G. Code, §1900 et seq.), the Project proponent may seek related take authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: City of Santa Clarita
Objective: The objective of the Project is to develop a bike park that consists of 15 miles of trails and two activity/programming areas, Haskell Core and Blue Cloud Trailhead. Bike trails within the Blue Cloud Trailhead area would consist of climbing trails, downhill trails, and multi-use trails. The Haskell Core area would include an event plaza with picnic tables, multi-level pump tracks, a dual slalom course, jumplines, and space for four food trucks. The programming areas would consist of a parking lot, recreational areas, and visitor amenities. Two cargo containers would be placed on site to be used as storage sheds. Additionally, two infiltration basins would be constructed within the Project area. The Project would also maintain approximately 1.6 miles of existing multi-use trails. Vehicular access will primarily be provided from Petting Canyon Road with Blue Cloud Road providing access to the eastern portion of the site. Primary Project activities include grading, construction, and vegetation removal.

Location: The Project area is located partially in the City of Santa Clarita and partially in unincorporated Los Angeles County on approximately 380 acres. The Project area is comprised of nine parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 2813-010-273, through - 276, 2813-010-900 through -902, 2813-025-270, and 3244-031-901). The Project area is bound by the Angeles National Forest to the north; Haskell Open Space and residential uses to the south; open space, Cesar Milan’s Dog Psychology Center, and the Blue Cloud Movie Ranch to the east; and open space and a Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) transmission corridor to the west. The entire Project area is owned by the City.

Timeframe: The Project is anticipated to begin July 2025 and be completed in December 2025.

Biological Setting: The 380-acre Project area is currently vacant and undeveloped with existing dirt trails, transmission towers, and dirt access paths. Vegetation within the Project area include black sage scrub, scrub oak woodland, chapparal, and non-native grassland. General biological surveys of the Project area was conducted on February 13 and 14, 2024, and findings were compiled in a Biological Resources Technical

2 “Take” is defined in Section 86 of the Fish and Game Code as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.”
Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51C1E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez
City of Santa Clarita
June 12, 2025

Report (BRTR). No special-status plants were identified during the general surveys. The Project area has a moderate to high potential to support slender mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis; California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1B.2) and shortjoint beavertail (Opuntia basilaris; CRPR 1B.2). Approximately 11 water features were identified throughout the Project area. Several water features are tributaries to the Santa Clara River. Additionally, the special-status wildlife species that have the potential to occur on site and may be impacted by the Project include, but are not limited to:
mountain lion (Puma concolor; CESA candidate), Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii; California Species of Special Concern (SSC)), spotted bat (Euderma maculatum; SSC), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus; SSC) Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii; CESA candidate), and coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica; Endangered Species Act (ESA) threatened and SSC). The MND provides mitigation measures specific to rare plants, nesting birds, an on-site biological monitor, wildlife escape ramps, and notification to CDFW for a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSA).

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources.

Additional comments or other suggestions may also be included to improve the document.

COMMENT # 1: Human Presence
Issue: The Project may increase human and wildlife interactions through the addition of new trails and recreational facilities.

Specific impact: Direct impacts in the form of habitat loss and degradation could occur as a result of new trails and recreational facilities as well as any off-trail use from visitors. Impacts to wildlife could result in mortality or injury, increased human disturbance in habitat supporting wildlife, reproductive suppression during breeding seasons, or population decline of special-status species. Indirect effects to biological resources, such as noise, trash, predation of and by domestic pets, also occur when trail systems run through natural open spaces.

Why impact would occur: The Project area is approximately 383 acres, with an estimated 20 acres being impacted. The MND states that approximately 15 miles of new trails of widths between 4 to 6 feet wide will be developed. In addition, the Project proposes the construction of two programming areas that include shade structures, spectator areas, benches, and designated areas for parking and food trucks. The MND also states that approximately 20 weekday and 6 weekend events would occur on the Project area every year. These events would result in an estimated 40 visitors and 20 vehicles for weekday events and 250 visitors and 100 vehicles for weekend events.

Event days include the operation of food trucks, associated generators, and music.

Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51C1E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez
City of Santa Clarita
June 12, 2025

Furthermore, the MND proposes daily maintenance of trails by compaction through the use of hand tools. This would significantly increase human presence over current levels.

Having a high volume of recreational use within the trail system will increase human and wildlife interaction. It will precipitate increased noise levels in sensitive areas, increased trash or pet waste, and introduction of unnatural food sources via trash and trash receptacles. Outdoor recreation may also cause distress on individual wildlife, resulting in energetic costs to the animal and decline in the animals’ behavior and fitness. Studies have shown that outdoor recreation is the second leading cause of the decline of federally threatened and endangered species on public lands (Losos et al. 1995) and fourth leading cause on all lands (Czech et al. 2000). Overall, recreational trails would lead to an increase in human-wildlife interactions that may result in harm to wildlife and/or humans.

The MND only discusses impacts with regards to the implementation and construction of the Project. The mitigation measures in the MND therefore address only those impacts. Discussion of impacts from the operation and continued maintenance of the Project as well as the long-term effects from the Project is not provided, and measures to mitigate for those impacts are not proposed in the MND. Species may be indirectly impacted by the trails that is in excess of the 20 acres identified in the MND. The buildout of the proposed Project may not provide an effective buffer to neutralize edge effects as the undisturbed open space would restrict wildlife movement and may result in an increase in human disturbance. Habitat in adjacent areas could be impacted as a result of edge effects such as introducing new sources of night lighting, pets, and domestic animals, as well as spreading invasive, non-native plants as a result of increased human presence.

Evidence impact may be significant: The Project area supports a variety of specialstatus species. Impacts to special-status species should be considered significant under CEQA unless they are clearly mitigated below a level of significance. Impacts on the special-status wildlife may require a mandatory finding of significance because the Project would potentially threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community and/or substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of endangered, rare, or threatened species (CEQA Guidelines, §15065) Inadequate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for impacts to special status plant or wildlife species will result in the Project continuing to have a substantial adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

Impacts on the special-status wildlife may require a mandatory finding of significance because the Project would potentially threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community and/or substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of endangered, rare, or threatened species (CEQA Guidelines, §15065)
Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s)
Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51C1E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez
City of Santa Clarita
June 12, 2025

Recommendation #1: Buffer Determination – The City should identify an appropriate buffer from the trail that would continue to be indirectly affected by the Project (due to edge effects, spreading of invasive species, introduction of light, encroachment, etc.).

This buffer of impacts should be justified using technical details such as data, maps, diagrams, and similar relevant information and disclosed in the final CEQA document.

Mitigation Measure #1: Public Education – The Project proponent shall install appropriate public information signage at trailheads and/or along trails to: 1) educate and inform the public about wildlife present in the area; 2) advise on proper avoidance measures to reduce human-wildlife conflicts; 3) advise on proper use of open space trails in a manner respectful to wildlife (e.g., dogs on leash, proper waste disposal); and, 4) provide local contact information to report injured or dead wildlife. Signage shall be written in language(s) understandable to all those likely to recreate and use the trails.

Signs shall not be made of materials harmful to wildlife such as spikes or glass.

Mitigation Measure #2: Trash – Trash receptacles shall be placed only at trailheads to avoid creating an unnatural food source that may attract nuisance wildlife and to minimize waste in core habitat areas.

Mitigation Measure #3: Activity Restriction – The Project proponent shall place restrictions on types of activities allowed in some areas, such as prohibiting dogs or restricting use of trails near breeding habitat, to aid in minimizing disturbance. Pets shall always be kept on leash and on trails. Hikers shall be encouraged to clean up after their dogs and discourage animal waste as it tends to lead to wildlife avoidance.

Mitigation Measure #4: Compensatory Mitigation – Based on the new impacts identified and disclosed in Recommendation #1, the City shall provide commensurate compensatory mitigation to offset the temporal and permanent loss of habitat. Habitat shall be replaced at a ratio appropriate to maintain no net loss of habitat values, acreage, and function (See Mitigation Measure #7).

COMMENT # 2: Mountain Lion
Issue: The Project may impact mountain lion.

Specific impact: The proposed Project may impact mountain lion through vegetation removal and grading activities within the Project area. The Project may also impact mountain lion by increasing prey availability in and adjacent to the development and expose lions to human presence. Indirect impacts to lions could also occur with associated construction noise.

Why impact would occur: The BRTR states that “A number of other species are expected to be resident within the region and may use the Project area to forage or for cover, including mountain lion” (p 26). Additionally, it is predicted that the Project area provides medium to high habitat suitability for mountain lion (CDFW 2025c) 3 . The MND

3 https://data.ca.gov/dataset/mountain-lion-range-cwhr-m165-ds793 Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51C1E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez
City of Santa Clarita
June 12, 2025

does not acknowledge potential presence of mountain lion and fails to discuss potential direct or indirect impacts the Project may have on mountain lion.

The Project as proposed would also reduce the habitat available for mountain lion in the Project vicinity. The Project would permanently impact approximately 20 acres of available habitat. Conserving and restoring habitat is essential for mitigating impacts to mountain lions. This is especially critical in the face of climate change-driven habitat loss and increased frequency of fires (CBD 2019). Under a high emissions and warm and wet climate scenario, much of the chaparral habitat in southern California that provide habitat for mountain lions would be climactically highly stressed by the year 2070 (Thorne et al. 2016).

Lastly, the MND does not address the anthropogenic impacts the Project will have on mountain lion individuals that may be within the Project site or its vicinity. The Project may increase human presence (e.g., new development, public trail access), traffic, and noise as well as potential artificial lighting during Project construction and over the life of the Project. Most factors affecting the ability of the southern California mountain lion populations to survive and reproduce are caused by humans (CBD 2019). As California has continued to grow in human population and communities expand into wildland areas, there has been a commensurate increase in direct and indirect interaction between mountain lions and people (CDFW 2017b). As a result, the need to relocate or humanely euthanize mountain lions (depredation kills) may increase for public safety.

Mountain lions are exceptionally vulnerable to human disturbance (Lucas 2020). Areas of high human activity have lower occupancy of rare carnivores. Mountain lions tend to avoid roads and trials by the mere presence of those features, regardless of how much they are used (Lucas 2020)N. Increased traffic could cause vehicle strikes. As human population density increases, the probability of persistence of mountain lions decreases (Woodroffe 2000).

Evidence impact would be significant: Mountain lion is a specially protected mammal in the State (Fish and G. Code, § 4800). In addition, on April 21, 2020, the California Fish and Game Commission accepted a petition to list an evolutionarily significant unit of mountain lion in southern and central coastal California as threatened under CESA (CBD 2019). As a CESA candidate species, the mountain lion in southern California is granted the full protection of a threatened species under CESA. Take of any endangered, threatened, candidate species that results from the Project is prohibited, except as authorized by State law (Fish & G. Code, §§ 86, 2062, 2067, 2068, 2080, 2085; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 786.9). As to CEQA, the status of mountain lion as a threatened species under CESA qualifies it as an endangered, rare, or threatened species under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines, §15380). No mitigation has been proposed for impacts on mountain lion from the Project from the standpoint of habitat loss and encroachment, as well as anthropogenic impacts discussed above.

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s)
Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51C1E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez
City of Santa Clarita
June 12, 2025

Recommendation #2: Mountain Lion Discussion - CDFW recommends the City evaluate the mountain lion territory size and use of habitat within and surrounding the Project vicinity. The City should analyze the effects of increased human presence and area of anthropogenic influence that will now be in on mountain lion habitat, and how it may impact mountain lion behavior, reproductive viability, and overall survival success.

Based on these known anthropogenic impacts on mountain lions, CDFW also recommends the City provide compensatory mitigation for impacts to mountain lion. The MND should justify how the proposed compensatory mitigation would reduce the impacts of the Project to less than significant. CDFW recommends that the City recirculate the MND for more meaningful public review and assessment of the City’s analysis and subsequent mitigation for mountain lion. Additionally, the City should recirculate the MND if the proposed mitigation measures would not reduce potential effects to less than significant and new measures must be required [CEQA Guidelines, § 15088.5(a)(1)].

Mitigation Measure #5: Incidental Take Permit - If take or adverse impacts to mountain lion cannot be avoided, the Project proponent shall coordinate with CDFW and obtain appropriate take authorization from CDFW (pursuant to Fish & Game Code, § 2080 et seq.). The Project proponent shall comply with the mitigation measures detailed in the take authorization issued by CDFW. The Project proponent shall provide a copy of a fully executed take authorization prior to the issuance of a grading permit and before any ground disturbance and vegetation removal.

Mitigation Measure #6: Rodenticides -The Project proponent shall prohibit use of any rodenticides and second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides within the Project area in perpetuity.

Mitigation Measure #7: Compensatory Mitigation - The Project proponent shall set aside replacement habitat to have a no net loss for wildlife movement. The replacement habitat be located as near to the Project site as possible. There shall be no net loss of suitable habitat for mountain lions. The City shall consult and collaborate with CDFW to conserve areas beneficial to the southern California mountain lion population that may improve chances of survival and reproduction of mountain lions in the face of climate change. The mitigation lands shall be protected in perpetuity under a conservation easement dedicated to a local land conservancy or other appropriate entity that has been approved to hold and manage mitigation lands pursuant to Assembly Bill 1094 (2012). Assembly Bill 1094 amended Government Code sections 65965-65968. Under Government Code section 65967(c), the lead agency must exercise due diligence in reviewing the qualifications of a governmental entity, special district, or nonprofit organization to effectively manage and steward land, water, or natural resources on mitigation lands it approves. An appropriate non-wasting endowment shall be provided for the long-term management of mitigation lands. A conservation easement and endowment funds shall be fully acquired, established, transferred, or otherwise executed prior to implementing Project-related ground-disturbing activities.

Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51C1E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez
City of Santa Clarita
June 12, 2025

Mitigation Measure #8: Focused Surveys - Due to habitat in the Project vicinity, within one year prior to Project implementation that includes site preparation, equipment staging, and mobilization, a CDFW-approved biologist knowledgeable of mountain lion species ecology shall survey areas that may provide habitat for mountain lion to determine presence/absence, territory size, and potential for natal dens within a half mile of the Project site. Caves and other natural cavities, and thickets in brush and timber provide cover and are used for denning. Females may be in estrus at any time of the year, but in California, most births probably occur in spring. Surveys shall be conducted when the species is most likely to be detected, during crepuscular periods at dawn and dusk (Pierce and Bleich 2003). Survey results including negative findings shall be submitted to CDFW prior to initiation of Project activities. The survey report shall include a map of potential denning sites. The survey report shall include measures to avoid impacts mountain lions that may be in the area as well as dens and cubs, if necessary.

Mitigation Measure #9: Natal Dens - If potential habitat for natal dens is identified, the Project proponent shall avoid potential impacts to mountain lions, especially during spring, to protect vulnerable cubs. Two weeks prior to Project implementation, and once a week during construction activities, a CDFW-approved biologist shall conduct a survey for mountain lion natal dens. The survey area shall include the construction footprint and the area within 2,000 feet (or the limits of the property line) of the Project disturbance boundaries. CDFW shall be notified within 24 hours upon location of a natal den. If an active natal den is located, during construction activities, all work shall cease.

No work shall occur within a 2,000-foot buffer from a natal den. A qualified biologist shall notify CDFW to determine the appropriate course of action. CDFW shall also be consulted to determine an appropriate setback from the natal den that would not adversely affect the successful rearing of the cubs. No construction activities or human intrusion shall occur within the established setback until mountain lion cubs have been successfully reared; the mountain lions have left the area; or as determined in consultation with CDFW.

COMMENT # 3: Impacts on Crotch’s Bumble Bee
Issue: The MND does not discuss the Project impacts on Crotch’s bumble bee.

Specific impact: The Project includes vegetation removal and ground disturbing activities which could result in direct mortality of Crotch’s bumble bee or loss of foraging opportunities or loss of suitable ground burrows. Additionally, the Project may cause burrow collapse, nest abandonment, and reduced nest success.

Why impact would occur: According to CDFW’s Crotch’s Bumble Bee Range – CDFW [ds3095]4 dataset, the Project area lies within the current home range for Crotch’s bumble bee (CDFW 2025b). Additionally, various vegetation communities (i.e., open grassland, desert scrub) throughout the Project area provide suitable habitat for nesting

4 https://data.ca.gov/dataset/crotchs-bumble-bee-range-cdfw-ds30951 Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51C1E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez
City of Santa Clarita
June 12, 2025

and foraging. Crotch’s bumble bee are generalists and known to utilize a variety of sources for nesting and overwintering opportunities. Crotch’s bumble bee primarily uses abandoned small mammal burrows to nest, but this species may also nest under perennial bunch grasses or thatched annual grasses, under brush piles, in old bird nests, and in dead trees or hollow logs (Williams et al. 2014; Hatfield et al. 2018).

Overwintering sites utilized by Crotch’s bumble bee mated queens include soft, disturbed soil (Goulson 2010), or under leaf litter or other debris (Williams et al. 2014).

Given that the Project area is in the current range and has suitable habitat, there is potential for this CESA candidate species to be detected on site.

The MND notes a potential for Crotch’s bumble bee to occur within the Project area.

However, it does not discuss the Project’s impact on individual Crotch’s bumble bee and supporting habitat. Moreover, no surveys on Crotch’s bumble bee were provided in any biological reports for this Project. If the Project proceeds without appropriate focused surveys, the Project may result in mortality and/or injury of undetected individual Crotch’s bumble bee that may be present during Project activities. Ground disturbance and vegetation removal associated with Project implementation during the breeding season could also result in the incidental loss of breeding success or otherwise lead to nest abandonment in areas adjacent to the Project area. Habitat loss, as a result of the proposed Project, may further reduce suitable habitat for this species in the broader landscape, as development increases throughout the City.

Evidence impact would be significant: The California Fish and Game Commission accepted a petition to list the Crotch’s bumble bee as endangered under CESA, determining the listing “may be warranted” and advancing the species to the candidacy stage of the CESA listing process. The Project may substantially reduce and adversely modify habitat as well as reduce and potentially impair the viability of populations of Crotch’s bumble bee. The Project may also reduce the number and range of the species without considering the likelihood that special status species on adjacent and nearby natural lands may rely upon the habitat that occurs on the proposed Project area. In addition, Crotch’s bumble bee has a State Ranking of S1/S2. This means that the Crotch’s bumble bee is considered critically imperiled or imperiled and is extremely rare (often 5 or fewer populations). Crotch’s bumble bee is also listed as an invertebrate of conservation priority under the California Terrestrial and Vernal Pool Invertebrates of Conservation Priority5(CDFW 2017a). Accordingly, Crotch’s bumble bee meets the CEQA definition of rare, threatened, or endangered species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15380). Therefore, take of Crotch’s bumble bee could require a mandatory finding of significance by the City (CEQA Guidelines, § 1565).

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s)
Recommendation #3: Crotch’s Bumble Bee Discussion – The MND should be revised to provide a thorough discussion on the Project’s potential direct and indirect impact on Crotch’s bumble bee. If the Project may impact Crotch’s bumble bee, the

5 https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=157415&inline Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51C1E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez
City of Santa Clarita
June 12, 2025

MND should be amended to incorporate measures to minimize, and/or mitigate potential impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee as well as habitat supporting the species. The discussion should be of a depth and scope that a CESA ITP can be issued based on the analysis provided in the MND.

Mitigation Measure #10: Crotch’s Bumble Bee Surveys - The Project proponent shall retain a qualified biologist with the appropriate handling permits to conduct focused surveys. Focused surveys shall follow CDFW’s Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species
6 (CDFW 2023). Focused
surveys shall also be conducted throughout the entire Project area and during the appropriate flying season to ensure no missed detection of Crotch’s bumble bee occurs.

Survey results, including negative findings, shall be submitted to CDFW and the City prior to implementing Project ground-disturbing activities.

Mitigation Measure #11: Incidental Take Permit - If Crotch’s bumble bee is detected the Project proponent shall coordinate with CDFW and obtain appropriate take authorization from CDFW (pursuant to Fish & Game Code, § 2080 et seq). The Project proponent shall comply with the mitigation measures detailed in the take authorization issued by CDFW. The Project proponent shall provide a copy of a fully executed take authorization to the City prior to implementing Project ground-disturbing activities and vegetation removal.

COMMENT # 4: Impacts on Coastal California Gnatcatcher
Issue: The Project may potentially impact coastal California gnatcatcher (gnatcatcher).

Specific impact: Project activities of vegetation removal and increased human-wildlife interface may have negative impacts to gnatcatcher. Project activities occurring during the breeding and nesting season could also result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nesting.

Why impact would occur: According to the BRTR, gnatcatcher is “Not Expected” to occur within the Project area because “suitable foraging and nesting habitats preferred by this species are not present within the project site” (pg 36). However, CDFW believes that the Project area does include suitable habitat for gnatcatcher due to 3.51 acres of observed sage scrub occurring on site. According to the BRTR and USFWS, typical gnatcatcher habitat is sage scrub, which is characterized by plant species, such as California sagebrush and California buckwheat. Furthermore, multiple observations of gnatcatcher have been reported to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) within two miles of the Project area (CDFW 2025a).

CDFW is concerned that the proposed Project will result in adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on gnatcatcher.

6 https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=213150&inline Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51C1E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez
City of Santa Clarita
June 12, 2025

Therefore, CDFW recommends discussion of gnatcatcher within the revised MND and inclusion of mitigation measures to reduce impacts to this ESA-listed species.

Evidence impact would be significant: Coastal California gnatcatcher is considered an endangered, rare, or threatened species under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines, § 15380).

Take under the ESA is more broadly defined than CESA. Take under ESA also includes significant habitat modification or degradation that could result in death or injury to a listed species by interfering with essential behavioral patterns such as breeding, foraging, or nesting.

CEQA provides protection not only for State and federally listed species, but for any species including, but not limited to SSC, which can be shown to meet the criteria for State listing. SSC’s meet the CEQA definition of rare, threatened, or endangered species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065). Take of SSC’s could require a mandatory finding of significance by the City (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065). CDFW considers impacts to CESA-listed and SSC’s a significant direct and cumulative adverse effect without implementing appropriate avoidance and/or mitigation measures.

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s)
Recommendation #4: Coastal California Gnatcatcher Discussion – The MND should be revised to provide a thorough discussion on the Project’s potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on gnatcatcher. If the Project may impact gnatcatcher, the MND should be amended to incorporate measures to minimize, and/or mitigate potential impacts to gnatcatcher as well as habitat supporting the species.

Mitigation Measure #12: Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys - If removal of habitat and/or construction activities is necessary during breeding season (approximately February 15 through August 30, with peak of nesting occurring from midMarch through mid-May), the Project proponent shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct pre-construction surveys within three days of initiation of Project activities.

Focused surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher shall be performed on the Project area and wherever suitable habitat occurs within 500 feet of the Project area. Surveys shall follow proper protocols outlined by USFWS Coastal California Gnatcatcher Survey Protocol7(USFWS 2019).

Mitigation Measure #13: USFWS Consultation - If coastal California gnatcatcher are present, the City shall consult with the USFWS to determine if the Project would result in take of coastal California gnatcatcher. In order to comply with the ESA, consultation with the USFWS is advised well in advance of any grounddisturbing activities and/or vegetation removal that may impact coastal California gnatcatcher.

7 https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/survey-protocol-for-coastal-california-gnatcatcher.pdf Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51C1E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez
City of Santa Clarita
June 12, 2025

COMMENT # 5: Impacts on Rare Plants
Issue: Mitigation Measure BIO-1 may not provide sufficient avoidance and minimization to prevent impacts to rare plants.

Specific impact: Vegetation clearing, grading, and construction of the Project will result in loss of suitable habitat, loss of population, and direct mortality of rare plants. Project activities may also result in the seedbank being buried, crushed, or trampled on.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1 does not provide detail on avoidance and minimization measures, and as such, CDFW is unable to assess the value of these measures.

Why impact would occur: According to the BRTR, short-joint beaver tail and slender mariposa lily respectively have a moderate and high potential to occur on the Project area. Additionally, while individuals of this species, and other rare plant species, were not detected, the field survey was conducted in late winter, which is outside of the typical blooming periods for many plant species. Therefore, the potential for rare plant species to exist on the Project area remains. The City has incorporated Mitigation Measure BIO-1, which would require qualified botanists to conduct pre-construction surveys on the Project area during the appropriate blooming period prior to construction of the proposed Project. However, this measure does not outline specific avoidance and minimization measures to be used to protect special-status plant species.

Evidence impact would be significant: Impacts on rare flora could be considered a significant effect on the environment. Plants with a CRPR of 1B are rare throughout their range, endemic to California, and are seriously or fairly threatened. Most of the plants that are ranked 1B have declined significantly over the last century. The additional threat rank of 0.1 indicates a species with over 80 percent of its occurrences threatened in California. The additional threat rank of 0.2 indicates a species with 20 to 80 percent of its occurrences threatened (CNPS 2024). Impacts to CRPR 1B plant species and their habitat meet the definition of endangered, rare, or threatened species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15380).

Impacts to CRPR 1B plant species and their habitat may result in a mandatory finding of significance because the Project would potentially threaten to eliminate a plant community and substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065). Insufficient mitigation may result in unmitigated temporal or permanent impacts to a rare plant species.

Subsequently, the Project would continue to have a substantial adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on a species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species by CDFW.

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s)
Mitigation Measure #14: Mitigation Measure BIO-1 – CDFW recommends the City revise Mitigation Measure BIO-1 by incorporating the underlined language and removing the language with strikethrough:

Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51C1E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez
City of Santa Clarita
June 12, 2025

Prior to the construction of the proposed Project, a preconstruction survey shall be conducted by qualified botanists within the appropriate blooming period(s) to ensure no special-status plant species are present or will be impacted within the proposed impact areas. Methods during the survey shall adhere to guidance provided in CDFW’s Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities8(CDFW 2018). Findings from the surveys shall be provided to the City and CDFW prior to ground disturbing activities If no specialstatus plant species are found during the preconstruction survey, no further mitigation is required and there will be no impact to special-status plant species.

If populations of special-status plants are found during the preconstruction survey and they are located within permanent or temporary impact areas, the Project proponent shall coordinate avoidance and minimization measures shall be explored to protect the special-status plant population(s). If avoidance is not possible, consultation with CDFW will be required prior to project initiation to identify suitable compensatory mitigation for impacts on the unavoidable loss of these species. Preparation of a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) detailing relocation, salvage, and/or restoration of impacted species and subsequent maintenance and monitoring; payment of an in-lieu fee to an agency approved mitigation bank; or acquisition of off-site lands to be protected under a conservation easement in held in a restrictive deed for perpetuity.

The HMMP shall outline initial and long-term management and maintenance activities that would occur on mitigation lands. The HMMP shall provide measurable goals and success criteria for establishing self-sustaining populations (e.g., percent survival rate, absolute cover). Maintenance activities outlined in the HMMP shall include measures pertaining to control of exotic vegetation, irrigation schedule, and protection from future maintenance activities. and would be required to compensate for management of mitigation land the loss of habitat occupied by any non-listed special-status plant species found onsite. In the unlikely event If a State or federally-listed plant species is present and avoidance is not feasible, consultation with CDFW and/or USFWS would be required prior to initiating any onsite project activities to coordinate any take permits pursuant to State and/or federal regulations and requisite compensatory mitigation. With implementation of these actions, impacts to special-status plant species would be reduced to less than significant.

COMMENT # 6: Impacts on Bats
Issue: The MND does not discuss potential impacts to bat species due to Project activities.

Specific impact: Project activities include ground disturbing activities, vegetation removal, use of mechanized equipment, and increased human-wildlife. These activities may have negative impacts to bat species.

8 https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51C1E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez
City of Santa Clarita
June 12, 2025

Why impact would occur: The MND states that spotted bat and Townsend’s big-eared bat have “low” potential to occur. Additionally, the BRTR states that suitable habitat for pallid bat is present on the Project area. The MND does not discuss the potential of the Project to impact bats nor provide potential mitigation measures. Focused bat surveys have not been conducted within the Project footprint. Due to lack of focused surveys and discussion, impacts to bats could occur through mortality of individuals, disturbance of breeding or roosting activity, abandonment of roosts, and loss of habitat.

Evidence impact would be significant: Bats are considered non-game mammals and are afforded protection by State law from take and/or harassment (Fish & G. Code, § 4150; Cal. Code of Regs, § 251.1). Additionally, a California Species of Special Concern is a species, subspecies, or distinct population of an animal native to California that currently satisfies one or more of the following (not necessarily mutually exclusive) criteria:

1. if the species is extirpated from the State or, in the case of birds, is extirpated in its primary season or breeding role;

2. if the species is listed as threatened or endangered under ESA-, but not CESAthreatened, or endangered;

3. if the species meets the State definition of threatened or endangered but has not formally been listed;

4. if the species is experiencing, or formerly experienced, serious (noncyclical) population declines or range retractions (not reversed) that, if continued or resumed, could qualify it for State threatened or endangered status; and,

5. if naturally small populations exhibiting high susceptibility to risk from any factor(s), that if realized, could lead to declines that would qualify it for CESA - threatened or -endangered status (CDFW 2024e).

CEQA provides protection not only for CESA-listed species, but for any species including but not limited to SSC that can be shown to meet the criteria for State listing.

These SSC meet the CEQA definition of rare, threatened, or endangered species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15380). Take of SSC could require a mandatory finding of significance by the Lead Agency (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065).

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s)
Mitigation Measure #15: Bat Surveys - The Project proponent shall retain a qualified bat specialist to conduct daytime and nighttime bat surveys throughout the Project area (plus a 100-foot buffer as access allows). These surveys shall identify potential habitat that could provide daytime and/or nighttime roost sites, and any maternity roosts.

Acoustic recognition technology shall be utilized during day and night surveys to maximize detection of bats. A discussion of survey results, including negative findings, shall be provided to the City and CDFW. If bat species are detected, no Project activities shall commence, and the Project proponent shall develop avoidance and minimization where possible and compensatory mitigation measures when complete avoidance is not possible.

Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51C1E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez
City of Santa Clarita
June 12, 2025

COMMENT # 7: Impacts on Species of Special Concern - Reptiles Issue: The Mitigation Measure does not provide for compensatory mitigation for special status reptile species.

Specific impact: The Project activities of grading, vegetation removal, and construction may result in direct, adverse impacts, such as individual mortality, to special status reptile species and associated habitat. In addition to direct impacts, the Project may also indirectly impact these species such as through behavioral disruption or loss of foraging, nesting, and breeding habitat.

Why impact would occur: The MND states that there is a moderate to high potential to support coastal whiptail and coast horned lized within the Project area (pg 30). While Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is provided to avoid and minimize impacts on these species, it does not provide compensatory mitigation for Project impacts on SSC. According to the MND, the Project area is currently vacant and undeveloped. However, the Project intends to increase the amount of existing trails tenfold. In addition, impacts will be permanent as the Project is expected to operate for the foreseeable future. To offset the permanent loss of suitable habitat, compensatory mitigation should be provided. While the MND states that the Project would impact a limited amount of habitat relative to the amount of available habitat, the Project will contribute to cumulative impacts on suitable habitat in conjunction with other projects developed for industrial, commercial, and residential uses without replacement of lost habitat.

Evidence impact would be significant: CEQA provides protection not only for State and federally listed species, but for any species including but not limited to SSC’s which can be shown to meet the criteria for State listing. These SSC reptiles meet the CEQA definition of rare, threatened, or endangered species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065). Take of the aforementioned reptiles could require a mandatory finding of significance by the City (CEQA Guidelines, §15065). CDFW considers impacts to CESA-listed and SSC’s a significant direct and cumulative adverse effect without implementing appropriate avoidance and/or mitigation measures.

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s)
Mitigation Measure #16: SSC Compensatory Mitigation - For SSC that have been confirmed and/or are expected to occur within the Project area, the Project proponent shall provide compensatory mitigation for temporary and permanent loss of any habitat supporting SSC. There shall be no net loss of habitat supporting SSC [CEQA Guidelines, § 15370(e)]. Compensatory mitigation shall be provided within the Project boundary. If on-site mitigation is not achievable, the Project proponent shall provide offsite mitigation. Location of the off-site mitigation shall be approved by CDFW. Mitigation shall provide appropriate habitat (depending on the species), refugia, and habitat structures that supports that species (e.g., woody material, rocks, brush piles, pools, burrows). Any proposed mitigation area/plan shall include a discussion on the territory size; nesting, breeding, foraging, and refuge locations; invasive, non-native plant and Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51C1E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez
City of Santa Clarita
June 12, 2025

wildlife species present; food availability; and how all life cycle functions will be mitigated. Any mitigation plan for SSC shall be distributed and approved by CDFW prior to issuance of City permits. The replacement habitat shall be protected in perpetuity under a conservation easement dedicated to a local land conservancy or other appropriate entity, which shall include an appropriate funding to provide for the longterm management of mitigation lands.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Nesting Bird. CDFW recommends that the City revises Mitigation Measure BIO-6 to incorporate the underlined language and omit the language in strikethrough:

If vegetation removal is required during the migratory bird nesting season (February 15 to August 31), a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted within one week no more than 3 days prior to vegetation removal. Surveys shall encompass all suitable areas including trees, shrubs, bare ground, burrows, cavities, and structures.

A minimum 300-foot no-disturbance buffer shall be established around any active nest of migratory birds and a minimum 500-foot no-disturbance buffer shall be established around any nesting raptor or California Endangered Species Act/Endangered Species Act listed species. A reduced buffer can be established if determined appropriate by the project biologist. The contractor shall immediately stop until the appropriate buffer is established and is prohibited from conducting work that could disturb the birds until a qualified biologist determines the young have fledged or the nest is inactive. In the unlikely event that a State and/or federally listed species is detected, the buffer shall not be reduced and CDFW and/or USFWS shall be notified immediately to coordinate any further measures to avoid impacts to a listed species. The project biologist shall monitor any known identified nest site(s) within or adjacent to the Project area to confirm buffers are sufficient to avoid impacts to nesting birds and track nesting status.

Landscaping. CDFW recommends the MND provide the Project’s landscaping plant palette and replacement tree species list. CDFW recommends the City use only native species found in naturally occurring vegetation communities within or adjacent to the Project area. The City should not plant, seed, or otherwise introduce non-native, invasive plant species to areas that are adjacent to and/or near native habitat areas.

Accordingly, CDFW recommends the City restrict use of any species, particularly ‘moderate’ or ‘high’ listed by the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC 2024). These species are documented to have substantial and severe ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal communities, and vegetation structure.

Scientific Collecting Permit. Focused surveys for special-status species (i.e., Crotch’s bumble bee) require specific handling permits prior to conducting surveys. The Project proponent should retain a qualified biologist(s) with appropriate handling permits, or should obtain appropriate handling permits to capture, temporarily possess, and relocate wildlife to avoid harm or mortality in connection with Project construction and activities. CDFW has the authority to issue permits for the take or possession of wildlife, Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51C1E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez
City of Santa Clarita
June 12, 2025

including mammals; birds, nests, and eggs; reptiles, amphibians, fish, plants; and invertebrates (Fish & G. Code, §§ 1002, 1002.5, 1003). Effective October 1, 2018, a Scientific Collecting Permit is required to monitor project impacts on wildlife resources, as required by environmental documents, permits, or other legal authorizations; and, to capture, temporarily possess, and relocate wildlife to avoid harm or mortality in connection with otherwise lawful activities (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 650). Please visit CDFW’s Scientific Collection Permits9 webpage for information (CDFW 2025d).

Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan. CDFW recommends the Project’s environmental document include mitigation measures recommended in this letter.

CDFW has provided comments via a mitigation monitoring and reporting plan to assist in the development of feasible, specific, detailed (i.e., responsible party, timing, specific actions, location), and fully enforceable mitigation measures (CEQA Guidelines, § 15097; Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.6). The Lead Agency is welcome to coordinate with CDFW to further review and refine the Project’s mitigation measures. Per Public Resources Code section 21081.6(a)(1), CDFW has provided a summary of our suggested mitigation measures and recommendations in the form of an attached Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (Attachment A).

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e).) Accordingly, please report any special status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNDDB website10 provides direction regarding the types of information that should be reported and allows on-line submittal of field survey forms.

In addition, information on special status native plant populations and sensitive natural communities, should be submitted to CDFW’s Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program using the Combined Rapid Assessment and Relevé Form11.

The City should ensure data collected for the preparation of the MND is properly submitted.

FILING FEES
The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of environmental document filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the environmental document filing fee is required in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final.

9 https://wildlife.ca.gov/Licensing/Scientific-Collecting#53949678 10 https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB
11 https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities/Submit Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51C1E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez
City of Santa Clarita
June 12, 2025

(Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089.)

CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the MND to assist the City in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources. CDFW requests an opportunity to review and comment on any response that the City has to our comments and to receive notification of any forthcoming hearing date(s) for the Project (CEQA Guidelines, § 15073(e)).

Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Riley Scott12, Environmental Scientist at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Victoria Tang
Environmental Program Manager
South Coast Region

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Draft Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program ec: California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Victoria Tang, Environmental Program Manager
Steve Gibson, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisory) Riley Scott, Environmental Scientist
Office of Planning and Research
[email protected]

REFERENCES
[CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2017a. California Terrestrial and Vernal Pool Invertebrates of Conservation Priority. Available at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=149499&inline [CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2017b. Human/Wildlife Interactions in California: Mountain Lion Depredation, Public Safety, and Animal Welfare – Amendment to Department Bulletin 2013-02. Available at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=68271

12 Phone: 858-761-8020; Email: [email protected] Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51C1E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez
City of Santa Clarita
June 12, 2025

[CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. Available at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline [CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023. Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species. Available at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=213150&inline [CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2025a. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Government [ds45]. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS 6). [Accessed 2025 June 5]. Accessed at:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS
[CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2025b. Crotch’s Bumble Bee Range [ds3095]. Available at: https://data.ca.gov/dataset/crotchs-bumble-bee-range-cdfwds30951 [CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2025c. Mountain Lion Range – CWHR M165 [ds793]. Available at: https://data.ca.gov/dataset/mountain-lion-rangecwhr-m165-ds793 [CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2025d. Scientific Collecting Permits.

Available at: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Licensing/Scientific-Collecting CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2025e. Threatened and Endangered Species. Available at: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/CESA [Cal IPC] California Invasive Plant Council. 2025. Available at: https://www.cal-ipc.org/ [CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2025. California Rare Plant Ranks. Available at:
https://www.cnps.org/rare-plants/california-rare-plant-ranks [CBD] Center of Biological Diversity. 2019. A Petition to List the Southern California/Central Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) of Mountain Lions as Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Available at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=171208&inline Czech, B., P. R. Krausman, and P.K. Devers. 2000. Economic associations among causes of species endangerment in the United States. BioScience 50: 593-601 Goulson, D. 2010. Bumblebees: behavior, ecology, and conservation. Oxford University Press, New York. 317pp.

Hatfield, R., Jepsen, S., Foltz Jordan, S., Blackburn, M., Code, Aimee. 2018. A Petition to the State of California Fish and Game Commission to List Four Species of Bumblebees as Endangered Species.

Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51C1E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez
City of Santa Clarita
June 12, 2025

Losos, E., J. Hayes, A. Phillips, D. Wilcove, and C. Alkire. 1995. Taxpayer-subsidized resource extraction harms species. BioScience 45:446-455 Lucas, E. 2020. Recreation-related disturbance to wildlife in California – better planning for and management of recreation are vital to conserve wildlife in protected areas where recreation occurs. California Fish and Wildlife Journal 29-51 Pierce, B.M and Bleich, V.C. 2003. Mountain Lion. Pages 744-757 in G.A. Feldhamer, B.C. Thompson, and J.A. Chapman, editors. Wild mammals of North America:
biology, management, and conservation. Second edition. The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Thorne, J. H., Boynton, R. M., Holguin, A. J., Stewart, J. A. E., & Bjorkman, J. (2016). A climate change vulnerability assessment of California’s terrestrial vegetation (p. 331). Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).

Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joseph_Stewart4/publication/296639897_A_cli mate_change_vulnerability_assessment_of_California’s_terrestrial_vegetation/links/ 56d72def08aee1aa5f75c693/A-climate-change-vulnerability-assessment-ofCaliforniasterrestrial-vegetation.pdf [USFWS] United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Presence/Absence Survey Guidelines February 28, 1997. Available from: https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/surveyprotocol-for-coastal-california-gnatcatcher.pdf Williams, P. H., R. W. Thorp, L. L. Richardson, and S.R. Colla. 2014. Bumble bees of North America: An Identification guide. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 208pp
Woodroffe, R. 2000. Predators and people: using human densities to interpret declines of large carnivores. Animal Conservation 3:165-173.

Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51C1E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez
City of Santa Clarita
June 12, 2025

ATTACHMENT A: DRAFT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) CDFW provides the following language to be incorporated into the MMRP for the Project.

Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible
Party
Mitigation Measure #1: Public Education – The Project proponent shall install appropriate public information signage at trailheads and/or along trails to: 1) educate and inform the public about wildlife present in the area; 2) advise on proper avoidance measures to reduce human-wildlife conflicts; 3) advise on proper use of open space trails in a manner respectful to wildlife (e.g., dogs on leash, proper waste disposal); and, 4) provide local contact information to report injured or dead wildlife.

Signage shall be written in language(s) understandable to all those likely to recreate and use the trails. Signs shall not be made of materials harmful to wildlife such as spikes or glass.

During Project
Construction
Project
Proponent
Mitigation Measure #2: Trash – Trash receptacles shall be placed only at trailheads to avoid creating an unnatural food source that may attract nuisance wildlife and to minimize waste in core habitat areas.

During Project
Construction
Project
Proponent
Mitigation Measure #3: Activity Restriction – The Project proponent shall place restrictions on types of activities allowed in some areas, such as prohibiting dogs or restricting use of trails near breeding habitat, to aid in minimizing disturbance. Pets shall always be kept on leash and on trails. Hikers shall be encouraged to clean up after their dogs and discourage animal waste as it tends to lead to wildlife avoidance.

During Project
Construction
Project
Proponent
Mitigation Measure #4: Compensatory Mitigation – Based on the new impacts identified and disclosed in Recommendation #1, the City shall provide commensurate compensatory mitigation to offset the temporal and permanent loss of habitat. Habitat shall be replaced at a ratio appropriate to maintain no net loss of habitat values, acreage, and function (See Mitigation Measure #7).

Following
Project
Completion
Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51C1E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez
City of Santa Clarita
June 12, 2025

Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible
Party
Mitigation Measure #5: Incidental Take Permit - If take or adverse impacts to mountain lion cannot be avoided, the Project proponent shall coordinate with CDFW and obtain appropriate take authorization from CDFW (pursuant to Fish & Game Code, § 2080 et seq.). The Project proponent shall comply with the mitigation measures detailed in the take authorization issued by CDFW. The Project proponent shall provide a copy of a fully executed take authorization prior to the issuance of a grading permit and before any ground disturbance and vegetation removal.

Prior to Project
Initiation
Project
Proponent
Mitigation Measure #6: Rodenticides -The Project proponent shall prohibit use of any rodenticides and second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides within the Project area in perpetuity.

During Project
Construction
Project
Proponent
Mitigation Measure #7: Compensatory Mitigation - The Project proponent shall set aside replacement habitat to have a no net loss for wildlife movement. The replacement habitat be located as near to the Project site as possible. There shall be no net loss of suitable habitat for mountain lions. The City shall consult and collaborate with CDFW to conserve areas beneficial to the southern California mountain lion population that may improve chances of survival and reproduction of mountain lions in the face of climate change. The mitigation lands shall be protected in perpetuity under a conservation easement dedicated to a local land conservancy or other appropriate entity that has been approved to hold and manage mitigation lands pursuant to Assembly Bill 1094 (2012). Assembly Bill 1094 amended Government Code sections 65965-65968. Under Government Code section 65967(c), the lead agency must exercise due diligence in reviewing the qualifications of a governmental entity, special district, or nonprofit organization to effectively manage and steward land, water, or natural resources on mitigation lands it approves. An appropriate non-wasting endowment shall be provided for the longterm management of mitigation lands. A conservation easement and endowment Prior to Project
Initiation
Project
Proponent
Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51C1E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez
City of Santa Clarita
June 12, 2025

Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible
Party
funds shall be fully acquired, established, transferred, or otherwise executed prior to implementing Project-related ground-disturbing activities.

Mitigation Measure #8: Focused Surveys - Due to habitat in the Project vicinity, within one year prior to Project implementation that includes site preparation, equipment staging, and mobilization, a CDFW-approved biologist knowledgeable of mountain lion species ecology shall survey areas that may provide habitat for mountain lion to determine presence/absence, territory size, and potential for natal dens within a half mile of the Project site. Caves and other natural cavities, and thickets in brush and timber provide cover and are used for denning. Females may be in estrus at any time of the year, but in California, most births probably occur in spring. Surveys shall be conducted when the species is most likely to be detected, during crepuscular periods at dawn and dusk (Pierce and Bleich 2003). Survey results including negative findings shall be submitted to CDFW prior to initiation of Project activities. The survey report shall include a map of potential denning sites.

The survey report shall include measures to avoid impacts mountain lions that may be in the area as well as dens and cubs, if necessary.

Prior to Project
Initiation
Project
Proponent
Mitigation Measure #9: Natal Dens - If potential habitat for natal dens is identified, the Project proponent shall avoid potential impacts to mountain lions, especially during spring, to protect vulnerable cubs. Two weeks prior to Project implementation, and once a week during construction activities, a CDFW-approved biologist shall conduct a survey for mountain lion natal dens. The survey area shall include the construction footprint and the area within 2,000 feet (or the limits of the property line) of the Project disturbance boundaries. CDFW shall be notified within 24 hours upon location of a natal den. If an active natal den is located, during construction activities, all work shall cease. No work shall occur within a 2,000-foot buffer from a natal den.

A qualified biologist shall notify CDFW to determine the appropriate course of action.

CDFW shall also be consulted to determine an appropriate setback from the natal Prior to Project
Initiation
Project
Proponent
Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51C1E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez
City of Santa Clarita
June 12, 2025

Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible
Party
den that would not adversely affect the successful rearing of the cubs. No construction activities or human intrusion shall occur within the established setback until mountain lion cubs have been successfully reared; the mountain lions have left the area; or as determined in consultation with CDFW.

Mitigation Measure #10: Crotch’s Bumble Bee Surveys - The Project proponent shall retain a qualified biologist with the appropriate handling permits to conduct focused surveys. Focused surveys shall follow CDFW’s Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023).

Focused surveys shall also be conducted throughout the entire Project area and during the appropriate flying season to ensure no missed detection of Crotch’s bumble bee occurs. Survey results, including negative findings, shall be submitted to CDFW and the City prior to implementing Project ground-disturbing activities.

Prior to Project
Initiation
Project
Proponent
Mitigation Measure #11: Incidental Take Permit - If Crotch’s bumble bee is detected the Project proponent shall coordinate with CDFW and obtain appropriate take authorization from CDFW (pursuant to Fish & Game Code, § 2080 et seq). The Project proponent shall comply with the mitigation measures detailed in the take authorization issued by CDFW. The Project proponent shall provide a copy of a fully executed take authorization to the City prior to implementing Project grounddisturbing activities and vegetation removal.

Prior to Project
Initiation
Project
Proponent
Mitigation Measure #12: Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys - If removal of habitat and/or construction activities is necessary during breeding season (approximately February 15 through August 30, with peak of nesting occurring from mid-March through mid-May), the Project proponent shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct pre-construction surveys within three days of initiation of Project activities.

Focused surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher shall be performed on the Project area and wherever suitable habitat occurs within 500 feet of the Project area.

Prior to Project
initiation
Project
Proponent
Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51C1E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez
City of Santa Clarita
June 12, 2025

Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible
Party
Surveys shall follow proper protocols outlined by USFWS Coastal California Gnatcatcher Survey Protocol (USFWS 2019).

Mitigation Measure #13: USFWS Consultation - If coastal California gnatcatcher are present, the City shall consult with the USFWS to determine if the Project would result in take of coastal California gnatcatcher. In order to comply with the ESA, consultation with the USFWS is advised well in advance of any ground-disturbing activities and/or vegetation removal that may impact coastal California gnatcatcher.

Prior to Project
Initiation
Project
Proponent
Mitigation Measure #14: Mitigation Measure BIO-1 - Prior to the construction of the proposed Project, a preconstruction survey shall be conducted by qualified botanists within the appropriate blooming period(s) to ensure no special-status plant species are present or will be impacted within the proposed impact areas. Methods during the survey shall adhere to guidance provided in CDFW’s Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFW 2018). Findings from the surveys shall be provided to the City and CDFW prior to ground disturbing activities If no special-status plant species are found during the preconstruction survey, no further mitigation is required.

If populations of special-status plants are found during the preconstruction survey and they are located within permanent or temporary impact areas, the Project proponent shall coordinate with CDFW prior to project initiation to identify suitable compensatory mitigation for impacts on these species. Preparation of a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) detailing relocation, salvage, and/or restoration of impacted species and subsequent maintenance and monitoring; payment of an in-lieu fee to an agency approved mitigation bank; or acquisition of off-site lands to be protected under a conservation easement in perpetuity. The HMMP shall outline initial and long-term management and maintenance activities that would occur on mitigation lands. The HMMP shall provide measurable goals and Prior to Project
Initiation
Project
Proponent
Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51C1E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez
City of Santa Clarita
June 12, 2025

Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible
Party
success criteria for establishing self-sustaining populations (e.g., percent survival rate, absolute cover). Maintenance activities outlined in the HMMP shall include measures pertaining to control of exotic vegetation, irrigation schedule, and protection from future maintenance activities. If a State or federally-listed plant species is present, consultation with CDFW and/or USFWS would be required prior to initiating any onsite project activities to coordinate any take permits pursuant to State and/or federal regulations and requisite compensatory mitigation. With implementation of these actions, impacts to special-status plant species would be reduced to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure #15: Bat Surveys - The Project proponent shall retain a qualified bat specialist to conduct daytime and nighttime bat surveys throughout the Project area (plus a 100-foot buffer as access allows). These surveys shall identify potential habitat that could provide daytime and/or nighttime roost sites, and any maternity roosts. Acoustic recognition technology shall be utilized during day and night surveys to maximize detection of bats. A discussion of survey results, including negative findings, shall be provided to the City and CDFW. If bat species are detected, no Project activities shall commence, and the Project proponent shall develop avoidance and minimization where possible and compensatory mitigation measures when complete avoidance is not possible.

Prior to Project
Initiation
Project
Proponent
Mitigation Measure #16: SSC Compensatory Mitigation - For SSC that have been confirmed and/or are expected to occur within the Project area, the Project proponent shall provide compensatory mitigation for temporary and permanent loss of any habitat supporting SSC. There shall be no net loss of habitat supporting SSC [CEQA Guidelines, § 15370(e)]. Compensatory mitigation shall be provided within the Project boundary. If on-site mitigation is not achievable, the Project proponent shall provide off-site mitigation. Location of the off-site mitigation shall be approved by CDFW. Mitigation shall provide appropriate habitat (depending on the species), Prior to Project
Initiation
Project
Proponent
Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51C1E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez
City of Santa Clarita
June 12, 2025

Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible
Party
refugia, and habitat structures that supports that species (e.g., woody material, rocks, brush piles, pools, burrows). Any proposed mitigation area/plan shall include a discussion on the territory size; nesting, breeding, foraging, and refuge locations; invasive, non-native plant and wildlife species present; food availability; and how all life cycle functions will be mitigated. Any mitigation plan for SSC shall be distributed and approved by CDFW prior to issuance of City permits. The replacement habitat shall be protected in perpetuity under a conservation easement dedicated to a local land conservancy or other appropriate entity, which shall include an appropriate funding to provide for the long-term management of mitigation lands.

Mitigation Measure #17 - Nesting Bird. If vegetation removal is required during the bird nesting season (February 15 to August 31), a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than 3 days prior to vegetation removal. Surveys shall encompass all suitable areas including trees, shrubs, bare ground, burrows, cavities, and structures.

A minimum 300-foot no-disturbance buffer shall be established around any active nest of birds and a minimum 500-foot no-disturbance buffer shall be established around any nesting raptor or California Endangered Species Act/Endangered Species Act listed species. A reduced buffer can be established if determined appropriate by the project biologist. The contractor shall immediately stop until the appropriate buffer is established and is prohibited from conducting work that could disturb the birds until a qualified biologist determines the young have fledged or the nest is inactive. In the unlikely event that a State and/or federally listed species is detected, the buffer shall not be reduced and CDFW and/or USFWS shall be notified immediately to coordinate any further measures to avoid impacts to a listed species.

The project biologist shall monitor any known identified nest site(s) within or adjacent Prior to Project
Initiation
Project
Proponent
Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51C1E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez
City of Santa Clarita
June 12, 2025

Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible
Party
to the Project area to confirm buffers are sufficient to avoid impacts to nesting birds and track nesting status.

Recommendation #1: Buffer Determination - The City should identify an appropriate buffer from the trail that would continue to be indirectly affected by the Project (due to edge effects, spreading of invasive species, introduction of light, encroachment, etc.). This buffer of impacts should be justified using technical details such as data, maps, diagrams, and similar relevant information and disclosed in the final CEQA document.

Prior to Final
CEQA
Document
Lead Agency
Recommendation #2: Mountain Lion Discussion - CDFW recommends the City evaluate the mountain lion territory size and use of habitat within and surrounding the Project vicinity. The City should analyze the effects of increased human presence and area of anthropogenic influence that will now be in on mountain lion habitat, and how it may impact mountain lion behavior, reproductive viability, and overall survival success. Based on these known anthropogenic impacts on mountain lions, CDFW also recommends the City provide compensatory mitigation for impacts to mountain lion. The MND should justify how the proposed compensatory mitigation would reduce the impacts of the Project to less than significant. CDFW recommends that the City recirculate the MND for more meaningful public review and assessment of the City’s analysis and subsequent mitigation for mountain lion. Additionally, the City should recirculate the MND if the proposed mitigation measures would not reduce potential effects to less than significant and new measures must be required [CEQA Guidelines, § 15088.5(a)(1)].

Prior to Final
CEQA
Document
Lead Agency
Recommendation #3: Crotch’s Bumble Bee Discussion – The MND should be revised to provide a thorough discussion on the Project’s potential direct and indirect impact on Crotch’s bumble bee. If the Project may impact Crotch’s bumble bee, the MND should be amended to incorporate measures to minimize, and/or mitigate potential impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee as well as habitat supporting the species.

Prior to Final
CEQA
Document
Lead Agency
Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51C1E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez
City of Santa Clarita
June 12, 2025

Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible
Party
The discussion should be of a depth and scope that a CESA ITP can be issued based on the analysis provided in the MND.

Recommendation #4: Coastal California Gnatcatcher Discussion – The MND should be revised to provide a thorough discussion on the Project’s potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on gnatcatcher. If the Project may impact gnatcatcher, the MND should be amended to incorporate measures to minimize, and/or mitigate potential impacts to gnatcatcher as well as habitat supporting the species.

Prior to Final
CEQA
Document
Lead Agency
Recommendation #5: Landscaping. CDFW recommends the MND provide the Project’s landscaping plant palette and replacement tree species list. CDFW recommends the City use only native species found in naturally occurring vegetation communities within or adjacent to the Project area. The City should not plant, seed, or otherwise introduce non-native, invasive plant species to areas that are adjacent to and/or near native habitat areas. Accordingly, CDFW recommends the City restrict use of any species, particularly ‘moderate’ or ‘high’ listed by the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC 2024). These species are documented to have substantial and severe ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal communities, and vegetation structure.

Prior to Project
Initiation/During
Project
Construction
Lead
Agency/Project
Proponent
Recommendation #6: Scientific Collecting Permit. Focused surveys for specialstatus species (i.e., Crotch’s bumble bee) require specific handling permits prior to conducting surveys. The Project proponent should retain a qualified biologist(s) with appropriate handling permits, or should obtain appropriate handling permits to capture, temporarily possess, and relocate wildlife to avoid harm or mortality in connection with Project construction and activities. CDFW has the authority to issue permits for the take or possession of wildlife, including mammals; birds, nests, and Prior to Project
Initiation
Lead Agency
Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51C1E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9 Amber Rodriguez
City of Santa Clarita
June 12, 2025

Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible
Party
eggs; reptiles, amphibians, fish, plants; and invertebrates (Fish & G. Code, §§ 1002, 1002.5, 1003). Effective October 1, 2018, a Scientific Collecting Permit is required to monitor project impacts on wildlife resources, as required by environmental documents, permits, or other legal authorizations; and, to capture, temporarily possess, and relocate wildlife to avoid harm or mortality in connection with otherwise lawful activities (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 650). Please visit CDFW’s Scientific Collection Permits webpage for information (CDFW 2025d).

Docusign Envelope ID: 7C51C1E4-56A7-42AA-BD51-5CB98A0318B9

WATERSHED PROTECTION

WATERSHED PLANNING AND PERMITS DIVISION
800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura, California 93009

M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: May 20, 2025
TO: Philip Hess, Case Planner
County of Ventura
FROM: Yunsheng Su, PWA-WP Case Reviewer
SUBJECT: RMA25-020
APN:083006132
CEQA Review Comments and Conditions
Pursuant to your request dated 5/15/2025, this office has reviewed the submitted materials and provides the following comments.

PROJECT LOCATION:

Location Map:

RMA25-020
May 20, 2025

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The proposed Project would develop a bike park that would consist of approximately 15 miles of trails interspersed throughout the Project Site and two activity/programming areas – the Haskell Bike Park Core (Haskell Core) and the Blue Cloud Trailhead. Trail types for all skill levels provided within the Blue Cloud Bike Park include approximately

3.7 miles of perimeter and climbing trails (beginner and intermediate), approximately 5.5 miles of downhill bike trails (beginner, intermediate, expert, and pro), and approximately 5 miles of multi-use trails (beginner, intermediate, and expert). The proposed trail widths would range 4 to 6 feet wide. The Project would also maintain approximately 1.6 miles of existing multi-use trails. The Haskell Core would be located on the western portion of the Project Site. An existing access road into the Haskell Core would lead to a proposed parking lot with approximately 40 spaces, a parking/ emergency turnaround, four American Disabilities Act (ADA) parking spaces, and unstructured space for four food trucks. The Haskell Core would include an event plaza with picnic tables; beginner, intermediate, and advanced pump tracks; a dual slalom course; progressive jumplines; and a progressive skills area. Event/spectator areas would be provided adjacent to the main activity areas. Other amenities within the Haskell Core would include shade structures at the start zones of the dual slalom course and the progressive jumplines, two vault restrooms, a bike repair station, a rest area with benches and shade structure, and cargo containers for storage areas. Several trailheads leading to perimeter, climbing, and multi-use trails would also be located in the Haskell Core. Additionally, two infiltration basins would be constructed within the Haskell Core. The Blue Cloud Trailhead would be located near the central portion of the Project Site and accessible from Blue Cloud Road. The Blue Cloud Trailhead would include an unstructured parking area. The Blue Cloud Trailhead area would also include space for potential future landscape restoration and a multi-use trailhead. Visitor amenities that would be provided at the Blue Cloud Trailhead include a single vault restroom, a bike repair station, and the Saddle Trail Hub, which is a meeting space for riders with a shade structure. No utility connections for water, wastewater, or lighting are proposed.

APPLICATION COMPLETENESS:

Complete - from our area of concern.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:

Item 31a. Flood Control Facilities/Watercourses – Ventura County Public Works Agency, Watershed Protection is deemed to be Less Than Significant.

The proposed project is situated about 50000 feet from the Santa Clara River, which is a WP jurisdictional redline channel. No new or modified direct stormwater drainage connections to this WP channel, activities within WP’s easement, or activities over, under, or within the redline channel appear to be proposed or indicated on the applicant’s submitted materials.

This proposed project would result in an increase of impervious area within the subject property. It is understood that impacts from the proposed increase in impervious area and RMA25-020
May 20, 2025

stormwater drainage design within the project site will be required to be mitigated to less than significant under the conditions imposed by County of Ventura. The mitigation requires that runoff from the proposed project site be released at no greater than the existing flow rate and in such manner as to not cause an adverse impact downstream in peak discharge, velocity, or duration.

WP staff determines that the proposed project design with the conditions mentioned above mitigates the direct and indirect project-specific and cumulative impacts to flood control facilities and watercourses. Therefore, the environmental impact is less than significant (LS) on redline channels under the jurisdiction of the Ventura County Public Works Agency - Watershed Protection.

WATERSHED PROTECTION COMMENTS:

None.

WATERSHED PROTECTION CONDITIONS:

None.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me by email at [email protected] or by phone at 805-654-2005.

END OF TEXT.
(:j 1TE
COUNTY OF Los ANGELES
ROBERT G. LuN, S1-IE1?I1’F
June 12, 2025
Amber Rodriguez, Management Analyst
City of Santa Clarita
Department of Neighborhood Services
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 120
Santa Clarita, California 91355
Dear Ms. Rodriguez:

HASKEIL CANYON BIKE PARK PROJECT

NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT

AN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLABLATION

REVIEW COMMENTS
Thank you for inviting the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (Department) to review and comment on the May 2025 Initial Study! Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS!1VIND) for the proposed Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project (Project) located in both the City of Santa Clarita (City) and unincorporated Los Angeles County area but owned by the City.

The proposed Project is located within the service area of the Department’s Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff’s Station (Station). Please see the attached review comments provided by our Station (see correspondence dated June 12, 2025, from Station).

In addition, according to Section XV Public Services for Police Service of the IS!MND pages 89, “During operation, the proposed Project would bring moreindividuals to the Project Site than under existing conditions, which has the potential to result in a minor increase in emergency response, search and rescue, and other Sheriff services if any injuries or crime incidents occur as a result of bike park users. However, it is not anticipated that the proposed Project’s minor increase in demand for police protection services would require new police facilities to be constructed. The proposed Project is expected 211 WEST TEMPLE STREET, Los ANGELES, CALIFORNiA. 90012
d ?iaaiiz jf e9ie
.9ice J&50
Ms. Rodriguez -2 - June 12, 2025
to have a less than significant impact on law enforcement services provided bythe Station.” However, the proposed Project will increase population through City employees, volunteers and visitors, and daytime participants within the Station’s service area, which will generate an increased demand for law enforcement services, especially due to its remote proximity.

The Project includes a proposed parking lot to be constructed to support 40 vehicles. However, the Transportation Section indicates that there is the potential to have 100 vehicles for an event andJor daily use of the facility. The City is encouraged to further evaluate the potential impacts on the proposed parking lot and roads leading up to the proposed Project site and the ability to support the participants and anticipated food trucks. Lack of proper transportation planning could lead to significant emergency access issues and additional calls for law enforcement services. Roads leading up to the Project site are recommended to have a minimum of 26 feet wide clearance to allow foremergency vehicles.

To date, the Station is currently understaffed. To the extent the Department is considered as the provider of these additional law enforcement services, itshould be notedJunderstood that we may not have the capacity to provide the necessary staff resources when a project is contemplated or completed. Werecommend that your agency evaluate the law enforcement service needs of the community, as well as the availability of local law enforcement agencies to provide these services prior to approving a project.

We remain concerned that continued growth and intensification of multi-use land uses within the service area will ultimately contribute to significant cumulative impacts from this Project and other developments previously approved within the City on our Department resources and operations. It is reasonable to expect that, although planned, continued development within the City will lead to a significant increase in the demand for law enforcement services and facilities. Meeting such demands requires additional resources, including patrol deputies, other sworn deputies, support personnel, searchand rescue and attendant assets, such as patrol vehicles, support vehicles, communications equipment, weaponry, office furnishings/equipment, etc.

Resources should be evaluated as projects are completed with the Station Captain and the Department’s Contract Law Enforcement Bureau.

Ms. Rodriguez - 3 - June 12, 2025
For future reference, the Department provides the following updated addressand contact information for all requests for review comments, law documents,and other related correspondence:

Jennifer Fang, Acting Bureau DirectorFacilities Planning Bureau, SBB- 4th FloorLos Angeles County Sheriff’s Department 211 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
Attention: Planning Section
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me, at (323) 526-5657, or your staff may contact Ms. Bee Bee Pee, of my staff, at(323) 526-5697.

Sincerely,
ROBERT G. LUNA, SHERIFF
ennifer Fang, Acting Bureau Director
Facifities Planning Bureau
SH-AD-32A (3123)

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT
“A Trot//lion of Service Since 1850
DATE: Junel2,2025FILE NO:

OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
FROM: BRANDON L. BARCLAY TO: JENNIFER FANG

ACTING CAPTAIN ACTING BUREAU DIRECTOR

SANTA CLARITA VALLEY FACILITIES PLANNING BUREAUSTATION
SUBJECT: REVIEW COMEM1NTS ON THE INITIAL STUDY/IAITIGATED

NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SANTA CLARITA HASKELL

CANYON BIKE PARK PROJECT
The Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff’s Station (Station) reviewed the Notice of Intent to Adopt an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (lS/MND), dated May 2025, for the Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon Bike Park Project (Project). It is our understanding that the project proposes to develop a bike park that would consist of approximately 15 miles of trails aligned throughout the Project Site and two activity/programming areas — the Haskell Bike Park Core (Haskell Core) and the Blue Cloud Trailhead. TheProject is located in both the City of Santa Clarita (City) and unincorporatedLA County areas but is owned by the City.

The Project has the potential to enhance recreational opportunities, promote sustainability, and contribute to the well-being of the community.

However, it is crucial that the City of Santa Clarita (City) considers the need for additional e-motorcycle enforcement to ensure the safety and enjoymentof all path users. By engaging in careful planning and leveraging best practices, the City can create a bike path that is both beneficial andsustainable.

Due to the undeveloped area and natural setting, it is imperative that the project include proper signage, allowing first responders to be able to find the correct location during an emergency. The Department recommends integrating robust precautionary measures into the project design andimplementation to mitigate fire hazards and the need for emergencyresponses. Additionally, comprehensive and effective emergency management plans should be prepared as it is essential to ensure the safety of the participants and employees and the broader community in the event of a wild land fire.

Santa Clarita Haskell Canyon -2- June 12,2028
Bike Park Project
The Station offers additional recommendations below:

1. Special Protection Requirements or Recommendations:
a. The Department recommends that the principles of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) are
incorporated in the design plans. The goal, of CPTED is to reduce opportunities for criminal activities by employing physical design features that discourage anti-social behavior, while encouraging the legitimate use of the site. The overalltenets of CPTED include defensible space, territoriality, surveillance, lighting, landscaping, and physical security. The Station recommends installation of security cameras to reduceopportunities for criminal activities, where feasible. b. A Construction Traffic Management Plan should also be established as part of the proposed Project to address
construction-related traffic congestion and emergency access issues. If temporary lane closures are necessary for the installation of utilities, vault restrooms, and emergency access should be maintained at all times. Flag persons and/ordetours should be provided as needed to ensure safe trafficoperations, and construction signs should be posted to advise motorists of reduced construction zone speed limits.

At this time, the Station has no further comments on the proposed Project.

However, the Station reserves the right to amend or supplement our assessment upon subsequent reviews of the proposed Project onceadditional information becomes available.

Thank you for including the Station in the review process for the proposed Project. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact please contact Acting Captain Brandon Barclay at (661 )-287-5702.